Russian Scientist Says There's Life on Venus

jovack22

New member
Jan 26, 2011
278
0
0
Here's another good one.
American scientists say, "they were the first to walk on the moon".
 

Torrasque

New member
Aug 6, 2010
3,441
0
0
Greg Tito said:
I once imagined that Venus was the birth place of the human race and we barely escaped the ecological disaster there to colonize Earth, but I was ten.
I've taken several astronomy and biology courses and many geology courses, and I still like to think that!

Considering that photos of Mars taken many years ago made it look like there was a large face on the surface, I wouldn't put much merit in photos of the surface of Venus taken in 1982.
 

SL33TBL1ND

Elite Member
Nov 9, 2008
6,467
0
41
Thyunda said:
BiH-Kira said:
The problem with searching for life in the universe is that we search for things that that are like the life on earth.
Something that needs O2 and H2O.

It is highly possible that if we find a life form that doesn't fit that description, we would just overlook it.

And another problem is that journalists will write "Scientist says" in front of everything that they like so that it looks better and has "credibility".
Finally. Somebody else with that sentiment. Our only example of life is life on Earth...which could be totally unique. Perhaps it's not a 'perfect mix' of temperature and environment, we simply evolved out of what we were given, whereas the acid clouds of Venus are actually capable of supporting life. Not saying that they are, but it's definitely a ridiculous idea to just dismiss all possibility of life on non-Earth planets simply because 'science says it's impossible'.
I used to think that way as well, but then I read this [http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/nzxu6/why_is_it_that_scientists_seem_to_exclude_the/] particular AskScience thread.

The reason scientists don't usually consider other types of lifeforms is because the stuff we are built out of is the most efficient way for life to occur.
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
Life on Venus may not be so far fetched. We have been using nuclear power for what, 50-60 years? In that short time a fungus has evolved to not only live in such hostile conditions, but thrive.

Life finds a way, then comes the running and the screaming. It's a beautiful circle.
 

weirdee

Swamp Weather Balloon Gas
Apr 11, 2011
2,634
0
0
Don't forget about the insane amount of pressure that would flatten everything into pancakes!
 

Rhatar Khurin

New member
Aug 14, 2008
267
0
0
It's possible i guess. If life did exist they would probably be silicon based rather than Carbon because of the great heat and other gases found there.

The most likely planet that has life on it is the Jupiter moon Europa.
Where there is a lot of evidence stating that life underneath the ice covering is a very real possibility.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
According to modern theories it is extremely likely that the first alien lifeform we will encounter will not be in any way similar to earth creatures, for example - breathing carbon monoxide and surviving at 460C.
 

Double A

New member
Jul 29, 2009
2,270
0
0
Vodka.

Ciler said:
I guess technically there could be "life" "anywhere"... But until you have something more concrete than some dark shapes on a black & white photograph, it should probably just be considered speculative fiction.
This sums up my opinion quite nicely.

For all we know, the Moon could be alive.
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
Ogilvy, the astronomer, assured me we were in no danger. He was convinced there could be no
living thing on that remote, forbidding planet.


There might be subjects for Jeremy Kyle though.
 

killercyclist

New member
Feb 12, 2011
112
0
0
maybe it's it's just me, but i always feel like there is always an outside chance of life on any planet, simply because it doesn't match our idea of life doesn't mean there isn't being's out there. or it's the booze talking...........
 

Nundkai

New member
Mar 28, 2009
3
0
0
SextusMaximus said:
Change the title, it's just not true.
This.
And don't compare scientific hypothesis to your 10 year old imagination unless you really wan't to hammer the fact you think you are superman.

You might not be national television but you can at least have respect for truth and professional opinion.
 

Thyunda

New member
May 4, 2009
2,955
0
0
SL33TBL1ND said:
Thyunda said:
BiH-Kira said:
The problem with searching for life in the universe is that we search for things that that are like the life on earth.
Something that needs O2 and H2O.

It is highly possible that if we find a life form that doesn't fit that description, we would just overlook it.

And another problem is that journalists will write "Scientist says" in front of everything that they like so that it looks better and has "credibility".
Finally. Somebody else with that sentiment. Our only example of life is life on Earth...which could be totally unique. Perhaps it's not a 'perfect mix' of temperature and environment, we simply evolved out of what we were given, whereas the acid clouds of Venus are actually capable of supporting life. Not saying that they are, but it's definitely a ridiculous idea to just dismiss all possibility of life on non-Earth planets simply because 'science says it's impossible'.
I used to think that way as well, but then I read this [http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/nzxu6/why_is_it_that_scientists_seem_to_exclude_the/] particular AskScience thread.

