Starship Asterisk*

This topic will feature civil discussion of the 100th Anniversary Astronomical Debate: Life in the Universe. Please post here any civil thoughts, comments, questions, or reasonable opposing points of view involving that online debate. The URLs of the debate are
https://apod.nasa.gov/debate/debate100th.html
and
http://phy.mtu.edu/debate/debate100th.html .

@Sabine Hossenfelder:

Sabine, could you please add some substance to what you said about signal transfer with a speed greater than c?
I'm a physicist, and of course SRT (Special relativity) does not per se preclude velocities exceeding that of light. Only I don't see how they should be obtained or reached. There is no continuous transformation from our timelike reality to "the other side", to the "tachyon world" or whatever one might call it.
Thanks in advance.
Peter

Just for grins, I'll put in my two cents. I for one am certain that we will find life on Mars. But I also predict that they will be microscopic organisms which are exiles from Earth. Their ancestors will have been blasted off of Earth by one or more giant meteorite impacts, and were lucky enough to not just survive the ejection from Earth and the cruise to Mars but also to land in a place on Mars where their survival was possible. Those organisms will have Earthly DNA, but will also grow and reproduce very slowly in order to deal due to the relative lack of resources on Mars.

It may also be possible that some hitchhikers on our probes to Mars are also survivors, but they will not have had time to adapt and spread like the survivors of an ancient giant meteorite impact would have.

Otherwise I would largely defer to the presenters in this debate. Since the Sun has a higher metallicity than most stars of its age, I wonder if the Earth did not end up with much high levels of "metals" than its analogs did. If so, then the evolution of complex life forms may have been aided by that fortuitous circumstance. But even if we are among the first of the intelligent life forms, life itself still must have appeared on many other planets in many other stellar systems over the billions of years the galaxy has existed, and we eventually will be able to identify their biosignatures.

ems57fcva wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 2:44 am Just for grins, I'll put in my two cents. I for one am certain that we will find life on Mars. But I also predict that they will be microscopic organisms which are exiles from Earth. Their ancestors will have been blasted off of Earth by one or more giant meteorite impacts, and were lucky enough to not just survive the ejection from Earth and the cruise to Mars but also to land in a place on Mars where their survival was possible. Those organisms will have Earthly DNA, but will also grow and reproduce very slowly in order to deal due to the relative lack of resources on Mars.

It may also be possible that some hitchhikers on our probes to Mars are also survivors, but they will not have had time to adapt and spread like the survivors of an ancient giant meteorite impact would have.

Otherwise I would largely defer to the presenters in this debate. Since the Sun has a higher metallicity than most stars of its age, I wonder if the Earth did not end up with much high levels of "metals" than its analogs did. If so, then the evolution of complex life forms may have been aided by that fortuitous circumstance. But even if we are among the first of the intelligent life forms, life itself still must have appeared on many other planets in many other stellar systems over the billions of years the galaxy has existed, and we eventually will be able to identify their biosignatures.

Although I think neither scenario is likely, it would make more sense for life to have formed on Mars and rode to Earth on meteorites than the other way around. The energy required to get a meteorite off of Mars and to the Earth is much, much less than going in the other direction, meaning any living organisms are more likely to survive.

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 4:42 am

ems57fcva wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 2:44 am Just for grins, I'll put in my two cents. I for one am certain that we will find life on Mars. But I also predict that they will be microscopic organisms which are exiles from Earth. Their ancestors will have been blasted off of Earth by one or more giant meteorite impacts, and were lucky enough to not just survive the ejection from Earth and the cruise to Mars but also to land in a place on Mars where their survival was possible. Those organisms will have Earthly DNA, but will also grow and reproduce very slowly in order to deal due to the relative lack of resources on Mars.

It may also be possible that some hitchhikers on our probes to Mars are also survivors, but they will not have had time to adapt and spread like the survivors of an ancient giant meteorite impact would have.

Otherwise I would largely defer to the presenters in this debate. Since the Sun has a higher metallicity than most stars of its age, I wonder if the Earth did not end up with much high levels of "metals" than its analogs did. If so, then the evolution of complex life forms may have been aided by that fortuitous circumstance. But even if we are among the first of the intelligent life forms, life itself still must have appeared on many other planets in many other stellar systems over the billions of years the galaxy has existed, and we eventually will be able to identify their biosignatures.

Although I think neither scenario is likely, it would make more sense for life to have formed on Mars and rode to Earth on meteorites than the other way around. The energy required to get a meteorite off of Mars and to the Earth is much, much less than going in the other direction, meaning any living organisms are more likely to survive.

Life forming on Mars first and seeding Earth is not impossible. Whether any of that original life would have survived the desiccation of Mars is another matter. I suspect that Mars was never as hospitable to life as Earth has been. However, it will be easy to tell the difference between lineages that diverged over 3 billion years ago and those that diverged more recently.

