Venusian Alien! They're crazy?

[Urwumpe]

At 460 Celsius? With no water in sight?

Forgive me, but I'm pretty sure I haven't heard of any such organisms living on Earth... :blink:

Never heard of extremophiles?

Water is relative BTW, if the water that you dwell in is closer to sulfuric acid.

 

[T.Neo]

Never heard of extremophiles?

Of course, but never ones that live at temperatures of 460 degrees.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthermophile"]This[/ame] article on Hyperthermophiles states;

Although no hyperthermophile has yet been discovered living at temperatures above 122°C, their existence is very possible (Strain 121 survived being heated to 130°C for two hours, but was not able to reproduce until it had been transferred into a fresh growth medium, at a relatively cooler 103°C). However, it is thought unlikely that microbes could survive at temperatures above 150°C, as the cohesion of DNA and other vital molecules begins to break down at this point.

Water is relative BTW, if the water that you dwell in is closer to sulfuric acid.

Yes, but there isn't any liquid water down on the Venusian surface itself. It can't survive in those conditions- or can it?

 

[Izack]

Oh for crying out loud, why?

Because if it can survive down there, it must be pretty damn tough.

 

[orbekler]

While I think that's beyond our possibility, it's nice to imagine to touch Venera probe (see at 13:50):

---------- Post added at 19:08 ---------- Previous post was at 19:02 ----------

...What a forboding, desolate landscape. One wonders what it'd be like to be able to walk around there for a few hours...

In a far far future, it could be a pretty good place to install a penal colony...:lol:

 

[T.Neo]

Because if it can survive down there, it must be pretty damn tough.

Ain't so tough if it considers our nice environment here on Earth to be a freezing near vacuum.

In a far far future, it could be a pretty good place to install a penal colony...

Well, I would just choose the top of the Kerguelan plateau, but it would still make a pretty cool science fiction film...

"No fences. No barriers. No shackles. Just a PLANET of 460 degree high pressure DEATH blanketed in clouds of ACID!"

I can imagine the teaser trailer already. :lol:

 

[Ghostrider]

Because if it can survive down there, it must be pretty damn tough.

To quote Ben Bova (from Venus of course): "if there are any living beings down there, they must be formidable monsters indeed".

Man, I wish there was life on Venus. It would be more exciting that life on Mars, Europa, or anywhere else. It would be a scientific kick in the teeth, like the Universe telling us "Yo guys, who's cooler now?"

Now, who wants to develop a probe to get there, gather a Venusian alien, bring it to Earth and Quatermass the hell out of us?

 

[Notebook]

Is it me, or have I missed something?

http://www.dandare.org/

In case some folk have:
http://www.dandare.org/dan/aliens/mekon/mekon.htm
One of my old heroes.

N.

 

[T.Neo]

It would be a scientific kick in the teeth, like the Universe telling us "Yo guys, who's cooler now?"

But the answer to that rhetorical question would be pretty boring, since we are cooler. Literally...

 

[marooder86]

Scientists spotted possible signs of life on Venus. We should for this. It's a great oportunity to write a book or make a movie. Imagine "The War of the Worlds: Venusian strike":lol:. But it has to be done quickly before people realize it's a hokum:rofl:.

 

[Mattyv]

Too Late!

 

[Jarvitä]

Oh for crying out loud, why? Because its existence places the mythical "great filter" in our future and magically asserts our status as doomed? Even though an innumerable number of evolutionary "filters" exists between the likely state of any such hypothetical organisms and ourselves? Even though the entire premise of the great filter itself is based on a number of assumptions that are varyingly dubious?

Still, such a discovery would tip the scales from a perfect "we don't know" to the side of "we're screwed", no matter what probability you assign to any of the links in the causality chain. Yes, with the probabilities you're assigning to them, it's not something to worry about. However, your estimates strike me as far removed from the current consensus in cosmology and xenobiology. There's nothing mythical about the Great Filter.

I would not fear the existence of such organisms any more than I fear the existence of stromatolites. Perhaps because my views on alien life are more ambivalent than yours.

You make it seem like your views towards life in general are much more ambivalent than would be healthy.

That said, their existence is pretty doubtful, since they would require some bizarre alternate biochemistry to survive in that environment.

Agreed.

 

[4throck]

Exactly, and even that site says that the camera on V13 and V14 was making panoramas repeatedly for two hours, but only lists one image per camera.

Where can i get the rest of them?

One "image" with several "scans" for each RGB channel. The complete image data is on that site. The image was scanned left to right, the filter changed and then was scanned right to left again, etc etc until equipment failed.