The reason scientists don't usually consider other types of lifeforms is because the stuff we are built out of is the most efficient way for life to occur.
Would you like to provide me with an example of an inefficient way for life to occur?
 

SL33TBL1ND

Elite Member
Nov 9, 2008
6,467
0
41
Thyunda said:
SL33TBL1ND said:
Thyunda said:
BiH-Kira said:
The problem with searching for life in the universe is that we search for things that that are like the life on earth.
Something that needs O2 and H2O.

It is highly possible that if we find a life form that doesn't fit that description, we would just overlook it.

And another problem is that journalists will write "Scientist says" in front of everything that they like so that it looks better and has "credibility".
Finally. Somebody else with that sentiment. Our only example of life is life on Earth...which could be totally unique. Perhaps it's not a 'perfect mix' of temperature and environment, we simply evolved out of what we were given, whereas the acid clouds of Venus are actually capable of supporting life. Not saying that they are, but it's definitely a ridiculous idea to just dismiss all possibility of life on non-Earth planets simply because 'science says it's impossible'.
I used to think that way as well, but then I read this [http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/nzxu6/why_is_it_that_scientists_seem_to_exclude_the/] particular AskScience thread.

The reason scientists don't usually consider other types of lifeforms is because the stuff we are built out of is the most efficient way for life to occur.
Would you like to provide me with an example of an inefficient way for life to occur?
Did you read the thread? Like, at all?

The reason water is so useful is because it is a great solvent. Therefore it is extremely useful in regulating chemistry in the cell.

There are few chemicals out there that rival the solvent properties of water and even less that are naturally formed and as abundant.

Also if life exists it's most likely carbon. Seriously. It's probably carbon. Carbon is fairly abundant and it is bar-none the most chemically fertile element around. You can do more chemistry with carbon than anything else. The metabolism of much carbon chemistry leads to water. This makes one of the most prolific waste products of carbon life into an asset.
 

Thyunda

New member
May 4, 2009
2,955
0
0
SL33TBL1ND said:
Thyunda said:
SL33TBL1ND said:
Thyunda said:
BiH-Kira said:
The problem with searching for life in the universe is that we search for things that that are like the life on earth.
Something that needs O2 and H2O.

It is highly possible that if we find a life form that doesn't fit that description, we would just overlook it.

And another problem is that journalists will write "Scientist says" in front of everything that they like so that it looks better and has "credibility".
Finally. Somebody else with that sentiment. Our only example of life is life on Earth...which could be totally unique. Perhaps it's not a 'perfect mix' of temperature and environment, we simply evolved out of what we were given, whereas the acid clouds of Venus are actually capable of supporting life. Not saying that they are, but it's definitely a ridiculous idea to just dismiss all possibility of life on non-Earth planets simply because 'science says it's impossible'.
I used to think that way as well, but then I read this [http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/nzxu6/why_is_it_that_scientists_seem_to_exclude_the/] particular AskScience thread.

The reason scientists don't usually consider other types of lifeforms is because the stuff we are built out of is the most efficient way for life to occur.
Would you like to provide me with an example of an inefficient way for life to occur?
Did you read the thread? Like, at all?

The reason water is so useful is because it is a great solvent. Therefore it is extremely useful in regulating chemistry in the cell.

There are few chemicals out there that rival the solvent properties of water and even less that are naturally formed and as abundant.

Also if life exists it's most likely carbon. Seriously. It's probably carbon. Carbon is fairly abundant and it is bar-none the most chemically fertile element around. You can do more chemistry with carbon than anything else. The metabolism of much carbon chemistry leads to water. This makes one of the most prolific waste products of carbon life into an asset.
Yes. And it didn't prove a God damned thing. It CAN'T be proved until we find other planets that fit the description AND have life. Because right now the case is so fragile that it can be fucked up if we so much as find ONE lifeless planet with water and carbon.

We're basing our knowledge of life based on one tiny example. It's like claiming to be an expert in Russian grammar because you speak fluent English. Yes, I understand how the rules of the English language work, but no, they don't apply to Russian.
 

SL33TBL1ND

Elite Member
Nov 9, 2008
6,467
0
41
Thyunda said:
SL33TBL1ND said:
Thyunda said:
SL33TBL1ND said:
Thyunda said:
BiH-Kira said:
The problem with searching for life in the universe is that we search for things that that are like the life on earth.
Something that needs O2 and H2O.

It is highly possible that if we find a life form that doesn't fit that description, we would just overlook it.

