Could There Be Life In Pluto's Ocean?

Message boards : SETI@home Science : Could There Be Life In Pluto's Ocean?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
JLDun
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Apr 06
Posts: 539
Credit: 159,339
RAC: 226
United States
Message 1833579 - Posted: 2 Dec 2016, 1:19:16 UTC

Could there be life in Pluto's ocean?

Pluto is thought to possess a subsurface ocean, which is not so much a sign of water as it is a tremendous clue that other dwarf planets in deep space also may contain similarly exotic oceans, naturally leading to the question of life, said one co-investigator with NASA's New Horizon mission to Pluto and the Kuiper Belt.

ID: 1833579 · Report as offensive
Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 2848
Credit: 1,215,445
RAC: 145
United States
Message 1833587 - Posted: 2 Dec 2016, 2:54:15 UTC

It will most likely be a long time before another mission to Pluto is launched. But if Europa or Enceladus are discovered to have life in their oceans then I'd say the chances are that Pluto does too.
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.
ID: 1833587 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 2275
Credit: 1,929,139
RAC: 162
Message 1835415 - Posted: 11 Dec 2016, 19:30:58 UTC - in response to Message 1833587.  
Last modified: 11 Dec 2016, 19:48:39 UTC

Nice to see you mention Enceladus here Bob, because this was not in my thoughts right now.

I personally still think that the Earth is a bit special when compared with other objects belonging to space.

If I was given the option of perhaps going to Mars as a project of the future, I probably would say Yes.

But if you do not mind, should we perhaps believe in Adam and Eve and next the Garden of Even when it comes to making a similar comparison between the Earth and some other planet or moon in the solar system?

Forget Venus for obvious reasons.

What are the possible ingredients for life itself and where could such a thing next be found?

In fact Pluto could be even more similar to Earth than even Mars, but if you happen to recall the experiments by Stanley Miller in the 1950's, a combination of electricity and organic compounds were being mixed in
order to detect possible signs of life.

But next the possible question about whether or not such life could be explained in a different way instead, namely that of equations.

We probably have yet to prove the existence of a Supreme Commander in charge of all known intelligences, whether or not this could be a part of nature, or perhaps something else.

If bacteria and viruses, like also plants and animals are part of the Earth because of such things as water and air, what could next be a given assumption when it comes to a given level of intelligence which is at least one
such level ahead of us when it comes to such a thing?

Are we perhaps back at the Laws and Equations of nature for such a thing, because a given Probability rather is telling us that such a thing could be possible rather than the opposite?

When we happen to look at both the Earth and the Universe as a whole, we do not see neither Heaven or Hell when doing such a thing, but still think that it could be a given Creation.

If such things as Laws and Equations did not exist at all, the Universe would probably not exist either.

Both the spider and ladybug could be viewed as animals for the purpose of the good, even though the spider may not always be your best friend.

Is such a thing as the creature from Alien I, the movie next a product of fantasy or imagination, because such a thing could be found near Zeta Reticulii and not closer to home?

Or if not so, perhaps rather part of a computer game for your leisure time.

If such a thing as the Sun, as well as water and air is responsible for life and not that of proteins, enzymes, DNA and RNA making up organic substances here on Earth, it still could be more or less chemistry.

Or rather the fact that a world dealing with, or being interpreted by means of such a thing as the Mandelbrot set could be part of an imaginatory world and not necessarily part of reality.

The fact is that you are not supposed to think about the Table of Elements when next reading about such things as Theory of Everything and the like, because you are not able to make any similarity or reference.

If you next also forget such things as time travel, wormholes and the like, you probably are similarly far off when it comes to a given assumption about intelligent life in the Universe, because there could be different ways of looking at these things.

We probably did not know about many of these things only a decade or so ago, but there could be a reason to believe that even such a thing as intelligent life could be explained from Laws and Equations which could be part of nature and next be explained in such a way as well.

By means of the subject of Logic, we also have the expression 'NOT'.

Saying that the Universe does exist is not the same as it in fact does NOT exist and because of that, a given notion for such a thinking should also be known.

