Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chances of E.T. Living Subsurface Ocean of Enceladus Given Major Boost

newsweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 99 posts

Re: Chances of E.T. Living Subsurface Ocean of Enceladus Given Major Boost

#61

Post by autokad »

bdamm wrote: post #30
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To a fish, we're aliens. It must be terrifying.

I get the comparison, but personally I think it only works if we found tool-using behavior in aquatic species that shows they are actively modifying their environment to improve their survivability, so that they can have some meaningful basis for judging us as like them. Such as dolphins using agriculture. Otherwise we're just part of the freak show up where there is more light and less pressure.

" actively modifying their environment to improve their survivability"

does a hermit crab count?

Re: Chances of E.T. Living Subsurface Ocean of Enceladus Given Major Boost

#62

Post by aalleavitch »

autokad wrote: post #58
debatem1 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making three specific claims and have provided zero evidence: that it is impossible to develop fire underwater, that it is impossible to develop chemistry underwater, and that it is impossible to build a technological civilization without these things. I say hogwash; show me the proof for your claims. Your proposed alternative is to play "what if" until either I come up with an imaginary scenario that strikes…

"I'm particularly skeptical of the claim that you could not develop chemistry underwater; it seems equally as implausible as saying that you could not develop chemistry in air for exactly the same reasons." what? you think its possible to develop fire under water? chemistry? have you done any chemistry? what about electricity? (a huge but impossible one to do under water)? I am trying really hard not to say something…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baKdHa5TlYM

We did it.

Re: Chances of E.T. Living Subsurface Ocean of Enceladus Given Major Boost

#63

Post by aalleavitch »

zitterbewegung wrote: post #5
mirimir wrote: post #4

I'm reminded of the argument[0] that conscious beings that evolved on worlds like this will be very freaked by the discovery of stuff above the ice. Seeing planets and stars, we humans have always had some sense that there's more to the Universe than Earth. 0) The Killing Star by George Zebrowski and Charles Pellegrino

I don’t think that’s true since we have only recently figured out what stars really are (last 2 thousand years) .

It blows my mind that we didn't confirm the existence of other galaxies until the 1920s.

It was less than a century ago that we learned that the universe was a hundred billion times more complex than we thought it was.

Imagine what we don't know now.

Re: Chances of E.T. Living Subsurface Ocean of Enceladus Given Major Boost

#65

Post by debatem1 »

autokad wrote: post #58
debatem1 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making three specific claims and have provided zero evidence: that it is impossible to develop fire underwater, that it is impossible to develop chemistry underwater, and that it is impossible to build a technological civilization without these things. I say hogwash; show me the proof for your claims. Your proposed alternative is to play "what if" until either I come up with an imaginary scenario that strikes…

"I'm particularly skeptical of the claim that you could not develop chemistry underwater; it seems equally as implausible as saying that you could not develop chemistry in air for exactly the same reasons." what? you think its possible to develop fire under water? chemistry? have you done any chemistry? what about electricity? (a huge but impossible one to do under water)? I am trying really hard not to say something…

There is literally no reason to believe that developing chemistry is impossible underwater. Interesting and useful chemical reactions happen underwater every second of every day; it is irrational to assume that there is no path by which an intelligent but not technological entity would observe this, utilize those reactions, and refine them.

Electricity is far from impossible either to develop or use underwater, and in fact nature has already done so in the form of the electric eel. More to the point, many aquatic species have specially developed sense organs for electricity, increasing the odds of it being developed for communication.

Similarly, although it doesn't look much like your childhood campfire underwater lava flows can be stable and useful sources of heat great enough for refining ores and similar. Further shaping using hydraulic pressure (equivalent to waterjet cutting or forming) would hardly be unimaginable.

And please feel free to say your mean things-- it certainly can't damage my view of the evidence you've put forth so far.

Re: Chances of E.T. Living Subsurface Ocean of Enceladus Given Major Boost

#66

Post by foolfoolz »

FlyingSideKick wrote: post #64

Planetary science programs need a significant boost in funding so that they can perform at least two flagship missions per decade. Missions to Europa, Enceladus and Titan to look for life should be a top priority for NASA.

it blows my mind we have landed on Titan and sent back photos

Re: Chances of E.T. Living Subsurface Ocean of Enceladus Given Major Boost

#67

Post by Elv13 »

autokad wrote: post #58
debatem1 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're making three specific claims and have provided zero evidence: that it is impossible to develop fire underwater, that it is impossible to develop chemistry underwater, and that it is impossible to build a technological civilization without these things. I say hogwash; show me the proof for your claims. Your proposed alternative is to play "what if" until either I come up with an imaginary scenario that strikes…

"I'm particularly skeptical of the claim that you could not develop chemistry underwater; it seems equally as implausible as saying that you could not develop chemistry in air for exactly the same reasons." what? you think its possible to develop fire under water? chemistry? have you done any chemistry? what about electricity? (a huge but impossible one to do under water)? I am trying really hard not to say something…

Thermite or alkaline metals will burn just fine under water. As long as you have an oxidizer, some combustible and a source of energy to kickstart the reaction, it will burn. Also, I don't see why fire is so important. It was important for us to better digest food, that's a concidence, nothing else.

And so does electricity. If the water isn't saline (why would it be), then it is as good as air from an isolation PoV. I did put a motherboard in mineral oil at some point and it did work until the fan died. Other fluids that could make life possible are also good at being non conductive.

Even in salt water, a circuit just has to be bigger or better isolated to work. electricity takes the path of least resistance. Vast distances in salt water vs a good conductor, at some point the good conductor will still win. We have undersea cables since centuries and they work.

Then, about smelting and complex chemistry, hydrothermal vents provides both a source of energy and of complex chemicals.

Re: Chances of E.T. Living Subsurface Ocean of Enceladus Given Major Boost

#68

Post by greggarious »

drewrv wrote: post #15

If alien life were discovered within our solar system, I wonder what the implications for the Drake Equation would be. Assuming panspermia is ruled out, the fact that abiogenesis occured twice within a seemingly ordinary system would imply life is incredibly common.

It wouldn't change it much. There's a huge difference between life and intelligent life.

I suspect it may be fairly common for life to occur in the forms of single celled organisms - just like extremophiles are rare but not unheard of on Earth.

OTOH I suspect it's incredibly rare for complex life (insects, small mammals etc) to form.

Re: Chances of E.T. Living Subsurface Ocean of Enceladus Given Major Boost

#69

Post by njharman »

drewrv wrote: post #36
delecti wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well one factor would go up (planets with life 1>2) and another would go down (planets with life developing intelligence 1>0.5), resulting in a wash. It does move towards giving additional degrees of freedom on those terms though, making the equation as a whole slightly less pseudo-science.

It would only be a wash if you currently believe the chance of developing intelligence is > 50%. To me, the fact that intelligence is rare on earth makes me think the odds of developing intelligence elsewhere is rare too.

How do you conclude that intelligence is rare on earth?

Re: Chances of E.T. Living Subsurface Ocean of Enceladus Given Major Boost

#70

Post by diggernet »

mirimir wrote: post #4

I'm reminded of the argument[0] that conscious beings that evolved on worlds like this will be very freaked by the discovery of stuff above the ice. Seeing planets and stars, we humans have always had some sense that there's more to the Universe than Earth. 0) The Killing Star by George Zebrowski and Charles Pellegrino

Or perhaps below the ice, from their perspective.

http://compellingsciencefiction.com/stories/downandout.html

Post reply on HN