And another problem is that journalists will write "Scientist says" in front of everything that they like so that it looks better and has "credibility".
Finally. Somebody else with that sentiment. Our only example of life is life on Earth...which could be totally unique. Perhaps it's not a 'perfect mix' of temperature and environment, we simply evolved out of what we were given, whereas the acid clouds of Venus are actually capable of supporting life. Not saying that they are, but it's definitely a ridiculous idea to just dismiss all possibility of life on non-Earth planets simply because 'science says it's impossible'.
I used to think that way as well, but then I read this [http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/nzxu6/why_is_it_that_scientists_seem_to_exclude_the/] particular AskScience thread.

The reason scientists don't usually consider other types of lifeforms is because the stuff we are built out of is the most efficient way for life to occur.
Would you like to provide me with an example of an inefficient way for life to occur?
Did you read the thread? Like, at all?

The reason water is so useful is because it is a great solvent. Therefore it is extremely useful in regulating chemistry in the cell.

There are few chemicals out there that rival the solvent properties of water and even less that are naturally formed and as abundant.

Also if life exists it's most likely carbon. Seriously. It's probably carbon. Carbon is fairly abundant and it is bar-none the most chemically fertile element around. You can do more chemistry with carbon than anything else. The metabolism of much carbon chemistry leads to water. This makes one of the most prolific waste products of carbon life into an asset.
Yes. And it didn't prove a God damned thing. It CAN'T be proved until we find other planets that fit the description AND have life. Because right now the case is so fragile that it can be fucked up if we so much as find ONE lifeless planet with water and carbon.

We're basing our knowledge of life based on one tiny example. It's like claiming to be an expert in Russian grammar because you speak fluent English. Yes, I understand how the rules of the English language work, but no, they don't apply to Russian.
No. We're basing our knowledge of life on how chemistry works. Carbon and water go hand in hand. All of the reasons behind scientist's assumptions on extraterrestrial life are based on facts. Your arguments are based on wild speculation with no scientific foundation.

Read it again.

Carbon is fairly abundant and it is bar-none the most chemically fertile element around.
See that? That right there is why life even exists. The different interactions of carbon is what makes life work, and no other element can do what it does, as well as it does it.

EDIT: Yes, life can conceivably exist through other means, but they are far less likely and as such, scientists are ignoring those remote possibilities until we've finished exploring the things that actually make sense.
 

Thyunda

New member
May 4, 2009
2,955
0
0
SL33TBL1ND said:
Thyunda said:
SL33TBL1ND said:
Thyunda said:
SL33TBL1ND said:
Thyunda said:
BiH-Kira said:
The problem with searching for life in the universe is that we search for things that that are like the life on earth.
Something that needs O2 and H2O.

It is highly possible that if we find a life form that doesn't fit that description, we would just overlook it.

And another problem is that journalists will write "Scientist says" in front of everything that they like so that it looks better and has "credibility".
Finally. Somebody else with that sentiment. Our only example of life is life on Earth...which could be totally unique. Perhaps it's not a 'perfect mix' of temperature and environment, we simply evolved out of what we were given, whereas the acid clouds of Venus are actually capable of supporting life. Not saying that they are, but it's definitely a ridiculous idea to just dismiss all possibility of life on non-Earth planets simply because 'science says it's impossible'.
I used to think that way as well, but then I read this [http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/nzxu6/why_is_it_that_scientists_seem_to_exclude_the/] particular AskScience thread.

The reason scientists don't usually consider other types of lifeforms is because the stuff we are built out of is the most efficient way for life to occur.
Would you like to provide me with an example of an inefficient way for life to occur?
Did you read the thread? Like, at all?

The reason water is so useful is because it is a great solvent. Therefore it is extremely useful in regulating chemistry in the cell.

There are few chemicals out there that rival the solvent properties of water and even less that are naturally formed and as abundant.

Also if life exists it's most likely carbon. Seriously. It's probably carbon. Carbon is fairly abundant and it is bar-none the most chemically fertile element around. You can do more chemistry with carbon than anything else. The metabolism of much carbon chemistry leads to water. This makes one of the most prolific waste products of carbon life into an asset.
Yes. And it didn't prove a God damned thing. It CAN'T be proved until we find other planets that fit the description AND have life. Because right now the case is so fragile that it can be fucked up if we so much as find ONE lifeless planet with water and carbon.