Close to alpha Aurigae, or the star Capella, beta Auriga is located on the right shoulder.

North of beta Aurigae (Menkalinan) is a located a very old, red star, which is designated pi Aurigae.

This star is of spectral luminosity II, which should not be confused with the Kardashev scale.

If we happen to know that stars in the Milky Way happen to be both young and old, as well as both light and massive, is Rigel more likely to blow than perhaps Betelgeuse?

Are we perhaps back at given laws of Probability when it comes to such a thing, or should we once again believe in such things as water and air for this?

Ufology could perhaps be about the subject of believing in possible flying dishes, but is this next the same as exorcism?

Possibly a bad word and I will leave it there, but next remember the blond girl from the movie Poltergeist and next you have both the title, as well as the subject.

Really, the subject of aliens, extraterrestrials, or whatever you wish to call it could be neither of these things, but is it next the same as a couple of others?

Next, speak about the possible human factor as one main ingredient which could affect the whole picture.

Global warming is partly to blame because of this factor, but is it not the fact that the heat of the argument could next make in for the big chill, meaning the ice age?

Is not the Sun ageing as well and constantly getting hotter? Compare with Procyon for such a thing, which has evolved into a subgiant star.

A given Probability could also make a similar possibility or end result likely and not necessarily that of chance, randomness, or even Coincidence alone.

The game you could chose playing with your computer could also be the game of nature, for which there is supposed to be given Laws and Equations for.

If you happen to look at the General Theory of Relativity, 1 + 1 supposedly makes it 2.

Next, the answer could rather be something else, because you choose to put it into a different context, or perhaps having a different meaning or opinion about the subject,
making the interpretation becoming slightly different.

Both the orbits of Mercury, as well as that of Pluto around the Sun are far from circular, but do we know of a similar phenomenon for the latter which could explain the 43 arc second discrepancy
in the orbit for Mercury around the Sun in a similar way?

The most likely thing is that any ocean on the surface of Pluto would be frozen and if any other planets belonging to stars in the Milky Way could be more than stony ones, we probably would not find anything similar
which could be compared with the Earth.

Is this because of a given Probability, or perhaps even chance, or could there be even more to it?

Sorry to disappoint you, Bob, but life here on Earth most likely is not being conceived in a test tube belonging to a chemist.

Again we also should be reminded that "God is not playing with dices" either.
ID: 1835415 · Report as offensive
Michael Watson

Send message
Joined: 7 Feb 08
Posts: 939
Credit: 1,112,325
RAC: 1,439
Message 1835472 - Posted: 12 Dec 2016, 1:24:28 UTC
Last modified: 12 Dec 2016, 1:53:41 UTC

Actually, Bluestar, the Miller experiment started with only simple, materials, all inorganic, save methane, and produced organic, comparatively complex substances, chiefly amino acids. This was due to the reaction of the simple chemicals with electrical discharges.

Today it's doubted that the starting materials that Miller used were the same ones that existed on the primordial Earth, but other experiments with a more up-to-date list of materials believed to be found on Earth in those very early days, have produced similar results.

It would be interesting if experiments of this general sort could produce lipids, too. These could act as primitive cell membranes, and help facilitate the process of chemical reproduction, and abiogenesis.
ID: 1835472 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 2275
Credit: 1,929,139
RAC: 162
Message 1835774 - Posted: 13 Dec 2016, 10:34:41 UTC - in response to Message 1835472.  
Last modified: 13 Dec 2016, 10:40:11 UTC

The previous became a bit long.

But Michael, why the assumption about the simple versus the possible more complex?

Organic substances thought of as representing or making up the ingredients for life here on Earth are complex ones, including DNA.

If we still keep to the subject of chemistry and possible exclude some two or more other options, are we only able to make the assumption that life only exists here on Earth,
because there is a difference between organic molecules and those which in part could be making up, or responsible for life itself?

If DNA could be made up of organic substances, at least it could make room for viruses and possible bacteria, but we also happen to know about the Human Genome as being responsible
for our genetic material.