In reality you have an image sequence and some movement is seen, but only changes in general illumination (due to clouds) and perhaps few small pebbles moving with the wind.

 

[NovaSilisko]

One "image" with several "scans" for each RGB channel. The complete image data is on that site. The image was scanned left to right, the filter changed and then was scanned right to left again, etc etc until equipment failed.

In reality you have an image sequence and some movement is seen, but only changes in general illumination (due to clouds) and perhaps few small pebbles moving with the wind.

And, given the extreme atmospheric density of venus, a strong gust is liable to knock over a boulder.

 

[T.Neo]

Still, such a discovery would tip the scales from a perfect "we don't know" to the side of "we're screwed", no matter what probability you assign to any of the links in the causality chain. Yes, with the probabilities you're assigning to them, it's not something to worry about. However, your estimates strike me as far removed from the current consensus in cosmology and xenobiology. There's nothing mythical about the Great Filter.

Everything about the Great Filter is mythical. The concepts behind it may have credence individually, but the way the whole concept is treated it definitely deserves such an epithet.

I don't know what "current consensus in cosmology and xenobiology" you're talking about; cosmology does not deal with the evolution of organisms, and whether xenobiology can be classifiable as a real science (as opposed to something that solely exists in speculative fiction) is debatable. The study of potential alien life is more popularly termed astrobiology, and currently limited to hypothetical study of extraterrestrial abiogenesis, the existence of life-bearing environments off of Earth, and potential alternate biochemistries.

To understand how organisms evolve, how they evolve beyond the first biotic phenomena and eventually evolve into things like us is more in the field of evolutionary biology. Phenomena predominantly under the domain of other fields of science can affect things greatly, but on their own said scientific fields are pretty much useless in trying to gain an insight into how life develops.

The general consensus I can understand is that:

- Evolution has no 'end goal', there is no reason for life to be guaranteed to evolve into anything (including sapient life).

- The existence of humans is a pretty improbable event that relied on a wide variety of specific historical and biological factors. There is also no reason for these factors to be guaranteed to be conducive to the emergence of sapient life.

I don't know what your knowledge on the matter is, but everything I have learnt about the history of life on Earth has shown me that it is not magically destined to produce sapient organisms.

As for a "consensus" on what the probability of life developing sapience is, I'm not sure if anything of the sort exists. There are obviously people out there who hold it to be quite high, but also others who hold quite dim views on the probability of sapient life evolving elsewhere (see Rare Earth hypothesis, etc).

The problems with the Great Filter don't end with evolutionary biology. It totally relies on the Fermi Paradox to which there are many criticisms as well. And it also makes a lot of assumptions (that are also related to evolutionary biology) on things like how a sapient organism would develop- for example, who is to say that humans are not simply very novel in that their physiology and/or environment to not be restricted to a subsistence lifestyle as many other sapient organisms could be?

And I agree that it would shift things closer to the "we're screwed" side, but one of the things that highly annoys me about the Great Filter is it's taken as some sort of magical destiny that sets our fate, without regard to any actual actions, choices or situation-specific advantages or disadvantages we have or make.

We must hope we don't discover alien life, because if we do, we're doomed. So much for free will. :uhh:

You make it seem like your views towards life in general are much more ambivalent than would be healthy.

Most people on this forum hardly know what my views towards life in general actually are, so it would be very funny for you to say that. :lol:

 

[Jarvitä]

And I agree that it would shift things closer to the "we're screwed" side, but one of the things that highly annoys me about the Great Filter is it's taken as some sort of magical destiny that sets our fate, without regard to any actual actions, choices or situation-specific advantages or disadvantages we have or make.

I'm sorry if it sounds like that's what I believe. As I said, at this point all that particular belief does to me is slightly tipping the scales. If my approximation for P(ET life exists or has existed) were around 0.5 before current knowledge about exoplanets (it wasn't), P(we're all gonna die!) would be between 0.5 and 0.51 right now. The only thing constant is P(we're all gonna die | all the other sapient species died before colonizing the galaxy).

We must hope we don't discover alien life, because if we do, we're doomed. So much for free will.

Nonsense. We must discover the truth and face whatever its implications are. Your hopes won't change that. And "free will" is a fancy philosophical term that means "this system is too complex for us to meaningfully predict its future states".

Most people on this forum hardly know what my views towards life in general actually are, so it would be very funny for you to say that.

Your signaling in life-related threads seemed pretty non-ambiguous to me, that's what I'm updating on.