The issue of its being much harder for an Earth rock to get to Mars that for a Mars rock to get to Earth is a good one. However, a big enough impact will eject enough rock that some of it will be lucky enough to end up in a Mars-bound solar orbit. Then with the prevalence of life of Earth it is almost a given that any such rock will contain some organisms. For an organism that has adapted to the general lack of resources in an underground environment, Mars may not be that inhospitable a place. But I will admit that this scenario assumes that an organism can survive the journey and the shocks on either end of it. Even so, it only takes one survivor in a good enough spot to start the bacterial colonization of Mars.

I loved reading over these replies, great perspectives! But why are all of the contributing astronomers white?

demessieres wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 2:48 pm I loved reading over these replies, great perspectives! But why are all of the contributing astronomers white?

Thank you for your kind words about the debate. You raise a good point about diversity and inclusion. We tried to create a diverse base although we followed no formal criteria. We remain open to submissions from everyone and will judge them only by scientific content. Although we did not request the race of submitted entrants, we do know that at least one self-identifies as non-white.

- RJN

Abiogenesis will be the primary obsession intelligent life has to answer until it uncovers the correct hypothesis. Humans have proven good at solving mysteries; perhaps the problem lies in the correct question to ask?

Gravity Assist has tried.

ESO Cosmic Duologues Series

The world is currently facing a uniquely challenging situation that has taken its toll on many important aspects of daily life including scientific activities. In this time of social distancing, it is nevertheless important to maintain scientific interactions and where possible, to take the opportunity to further develop them. It is also essential to maintain one of the most important characteristics of science - the exchange ideas. The new working conditions of many astronomers have created opportunities that allow us to start new, inspiring endeavours to highligh how astronomy is still humankind’s boldest attempt to understand its surroundings.

ESO is organising a series of Cosmic Duologues, very loosely inspired by the Great Debate between Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis held almost exactly 100 years ago on 26 April 1920. These duologues will be made available online and aim to cover the current state of some of the biggest questions in astronomy in a lively way. ...

The events are scheduled for every Monday at 15:30 CEST, starting on 27 April 2020, which is almost exactly 100 years after the first Great Debate.

• Dark Matter and MOND ~ 27 Apr 2020
• Intermediate Mass Black Holes: To be or Not to be? ~ 11 May 2020
• Initial Mass Function: Universal...or Not? ~ 25 May 2020
• The formation and evolution of the Solar System ~ 08 Jun 2020
• Substructure in protoplanetary disks: a signpost of planet formation? ~ 29 Jun 2020
• Dust at high z ~ 06 Jul 2020
• The atmospheres of Exoplanets ~ 20 Jul 2020

bystander wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:13 pm ESO Cosmic Duologues Series

The world is currently facing a uniquely challenging situation that has taken its toll on many important aspects of daily life including scientific activities. In this time of social distancing, it is nevertheless important to maintain scientific interactions and where possible, to take the opportunity to further develop them. It is also essential to maintain one of the most important characteristics of science - the exchange ideas. The new working conditions of many astronomers have created opportunities that allow us to start new, inspiring endeavours to highligh how astronomy is still humankind’s boldest attempt to understand its surroundings.

ESO is organising a series of Cosmic Duologues, very loosely inspired by the Great Debate between Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis held almost exactly 100 years ago on 26 April 1920. These duologues will be made available online and aim to cover the current state of some of the biggest questions in astronomy in a lively way. ...

The events are scheduled for every Monday at 15:30 CEST, starting on 27 April 2020, which is almost exactly 100 years after the first Great Debate.

• Dark Matter and MOND ~ 27 Apr 2020
• Intermediate Mass Black Holes: To be or Not to be? ~ 11 May 2020
• Initial Mass Function: Universal...or Not? ~ 25 May 2020
• The formation and evolution of the Solar System ~ 08 Jun 2020
• Substructure in protoplanetary disks: a signpost of planet formation? ~ 29 Jun 2020
• Dust at high z ~ 06 Jul 2020
• The atmospheres of Exoplanets ~ 20 Jul 2020

I'm very interested in the Initial Mass Function, which describes the ratio of high mass to low mass stars in any given site of star formation. So of course I wanted to listen to that.

Unfortunately, when I clicked on the link that was supposed to take me to the debate on the Initial Mass Function, I came to a page where I could listen to the Solar System discussion instead.

Is the Initial Mass Function debate gone?

Ann

Ann wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:40 am

bystander wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:13 pm [*] Initial Mass Function: Universal...or Not? ~ 25 May 2020

I'm very interested in the Initial Mass Function, which describes the ratio of high mass to low mass stars in any given site of star formation. So of course I wanted to listen to that.

Unfortunately, when I clicked on the link that was supposed to take me to the debate on the Initial Mass Function, I came to a page where I could listen to the Solar System discussion instead.

Is the Initial Mass Function debate gone?

