Aliens, is there a cover-up?

[Charles]

I figger the gubbmitt will tell us all about them aliens...once they figger out a way to tax 'em.

Chas

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Yes lot's. (although I am to tired to provide links)

I think we can look at nature and make an educated guess. That being said anything is possible.

Aren't you making my point? and yes I know all about it, frankly i was surprised that science seemed surprised that they could live as they do.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Boreas
That's actually not true. Ever hear of "black smokers"? They're deep undersea vents which support unique life forms. Some of those life forms have evolved to derive all of their nourishment from the chemicals contained in the material vented into the water. (They've also evolved to live at incredibly high temperatures and pressures and a complete absence of light but that's another story.) The process is called chemosynthesis and was unknown until the discovery of the vents around thirty years ago.

Originally Posted by noonereal

Aren't you making my point? and yes I know all about it, frankly i was surprised that science seemed surprised that they could live as they do.

No, I'm not making your point. I'm refuting it. You said that all life exploits other life for "energy". I cited an example of a type of life form that doesn't.

Before we discovered the ecosystem associated with black smokers we made certain assumptions about life based on what we knew up to that point. Studying black smokers and the creatures that live there caused us to toss out a number of those assumptions. Why, therefore, is it not possible, or even likely, that similar surprises await us if and when we encounter extraterrestrial life?

Oh, by the way, in addition to species which produce nourishment through chemosynthesis, there are also bacteria which do so via photosynthesis. They don't do this with sunlight because there isn't any. Rather they do it with the faint glow emanating from the hot minerals of the vents themselves. This raises the possibility that photosynthetic life forms first appeared in the deep ocean without the sun as its light source. There are also animals which produce shells from iron sulfides instead of calcium carbonate.

John

[BlueStreak]

Good Grief!!!!!!!!

[noonereal]

Fair enough but my point is much more broad. Can we agree that all life forms transform energies for there own use? Frankly I think all energy is life. Just way different. I would consider the stars a life form, but that is a much different debate. Trees I am sure you agree are alive and they don't consume animal life force directly either.

Yes main stream science did. Personally I think main stream science needs to think outside of the box.

I totally, totally agree. But whatever or whoever we encounter will likely convert energy for it's own. That is what life is. Change. And this changing results in the end of one existence and the continuation or creation of a new one.

Yes, I remember reading that too. Awesome stuff.

yep, Good Stuff!

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by noonereal

Personally I think main stream science needs to think outside of the box.

100% agreed. Scientific orthodoxy strikes me as silly, particularly considering how wrong they've been in the past.

Pete

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Good Grief!!!!!!!!

Yeah...........

Sorry.

John

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

100% agreed. Scientific orthodoxy strikes me as silly, particularly considering how wrong they've been in the past.

Not so sure about that partner. Scientists are rarely "wrong" for a simple reason - they almost never say anything with certainty. They merely explain what is known at the current time. Sure, the media reduces their statements to black and white and so it seems that they are wrong sometimes. Still, on a whole, science is almost always right. Sure enough, turned out that lightning really was electricity, we did indeed split the atom and it sure enough made a pretty big bang. We did indeed get to the moon, and sure enough, just as predicted, it was rocky and hard, not a ball of dust. Found water on Mars and more on the Moon.

Go back a bit and we discover that objects in motion sure enough do tend to remain in motion until something stops them. The Sun really is the center of the solar system and the Earth really did turn out to be one of several planets going around it. Those stars really did turn out to be other Suns and low and behold many (most?) of them have planets going around them too.

Science has shown us very clearly what our Universe is and how we fit into it, at least in a physical sense. Their observations, hypotheses and theories have advanced our understanding without fail.

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.
-Carl Sagan, 1987"

[piece-itpete]

Yes they have been right, but they have been wrong in some spectacular ways.

Wait, perhaps I should say people have been wrong. Common beliefs are often wrong and nowadays we look to scientists as somewhat infallable.

I was thinking largely of Ptolemy's geocentric model.

Pete

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Yes they have been right, but they have been wrong in some spectacular ways.

Wait, perhaps I should say people have been wrong. Common beliefs are often wrong and nowadays we look to scientists as somewhat infallable.

I was thinking largely of Ptolemy's geocentric model.

Pete

clearly what "makes sense" now might not "make sense" when more is discovered