Also such a thing could be about possible intelligence, as well as that of learning and skill.

Putting a couple of other ideas on a slight hold, I would like to see such a thing as evolution being put in the context of intelligence and the like rather than only functionality.

Yes, I know this is a thread about possible life in Pluto's Ocean, but do you really believe that life could be present there?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimetrodon

Found an interesting article in the Wikipedia through the native version first, but not that much there.

Take an oasis in the desert as an example.

Here life is present and being found only because of water.

Is such a thing as possible random factors alone responsible for the fact that evolution could next happen and come up with such creatures?

Compare with the movie Alien I, where the astronauts, or perhaps the crew of the ship which was having a name I do not recall right now, had to go outside and next into a cave of sorts,
in order to get to the stranded ship which contained the remains of an alien creature.

The word 'habitat' comes to my mind and here I would need to look it up for more.

Astronauts being part, or member of an expedition through space would have to be put into hibernation when being part of such an expedition.

We could perhaps make a given wish about primitive animals being found in a liquid ocean if such is being found, but next such a thing most likely is not true.

Except for our own planet, of course.

If evolution on a planet like Earth could take 500 million years to come up with humans, you probably are able to hit right on the spot.

Could it next happen on Pluto? Most likely not so and at least not on Venus, as far as we know.

The point is that if one ingredient of life could be DNA, it next could be water as well.

Water is H20 and Hydrogen is the most common known element in the Universe.

In order to breathe Oxygen, it needs to be O2, because the single Oxygen atom is probably poisonous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen

Here it became a quite good article.

The sad fact is that if you happen to be a scientist, you could be having a possible excuse for excluding one given thing for another, but when doing so, is the answer always that simple?

DNA and water is not necessarily the same, but is such a thing as evolution a prerequisite for life to actually exist, or should we rather believe in either physics, or chemistry for such a thing?

The fact is that the Universe is some 13.8 or 13.9 billion years old and life here on Earth is at least 500 million years old.

Still I am not supposed to be seeing God's hand in all of this, but rather nature instead.

The fact is that viruses and bacteria next makes for plants, animals and humans here on Earth.

Look back into our history of evolution and you find the mentioned Dimetrodon.

If it rather happens to be another planet in our solar system, or even that of another star being part of the Milky Way, you once again are dealing with an alien creature.

Next, the fact that scientists most likely would distance themselves from possible other alternatives, because this is not about evolution at all.

If evolution on its own is a random process, you could be having a given answer to the question.

If it rather could be the opposite, a different answer could be given back in return.

If we for some reason are supposed to know in which way physics and possible mathematics makes our world possible, the same could be said when it comes to chemistry.

The enzymes are "macromolecular biological catalysts", according to the Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme

Again, such a thing is about life here on Earth, but supposedly the only alternative when it comes to different places is either that of science fiction, or possibly a way of thinking which is not part of science.
ID: 1835774 · Report as offensive
Michael Watson

Send message
Joined: 7 Feb 08
Posts: 939
Credit: 1,112,325
RAC: 1,439
Message 1835830 - Posted: 14 Dec 2016, 2:34:23 UTC

I mentioned the development of complex substances from simple ones, because this has been demonstrated to occur, and gives a sense of how life is widely believed to have developed.

Simple and not-so-simple organic chemicals have been detected widely in space. They are far from being unique to Earth. This leaves open the possibility of life developing in places other than Earth, perhaps even in an ocean on the dwarf planet Pluto.
Complex life presumably did not spring into being, without a context of simpler life around it and before it. A long chain of development from simple to complex forms makes logical sense, and does not require any untestable claims.

Mutation in evolution is essentially random, but natural selection favors those that confer advantages on living things, and so, allows them to more successfully reproduce themselves. Advantageous mutations often lead to a greater complexity of form and function. The development of human intelligence, it's believed, came about in this way.
ID: 1835830 · Report as offensive

Message boards : SETI@home Science : Could There Be Life In Pluto's Ocean?


 
©2017 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.