Ann

Are you sure you clicked on the right link? It says it is "Initial Mass Function" ...
Here's a page with more information on that Duologue.

bystander wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:21 pm

Ann wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:40 am

bystander wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 4:13 pm [*] Initial Mass Function: Universal...or Not? ~ 25 May 2020

I'm very interested in the Initial Mass Function, which describes the ratio of high mass to low mass stars in any given site of star formation. So of course I wanted to listen to that.

Unfortunately, when I clicked on the link that was supposed to take me to the debate on the Initial Mass Function, I came to a page where I could listen to the Solar System discussion instead.

Is the Initial Mass Function debate gone?

Ann

Are you sure you clicked on the right link? It says it is "Initial Mass Function" ...
Here's a page with more information on that Duologue.

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

Thanks, bystander. It worked now.

Ann

I am new to this forum but the open question regarding the topic of the debate seems to invite alternate points of view and I definitely have information that would be considered as an alternate point of view but in my mind is nonetheless just as important as the debate itself.
The information that I refer to is fully contained in the YouTube playlist that I mention below (and I have watched all of the videos in their entirety) and this information fully makes the debate become an entirely moot point (since contact has already been made (on a many to many basis) since early in 2018). The civilisation communicating is more than 800,000 years old and comes from 444.2 Light Years away.

There is no use having a debate (scientist to scientist) ruling out all other sources of information that are not of a "scientific" source on a topic that has already become a moot point to discuss. Would the discussion/debate, not be better spent on whether the first contact (as you call it - which by the way has already happened as part of the extra-terrestrial race's project which they refer to as the "Direct Contact" project), was in fact already made and whether it is worth validating collectively or individually (through the quality of the information being provided and through the gut instinct all humans were born to use in discerning what information is useful to them) as the genuine contact that the SETI institute has been seeking (in all the wrong ways) for years?

As the ETs in question have stated in the material on the YouTube channel, the reason the SETI radio telescopes will never pick up anything as contact is due to the fact that all ET races out there have already advanced far beyond using radio wave technologies now using MUON-based quantum level technologies to communicate with each other (and are already using the human internet/WWW digital computer technology to communicate with those that have been chosen to be part of this direct contact project phase).

So if you are really of an open-enough mind to allow the "other side of the debate" into your thoughts, then I would like you to seriously consider the "third" option of this debate: That they have already contacted us and have provided pages and pages of absolutely amazing information on such topics as how they can actually travel the huge number of light-years involved from their planet to ours (i.e. 444.2K light-years in about six to seven hours in one of their mother ships or even instantaneously in a time-travelling "fighter ship" as described by them in their multiple articles relating to what they term "Supra-Luminar Travel").

Only about ten individuals on their motherships have learned to communicate in written Spanish (and in written English) and their native language is closest to that of the Native American Navajo tribes' sounds/words and sentence structure, although amongst themselves, or even to the ships onboard computer, they primarily only use telepathy (and all this information is only according to the material provided in the videos/articles on the YouTube channel). I personally have nothing to do with the material in any way (other than just being a reader/viewer of the information provided).

Human-based science has already gotten so many of their base assumptions wrong that it is hard to accept concepts that dramatically contradict the accepted mainstream concepts about such things as "What is Matter, What is Time, What is Gravity", but an open-minded individual can get the answers to all of these questions and so much more in the videos on the YouTube channel mentioned below.
So for me personally the question is not as per the "Shapley - Curtis Great Debate" as to how will the ETs communicate with us, but rather: if they did communicate with us would we just reject their communications as not being a likely source for an ET to use (i.e. the internet - which to them is such inferior technology it is easy for their quantum computers to interface to it and participate in "direct contact" in the exact way that we communicate between one another of ourselves in everyday life).

So......hopefully all that has been mentioned above and all the information presented in the Youtube channel below will be enough food for thought for all you great thinkers that we might actually start to have a debate about something that matters and is relevant in the society of today.
Here is the YouTube playlist (and I strongly suggest that you only start at the beginning of the information and watch the videos in that order specified in the playlist since each one builds on knowledge and concepts provided in the previous videos)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOBV8Sv ... S6U6o85_ms

Alternatively you can search for the YouTube channel called "Cosmic Agency" (and if you can understand Spanish then there is an even better somewhat equivalent channel for that audience called "Agencia Cosmica").
I am nothing to do with the channels other than just a subscriber and avid follower of the information being provided.
Peace be with you and may humans accept the assistance already being provided by this group of Extra-Terrestrials.

itsmeremember wrote: ↑Sun Aug 30, 2020 9:28 am There is no use having a debate (scientist to scientist) ruling out all other sources of information that are not of a "scientific" source on a topic that has already become a moot point to discuss.

Actually, in a scientific debate, the first thing we do is exclude non-scientific discussion. Because it's useless and clutters up reasonable analysis.