Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Speciality Forums >> Science! Astronomy & Space Exploration, and Others

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | (show all)
Pess
(Title)
*****

Reged: 09/12/07

Loc: Toledo, Ohio
Re: origin of life [Re: llanitedave]
      #5635275 - 01/21/13 04:11 PM

Quote:

<moderator>
Now let's don't start in on whether humans are worthy or deserving of existence here, or the moderator will start singing "Desiderata" in your ear non-stop for a week!
</moderator>




Not sure where you got the 'deserving' label as one lifeforms microbe is another's Homo Erectus.

In fact, I think the Drake equation lacks one crucial element: How long does a single species endure before its successor deems it not worth the bother of contacting?

I mean we have some primitive people inhabiting Rain Forests on Earth today that we not only refrain from contacting but go out of our way to prevent contact so their 'societies & culture' can endure.

Let's face it, known human civilization only spans about 5000 years which is laughable short in the Universal scheme of things.

Will we even recognize ourselves in another 500 years? Will some over lifeform supersede us or will we change ourselves into something unrecognizable?

What is the span (in years) in which one civilization thinks it is worth the bother to contact another and establish two-way communications?

Pesse (I need a drink) Mist


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
scopethis
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 05/30/08

Loc: Kingman, Ks
Re: origin of life [Re: Pess]
      #5635417 - 01/21/13 05:38 PM

yea..looking at the history of "humans", it seems that our main objective is war and combat and endless efforts to exterminate one another...

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: origin of life [Re: Pess]
      #5635658 - 01/21/13 08:20 PM

Quote:


Will we even recognize ourselves in another 500 years? Will some over lifeform supersede us or will we change ourselves into something unrecognizable?





If our lineage survives, the second option is inevitable. If the second does happen, then the first will have also occurred by default.

It might take more than 500 years, though.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pess
(Title)
*****

Reged: 09/12/07

Loc: Toledo, Ohio
Re: origin of life [Re: scopethis]
      #5636692 - 01/22/13 11:32 AM

Quote:

yea..looking at the history of "humans", it seems that our main objective is war and combat and endless efforts to exterminate one another...




You say it like it's a bad thing.

Seriously though, it'll be interesting to see what mankind does when life is extended. At some point genetic manipulation and organ replacement will have the potential to extend life hundreds of years.

Artificial life support systems may extend 'concious' life into the thousand year span.

Talk about your 'Population bomb'

Perhaps War is evolutions way of thinning out the herd.

Pesse (I bet we all become like the The Gamesters of Triskelion) Mist


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
scopethis
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 05/30/08

Loc: Kingman, Ks
Re: origin of life [Re: Pess]
      #5636906 - 01/22/13 01:22 PM

that's an interesting thought, being able to live a thousand years..yet would one want ruthless dictators to rule for hundreds of years...and could Mama Earth's resources support billions of humans with lifespans that long...just think of the lines at Wal-Mart.....

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: origin of life [Re: Pess]
      #5636917 - 01/22/13 01:31 PM

Quote:

'There be life here.' is an arbitrary point.




All definitions are arbitrary, to some degree. That doesn't mean they aren't useful. The universe is made of wide spectra in many areas, but is still useful to classify those spectra into segments (alive or not, red vs. orange, species vs. breed, planet vs. dwarf planet, etc.). Where we put the dividing is always a judgement call to some degree or another.

But changing our definition doesn't change the thing we are defining - it stays the same, we just call it a different name. If I decided to divide the visible spectrum into 10 colors instead of 7, any given photon is still the same as it was before. Just because I start calling one with a wavelength midway between red and orange "orand" doesn't actually change the light.

Quote:

Does my Pet Rock have the same right to existence as me?




What makes you think you have a right to exist?

Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ColoHank
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 06/07/07

Loc: western Colorado
Re: origin of life [Re: Jarad]
      #5637075 - 01/22/13 02:46 PM

Malthus thought that disease, famine, and warfare would serve to limit population growth, but then it appears that wars actually stimulate increases in population. Yeah, a few combatants get killed, but everyone else is making babies. If someone gets testy someday and triggers a massive thermonuclear exchange, however, Malthus may yet prove to be right about the effects of warfare on our species.

And if catastrophic climate change and a superbug or two come along, he may be right about disease and famine, as well.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: origin of life [Re: Jarad]
      #5637343 - 01/22/13 05:01 PM Attachment (19 downloads)

Quote:


What makes you think you have a right to exist?