We're basing our knowledge of life based on one tiny example. It's like claiming to be an expert in Russian grammar because you speak fluent English. Yes, I understand how the rules of the English language work, but no, they don't apply to Russian.
No. We're basing our knowledge of life on how chemistry works. Carbon and water go hand in hand. All of the reasons behind scientist's assumptions on extraterrestrial life are based on facts. Your arguments are based on wild speculation with no scientific foundation.

Read it again.

Carbon is fairly abundant and it is bar-none the most chemically fertile element around.
See that? That right there is why life even exists. The different interactions of carbon is what makes life work, and no other element can do what it does, as well as it does it.

EDIT: Yes, life can conceivably exist through other means, but they are far less likely and as such, scientists are ignoring those remote possibilities until we've finished exploring the things that actually make sense.
And once again, you're referring to carbon-based life forms and totally ignoring the possibility of anything else. My analogy still stands. All you've done is re-iterate an obsolete point. Carbon is the most chemically fertile element on Earth, Mars, and the Moon. We've not really been taking samples on any other planet now have we?
 

SL33TBL1ND

Elite Member
Nov 9, 2008
6,467
0
41
Thyunda said:
SL33TBL1ND said:
Thyunda said:
SL33TBL1ND said:
Thyunda said:
SL33TBL1ND said:
Thyunda said:
BiH-Kira said:
The problem with searching for life in the universe is that we search for things that that are like the life on earth.
Something that needs O2 and H2O.

It is highly possible that if we find a life form that doesn't fit that description, we would just overlook it.

And another problem is that journalists will write "Scientist says" in front of everything that they like so that it looks better and has "credibility".
Finally. Somebody else with that sentiment. Our only example of life is life on Earth...which could be totally unique. Perhaps it's not a 'perfect mix' of temperature and environment, we simply evolved out of what we were given, whereas the acid clouds of Venus are actually capable of supporting life. Not saying that they are, but it's definitely a ridiculous idea to just dismiss all possibility of life on non-Earth planets simply because 'science says it's impossible'.
I used to think that way as well, but then I read this [http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/nzxu6/why_is_it_that_scientists_seem_to_exclude_the/] particular AskScience thread.

The reason scientists don't usually consider other types of lifeforms is because the stuff we are built out of is the most efficient way for life to occur.
Would you like to provide me with an example of an inefficient way for life to occur?
Did you read the thread? Like, at all?

The reason water is so useful is because it is a great solvent. Therefore it is extremely useful in regulating chemistry in the cell.

There are few chemicals out there that rival the solvent properties of water and even less that are naturally formed and as abundant.

Also if life exists it's most likely carbon. Seriously. It's probably carbon. Carbon is fairly abundant and it is bar-none the most chemically fertile element around. You can do more chemistry with carbon than anything else. The metabolism of much carbon chemistry leads to water. This makes one of the most prolific waste products of carbon life into an asset.
Yes. And it didn't prove a God damned thing. It CAN'T be proved until we find other planets that fit the description AND have life. Because right now the case is so fragile that it can be fucked up if we so much as find ONE lifeless planet with water and carbon.

We're basing our knowledge of life based on one tiny example. It's like claiming to be an expert in Russian grammar because you speak fluent English. Yes, I understand how the rules of the English language work, but no, they don't apply to Russian.
No. We're basing our knowledge of life on how chemistry works. Carbon and water go hand in hand. All of the reasons behind scientist's assumptions on extraterrestrial life are based on facts. Your arguments are based on wild speculation with no scientific foundation.

Read it again.

Carbon is fairly abundant and it is bar-none the most chemically fertile element around.
See that? That right there is why life even exists. The different interactions of carbon is what makes life work, and no other element can do what it does, as well as it does it.

EDIT: Yes, life can conceivably exist through other means, but they are far less likely and as such, scientists are ignoring those remote possibilities until we've finished exploring the things that actually make sense.
And once again, you're referring to carbon-based life forms and totally ignoring the possibility of anything else. My analogy still stands. All you've done is re-iterate an obsolete point. Carbon is the most chemically fertile element on Earth, Mars, and the Moon. We've not really been taking samples on any other planet now have we?
You don't understand what chemically fertile means. That means it has a ridiculous amount of reactions it can be a part of. Chemically fertile does not mean there's lots of it, it means that it does lots. But that doesn't mean there isn't lots of it, oh no, it's the 4th most common element in the universe [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements#Abundance_of_elements_in_the_Universe], right below oxygen, helium, and hydrogen.

I'm not reiterating an obsolete point, I'm trying to get scientific facts across that you are simply refusing to acknowledge.

I'm not just "referring to carbon-based lifeforms" I'm telling you why carbon-based lifeforms are far more likely than whatever crazy idea you espouse.