 

[T.Neo]

I'm sorry if it sounds like that's what I believe. As I said, at this point all that particular belief does to me is slightly tipping the scales. If my approximation for P(ET life exists or has existed) were around 0.5 before current knowledge about exoplanets (it wasn't), P(we're all gonna die!) would be between 0.5 and 0.51 right now. The only thing constant is P(we're all gonna die | all the other sapient species died before colonizing the galaxy).

It is far more complex than a simple set of statistical elements. You actually have to define the variables. And not only their values, but what the variables actually are.

Exoplanets mean nothing. There are hundreds of exoplanets devoid of life just like there are several planets devoid of life in our own solar system. The galaxy could be absolutely filled with exoplanets and intelligent (or even complex) life could be vanishingly rare.

It just totally forgets so many things. Including how life actually works.

And why is it it always a constant for sapient life to colonise the galaxy? It is just a total cornucopia of annoying assumption.

Nonsense.

It sure seems different to me. Perhaps I am confusing the dramatisation with the real thing?

It is interesting to note that the probability of a sapient species becoming successful does not change with the probability of any other 'stage' of life arising- i.e. going by the same logic, we could be just as 'screwed' in a universe devoid of life.

Our own actual problems are a far more important concern.

And "free will" is a fancy philosophical term that means "this system is too complex for us to meaningfully predict its future states".

Yeah, sure, whatever you say...

Your signaling in life-related threads seemed pretty non-ambiguous to me, that's what I'm updating on.

Updating?

This forum is populated by humans, there's no reason to communicate like an android from a 1980s science fiction film.

 

[Codz]

And "free will" is a fancy philosophical term that means "this system is too complex for us to meaningfully predict its future states".

Your signaling in life-related threads seemed pretty non-ambiguous to me, that's what I'm updating on.

Spock? Is that you?:shifty:

 

[Jarvitä]

It just totally forgets so many things. Including how life actually works.

And why is it it always a constant for sapient life to colonise the galaxy? It is just a total cornucopia of annoying assumption.

The constant is "The probability of an already existing sapient species colonising the galaxy, given hundreds of millions of years of time, no competitive species, and no great filter event in their future". And it's very close to 1.

It sure seems different to me. Perhaps I am confusing the dramatisation with the real thing?

I've never claimed you should "hope" anything. Wanting to believe something doesn't even change your own beliefs if you're sane enough. And even changing your own beliefs to reflect how you'd like reality to look won't change reality at all.

It is interesting to note that the probability of a sapient species becoming successful does not change with the probability of any other 'stage' of life arising- i.e. going by the same logic, we could be just as 'screwed' in a universe devoid of life.

"Could" being the key term here. ET life existing is just evidence towards the existence of a great filter, it doesn't actually effect whether it exists, just our beliefs about it.

Our own actual problems are a far more important concern.

Again, agreed and I never claimed otherwise.

Updating?

This forum is populated by humans, there's no reason to communicate like an android from a 1980s science fiction film.

Yes, updating the weights mentally assigned to your statements, and their relationships to the rest of my beliefs. It's what sapient beings do when confronted with logical claims. It's hard to resist, but not arbitrarily grouping other people's statements into "agree" and "disagree" can be beneficial.

 

[T.Neo]

And it's very close to 1.

Who says this? Just because you assume something does not make it truth- or anywhere near it.

It is exactly the kind of assumption that irks me about things like the Great Filter. It makes no sense. For example, look at cetaceans; they are highly intelligent organisms.

It is perhaps not much of a stretch to imagine the evolution of a sapient cetacean (indeed, some regard current cetaceans as sapient and that we haven't recognised them as such due to psychological/physiological differences and/or communication difficulties). Such an organism would sapient like us, but lacking effective manipulators and living in an aquatic environment that precludes the existence of various technologies (such as fire) their technological development would be stunted. The probability of them developing even simple industry would be very near zero without outside help.

And that is just one example.

There is no great filter, just a very large collection of much smaller "filters" that are varyingly effective.

I've never claimed you should "hope" anything. Wanting to believe something doesn't even change your own beliefs if you're sane enough. And even changing your own beliefs to reflect how you'd like reality to look won't change reality at all.

My beliefs aren't the issue here, it is rather what I percieve the attitude of many who adhere to the Great Filter theory to be. Regardless of the validity of what you're saying, that's a belief that seems from my viewpoint to exist- but maybe I'm interpreting things wrong.

 

[Felipi1205]

Why it's becoming a discussion? It should be about the website and about the pictures, and not a discussion about life...