It's self-evident!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: origin of life [Re: ColoHank]
      #5637355 - 01/22/13 05:08 PM

Quote:

Malthus thought that disease, famine, and warfare would serve to limit population growth, but then it appears that wars actually stimulate increases in population. Yeah, a few combatants get killed, but everyone else is making babies. If someone gets testy someday and triggers a massive thermonuclear exchange, however, Malthus may yet prove to be right about the effects of warfare on our species.

And if catastrophic climate change and a superbug or two come along, he may be right about disease and famine, as well.




It's situational. Some cultures have engaged in chronic warfare which was a de facto means of population control in environments where disease rates were low and birthrates high. Some of the New Guinea highland populations come to mind.

Among other species, Malthus' ideas about disease and famine, and possibly predation as a proxy to war, have been well-vindicated.

There are, of course, a variety of other means of population-limiting measures that different species engage in depending on their particular lifestyle. But they can all be incorporated into what is essentially a Malthusian theory.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
scopethis
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 05/30/08

Loc: Kingman, Ks
Re: origin of life [Re: llanitedave]
      #5640775 - 01/24/13 02:02 PM

life on Earth requires a life form to kill another life form in order to survive...

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: origin of life [Re: scopethis]
      #5640904 - 01/24/13 03:17 PM

Not necessarily. Most photosynthetic organisms don't do it, and neither to a lot of symbiotic organisms.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pess
(Title)
*****

Reged: 09/12/07

Loc: Toledo, Ohio
Re: origin of life [Re: llanitedave]
      #5641107 - 01/24/13 05:28 PM

Quote:

Not necessarily. Most photosynthetic organisms don't do it, and neither to a lot of symbiotic organisms.




They would if they could but they can't so they don't.

Pesse (well, except for Venus Fly traps & Audrey) Mist


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: origin of life [Re: Pess]
      #5641696 - 01/24/13 10:57 PM

Only if you agree that you would eat sulphur if you could...

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dickbill
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 09/30/08

Re: origin of life [Re: llanitedave]
      #5642216 - 01/25/13 09:46 AM

What would Earth look like today, if Life had never come to be?

No Oxygen, no pretty minerals (see that recent issue of Astronomy, 3-4 months ago), anoxic oceans, it's almost impossible to imagine.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
minos
member


Reged: 10/17/12

Re: origin of life [Re: dickbill]
      #5654265 - 01/31/13 12:45 PM

The question if something deserves to live is of no importance, because it refers to a solely human made concept, and thus, it has nothing to do with reality.What is important is only what is already there,not what people think it should be …
At this point , I want to discuss a new study published in pnas, about air floating bacteria many kilometers above earth surface, with the ability to affect natural phenomena on earth such as rain, temperature etc.The study says there is a core microbiome of the lower atmosphere that previously was though to be dust and sea salt, and probably it can affect the climate….
I want to make some comments here:
a)More and more striking discoveries are coming into surface ,about the ways living and non living things interrelate here on earth.Life affects rivers, rain etc, and the latter affect life.The one depends on the other in ways that we previously didn’t know and the puzzle with their interrelationships is getting more and more complicated.They can’t be separated nor can the one exist without the other. Seems that they belong to the same system, but we just call life only the things with functional resemblance to us…..

b)About the core microbiome of the atmosphere: is it more logical to assume that these microbes choose to adapt in these harsh envinments, rather to assume that they represent the natural decay of the chemical reactions that are found on earth’s surface..
c)Given the environment in these high altitudes as well as in other unhostile places is not rich in nutrients , the metabolic rate of these microbes must be very low, actually they must be close to zero.And my ultimate question is:What is the core difference between these organisms and simple chemical compouns, since they are both virtually unchanging chemicals?(they are just complicated because they come from already existing complicated systems)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: origin of life [Re: minos]
      #5654570 - 01/31/13 03:44 PM

Quote:

c)Given the environment in these high altitudes as well as in other unhostile places is not rich in nutrients , the metabolic rate of these microbes must be very low, actually they must be close to zero.




Depends. If they are photosynthesizers, then the upper atmosphere is actually a very nutrient-rich environment. Water vapor, CO2, N2 and lots of light makes a happy photosynthetic organism.

Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ravenous
sage


Reged: 11/14/09

Loc: UK
Re: origin of life [Re: minos]
      #5655679 - 02/01/13 07:24 AM

Quote:

c) [...] And my ultimate question is:What is the core difference between these organisms and simple chemical compouns, since they are both virtually unchanging chemicals?(they are just complicated because they come from already existing complicated systems)



I don't think we can describe near-dormant bacteria (if that is what these are) as virtually unchanging. Not if a system of these has evolved, because by definition the evolution implies something is changing over time. "Virtually unchanging" isn't well enough defined anyway - even inert, unliving solid matter can change its structure in time due to solid diffusion - that doesn't imply life.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
minos
member


Reged: 10/17/12

Re: origin of life [Re: Ravenous]
      #5703389 - 02/27/13 12:11 PM

As we previously stated, we are not completely objective observers of the universe, because we are a part inside the system.We are a system of chemical reactions, and so we can judge entities such as entropy, only in relativistic terms, because our own entropy is constantly changing.That is happening because we are composed from other things, and that’s why we are doomed in eternal subjectivity.
But the question is:are there objective observers in the universe?
As we are moving to smaller and simplier objects, we find better candidates that us, but still these can also be further subdivided.
But , according to quantum mechanics, virtually we cannot go smaller than the length of the light wave, because in that case, we cannot precisely estimate both the position and the speed of a particle.So, the best candidate for being the universal objective observer is the photon.
But, how are the laws of nature changing if we consider light as the only true observer?
From here on, we are moving to physics , and
I am not a physicist, so forgive me if my ideas sound stupid, but I want your opinion to this:
In electrical bulbs, the anode and the cathode are charged oppositely.The force that emerges between them is the natural tendency to contact to each other. The emerging force tries to bring the anode closer to the cathode.But this cannot happen, because of the design of the bulb.This resistance to the natural tendency is accompanied by the production of electromagnetic waves.Whether there is a causal effect, is very questionable.
Similarly, in a wire with electricity, the resistance of the wire resists to the natural tendency.
What is interesting is that if experiments showed that any opposition to the natural tendency of forces, creates electromagnetic radiation (e.g. destruction of atom nucleus, antigravity, or if we show that matter and antimatter opposses each other), and the level of resistance correlates with the amount of the produced electromagnetic radiation then we can make the amazing conclusion, that from the photons point of view, any natural tendency tends to lower the entropy of the system.Or else, from the lights point of view, there are no physical laws at all.Just the second law of thermodynamics.
This would mean that everything we perceive as natural laws are just the projections of the second law of thermodynamics because of our subjective point of view.If light is the only true observer, then the physical laws are the emergence of the entropic power of the universe.
Any thoughts?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: origin of life [Re: minos]
      #5703547 - 02/27/13 01:45 PM

Quote:

But the question is:are there objective observers in the universe?



Yes. I am perfectly objective. Anyone who says otherwise is obviously biased.

Quote:

In electrical bulbs, the anode and the cathode are charged oppositely.



Um, what type of bulb are you talking about? In incandescent bulbs, there is a filament (small wire with high resistance) that the current flows through. The current heats the wire, which then glows through blackbody radiation (it emits a spectrum of light based on its temperature). Most of the energy actually turns into heat, relatively little into light.

In a fluorescent bulb, a high voltage current is generated through a low density gas, which ionizes the gas. As the electrons drop back into the positive ions, they emit discrete wavelengths of light through quantum drops. These are usually in the ultra-violet, and the bulb is coated with another fluorescent material which absorbs the UV and re-emits in the visible range (again, at discrete wavelengths). This is significantly more efficient than incandescents.

LED's work by a completely different mechanism (and I have to admit I am not completely clear on what it is - perhaps someone else here is more familiar with how they work). But they also emit specific discrete wavelengths, and are even more efficient than fluorescent, although generally also lower in power.

In all of them, though, more power = more light. For incandescent bulbs, if you increase the power with the same filament, you also change the temperature and the color. To increase brightness without changing color, you use a longer filament (same power per unit length produces the same temperature and color, but more length = more light).

So I am not sure the relationship you are postulating actually exists.

As for photons being observers, the only problem is that since they travel at the speed of light, from their point of view time pretty much stops. In their frame of reference, they are emitted from wherever they start, then instantaneously absorbed wherever they stop with no time or distance in between, even though to our frame it may look like billions of years (and billions of light years) passed in between. They are carriers of information from point A to point B, not receivers of it (which is what I presume you mean by an observer).

Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
StarWars
Mr. Postmaster Man
*****

Reged: 11/26/03

Loc: At the Gym >Spudtastic<
Re: origin of life [Re: Jarad]
      #5703955 - 02/27/13 06:04 PM Attachment (8 downloads)




But Skipper.......


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | (show all)


Extra information
2 registered and 4 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  LivingNDixie, FirstSight, JayinUT 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 8292

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics