|
Forum: General Stuff Topic: The Dec 2 announcment from NASA. Got to be aliens! started by: WSGrundy Posted by WSGrundy on Nov. 30 2010,12:09
< This Thursday NASA is holding a press conference to discuss an astrobiology finding that will "impact the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life" >If it isn't aliens people are going to be pissed about the hype. Of course if it was aliens something tells me this would get more coverage then just being streamed online. Posted by TPRJones on Nov. 30 2010,12:17
I bet it's secondary evidence of some sort: they've found evidence of compound X being in the atmosphere of Rhea or Titan which only exists in the presence of compound Y which could only be produced by some form of life, or something like that.
Posted by Malcolm on Nov. 30 2010,17:00
(TPRJones @ Nov. 30 2010,14:17) QUOTE I bet it's secondary evidence of some sort: they've found evidence of compound X being in the atmosphere of Rhea or Titan which only exists in the presence of compound Y which could only be produced by some form of life, or something like that. Yeah. If they'd found ANY evidence of life existing on some other planet right now, fuck online. Damn near every news network in the world would have that story five minutes ago. Posted by GORDON on Nov. 30 2010,19:05
I read about a week ago they had been surprised to find some O2 on one of Saturn's moons.
Posted by TheCatt on Nov. 30 2010,23:27
Well, hopefully it has nothing to do with my wife going into labor.
Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 01 2010,04:00
(TheCatt @ Dec. 01 2010,02:27) QUOTE Well, hopefully it has nothing to do with my wife going into labor. Stella (Catt) Haisty - 7lbs 4oz, 20.25" - 5:01am - everyone's doing great, just tired.... and waiting for blankets so we can sleep. Posted by thibodeaux on Dec. 01 2010,04:17
Hey, congratulations!
Posted by Troy on Dec. 01 2010,06:16
Wooo!
Posted by Leisher on Dec. 01 2010,06:49
Congrats!
Posted by GORDON on Dec. 01 2010,07:30
Isn't that spanish for 'star?'Congrats.... and the diaper-counter resets. Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 01 2010,07:34
(GORDON @ Nov. 30 2010,21:05) QUOTE I read about a week ago they had been surprised to find some O2 on one of Saturn's moons. Titan? Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 01 2010,07:35
(GORDON @ Dec. 01 2010,09:30) QUOTE Isn't that spanish for 'star?' Congrats.... and the diaper-counter resets. Estrella. Pretty close. Posted by GORDON on Dec. 01 2010,07:35
(Malcolm @ Dec. 01 2010,10:34) QUOTE (GORDON @ Nov. 30 2010,21:05) QUOTE I read about a week ago they had been surprised to find some O2 on one of Saturn's moons. Titan? One I don't think I'd heard of. My 5 year old probably has. They found "a lot" of O2, but not by Earth standards. Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 01 2010,09:43
(GORDON @ Dec. 01 2010,10:30) QUOTE Isn't that spanish for 'star?' Congrats.... and the diaper-counter resets. Yep, I've already changed 1 massive poosplosion. That nasty black starry stuff. Thanks, everyone. It's a little wild having a baby again. Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 02 2010,07:59
So, to get the thread back on track... < NASA finds arsenic-based life. >
Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 02 2010,08:16
Very interesting. I look forward to learning more.But I am confused as to why NASA is involved with this. Seems to be a terrestrial discovery based on current - albeit limited - information. Posted by TheCatt on Dec. 02 2010,08:26
(TPRJones @ Dec. 02 2010,11:16) QUOTE Very interesting. I look forward to learning more. But I am confused as to why NASA is involved with this. Seems to be a terrestrial discovery based on current - albeit limited - information. Search for life now includes new planets? Posted by Troy on Dec. 02 2010,08:53
(TheCatt @ Dec. 02 2010,08:26) QUOTE (TPRJones @ Dec. 02 2010,11:16) QUOTE Very interesting. I look forward to learning more. But I am confused as to why NASA is involved with this. Seems to be a terrestrial discovery based on current - albeit limited - information. Search for life now includes new planets? Also, I read somewhere the lake was only 750,000 years old. So where was the arsenic based life before that? Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 02 2010,09:37
It just seems a little out of their jurisdiction, that's all. It's NASA. That means "out there" not "down here" ... unless there was a ride hitched on a meteor or something, of course.
Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 02 2010,10:14
(TPRJones @ Dec. 02 2010,11:37) QUOTE It just seems a little out of their jurisdiction, that's all. It's NASA. That means "out there" not "down here" ... unless there was a ride hitched on a meteor or something, of course. NASA is extremely interested in any form of life that doesn't conform to standard "Earth-like" patterns because they can then keep a look out for them on larger scale. Granted, the lake is sitting in California, but I'm betting that the conditions in this lake aren't terribly common to this planet. Which means if you really want to try to put things in perspective, you need experts who deal with more than just Earth. As for the meteor/asteroid thing, I think they're pretty much implying that we've either (i) discovered a branch of life unlike anything ever seen before or (ii) have some rather strong evidence that at least some life on this planet originated on some other one. But this is definitely a cocktease announcement. Where's my fucking aliens? Posted by GORDON on Dec. 02 2010,11:02
Could you kill someone by tossing them in that arsenic lake?
Posted by Malcolm on Dec. 02 2010,11:42
(GORDON @ Dec. 02 2010,13:02) QUOTE Could you kill someone by tossing them in that arsenic lake? Ingesting or breathing arsenic will kill you if you let the it accumulate in big enough quantities. I don't know how/if it can kill you just by absorption into the skin. However, arsenic poisoning is extremely treatable. Posted by GORDON on Dec. 02 2010,11:42
(Malcolm @ Dec. 02 2010,14:42) QUOTE (GORDON @ Dec. 02 2010,13:02) QUOTE Could you kill someone by tossing them in that arsenic lake? Ingesting or breathing arsenic will kill you if you let the it accumulate in big enough quantities. I don't know how/if it can kill you just by absorption into the skin. However, arsenic poisoning is extremely treatable. Not if you hold them under long enough. Posted by Troy on Dec. 02 2010,11:52
(GORDON @ Dec. 02 2010,11:42) QUOTE (Malcolm @ Dec. 02 2010,14:42) QUOTE (GORDON @ Dec. 02 2010,13:02) QUOTE Could you kill someone by tossing them in that arsenic lake? Ingesting or breathing arsenic will kill you if you let the it accumulate in big enough quantities. I don't know how/if it can kill you just by absorption into the skin. However, arsenic poisoning is extremely treatable. Not if you hold them under long enough. Ba, I had "If they couldn't swim" as my response to that. Posted by WSGrundy on Dec. 02 2010,12:04
Posted by thibodeaux on Dec. 02 2010,12:17
< Drake Equation Considered Stupid >.
Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 02 2010,16:20
The Drake Equation itself is perfectly valid and reasonable. It's claiming you have information to limit the results to less than the range from 1 to a small multiple of the number of stars in the galaxy that is hooey. We can make some reasonable guesses (for example I find it unlikely that there are more civilizations in the galaxy than there are stars), but beyond that then you are moving away from science.It's not useful, though. Not without a heck of a lot more information than we now have. Posted by Leisher on Dec. 02 2010,20:29
QUOTE But this is definitely a cocktease announcement. Where's my fucking aliens? NASA's < other announcement. > As for that Sagan video, I got confused by his statement and calculations in the second step. He says that evidence suggests "many or most stars have planets orbiting them" so of the 400 billion stars in the Milky Way, he wrote 1/4 have planets orbiting them. Huh? A quarter? If your assumption is that "many or most stars are accompanied by planets" why use 1/4? Why not at least 1/2? P.S. The guy in the article Thib linked actually makes an interesting case about why global warming is horseshit that I hadn't heard before. Well, I probably had, just not the way he writes it out. Essentially, he says "technology constantly changes, and thus, worrying about what our current technology might do the the environment 100 years from now is pointless." Posted by TPRJones on Dec. 02 2010,20:54
(Leisher @ Dec. 02 2010,22:29) QUOTE As for that Sagan video, I got confused by his statement and calculations in the second step. He says that evidence suggests "many or most stars have planets orbiting them" so of the 400 billion stars in the Milky Way, he wrote 1/4 have planets orbiting them. He's being a bit conservative on purpose, I think. He mentions being conservative during the third step. Although he then is quite nonconservative in step four, so maybe not. Posted by thibodeaux on Dec. 03 2010,04:25
(Leisher @ Dec. 02 2010,23:29) QUOTE P.S. The guy in the article Thib linked It's Michael "Jurassic Park" Crichton. Posted by unkbill on Dec. 05 2010,15:36
(Malcolm @ Dec. 02 2010,11:42) QUOTE (GORDON @ Dec. 02 2010,13:02) QUOTE Could you kill someone by tossing them in that arsenic lake? Ingesting or breathing arsenic will kill you if you let the it accumulate in big enough quantities. I don't know how/if it can kill you just by absorption into the skin. However, arsenic poisoning is extremely treatable. Arsonic is found in nature. Apple seeds and peach pits. The arsonic compound in peach pits was refined to make Layatril. A drug used to treat cancer. Posted by WSGrundy on Mar. 05 2011,20:18
< E.T.? >
|