English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Scientists have said chance as an explanation to all life on Earth.
There is no point in denying Evolution, because Evolution is based on concrete facts and evidence and Evolution is TRUE.

What I am asking is that the Scientists have discovered certain planets which have the capability to support life, yet they cannot
see any lifeforms their.
So will it be fair to say that out of the very few planets that can support life very few planets actually have biological lifeforms.

Another Question, Why cant the Hubble Telescope or any other device focus on a planets surface(very closely) so that it can see small organisms like plant like or Algae

2007-02-27 16:34:44 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

15 answers

Scientists haven't found life on other planets, because NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN TO ANOTHER PLANET. And when they look at them through telescopes, what they see is the equivalent of you looking at the head of a pin from 10 feet away. You can tell it is there, but that is about it. As far as your last statement is concerned, you are vastly over estimating the power of the Hubble telescope.

2007-02-27 16:38:36 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 1 0

I think you may need to know that the universe is so much bigger than you imagine. For example, in our own little solar system, it takes light, travelin at a BILLION miles an hour, FIVE HOURS to travel from the sun to reach the dwarf planet Pluto. And that's just within our own insignificant star system.

Planets around other stars are only now being seen. They've found about 100, and all of them so far are gas giants, similar to Jupiter or Saturn. We simply don't have the capacity yet to detect planets the size of earth anywhere but within our own solar system.

At this point, the only worlds within the solar system that may have life as we know it are Mars and some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. We are not able to get such a close up look at those moons yet (even Hubble is not powerful enough), but we are sending probes out to take pictures. The discoveries are fascinating. The Mars rovers have not found evidence of life, but they're not looking more then a couple of centimeters below the surface. Because of the solar radiation above ground, any life may have a better chance of survival below ground.

You ask some really good questions, and much of what you're asking is on the cutting edge of astronomy. Try asking some of these questions in the astronomy section, or subscribe to Astronomy magazine or a similar one. I think you'll enjoy learning the ways we are learning more about our universe.

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

2007-02-28 00:49:17 · answer #2 · answered by NHBaritone 7 · 0 0

Yes scientists have found planets that we believe are capable of supporting life. However, we will not know it those planets can until we visit their surface. We have found remnant's of life on mars. There are fossilized bacteria on in samples that we have taken from Mars. This mans that there are probably other planets with life on them. These planets are rare because it takes so much to create life. Chances of the conditions where there is the proper environment to create life and having that occur on a planet with the capability of sustaining life are very minute.

The Hubble telescope is old and limited, so it cannot see much. There is no technology that could see that far into space.

2007-02-28 00:46:38 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

So, out of the many thousands of planets that we know exist, how many have been examined to see if life can exist there? Maybe a few handfuls?

And from this small amount of evidence, you can extrapolate and generalize that life does not exist anywhere else? I'm sorry, but you lose me right there. It is not fair to say that our of the very few planets that can support life, very few planets actually have life. Because, we do not know how many planets can support life, and we do not know how many of those actually do support life.

We do not yet have the technology that allows for such remote, and detailed observation through devices like the hubble telescope.

2007-02-28 00:41:51 · answer #4 · answered by CC 7 · 0 0

The last time I checked, we had the ability to see 70 million million million (70 sextillion) stars in space. And that's only what we could see. A certain percentage of those have planets and a smaller percentage have the ability to harbor carbon based life (neglecting methane-based, sulfur-based, or any other base we know of). The percentage is pretty small, but it's still an enormous number out of over 70 sextillion stars with roughly a similar number of planets. See the Drake Equation to see how he calculates the probability of life elsewhere.

So let's just say that in this enormously vast universe of ours, it would be very arrogant of us to assume we are the only life forms in existance.

And of course, Hubble isn't powerful enough to see the surface of these planets probability says must exist out there, so there's a chance we won't know the answer to that question in this lifetime.

2007-02-28 00:59:07 · answer #5 · answered by dmlk2 4 · 0 0

The conditions of the planet have to be right.

Venus
"Venus is very different from the Earth. It has no oceans and is surrounded by a heavy atmosphere composed mainly of carbon dioxide with virtually no water vapor. Its clouds are composed of sulfuric acid droplets. At the surface, the atmospheric pressure is 92 times that of the Earth's at sea-level."

Mars
"They believe the combination of solar ultraviolet radiation that saturates the surface, the extreme dryness of the soil and the oxidizing nature of the soil chemistry prevent the formation of living organisms in the Martian soil. The question of life on Mars at some time in the distant past remains open."

We have lots & lots of water.
And as far as planets outside our solar system we can't see them yet, we only know that a planet is there because of the gravitational pull it has on it's sun.

2007-02-28 00:38:58 · answer #6 · answered by lilith 7 · 0 0

Actually, so far we've found no other planets within the habitable zone of their stars.

Within the next twenty years, astronomers should have satellite telescopes in place that will allow them to find earth-type planets.

To get the magnification you're talking about to image such a small item on such a distant object, you'd have to have an immensely high gain, so high that it literally falls below the detectibility limit of the visible universe. In short: physics just don't allow it.

2007-02-28 00:40:52 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

So far we have not located Earth-sized plants in the 200 or so planets we have detected outside this solar system. There are a few Jupiter sized planets that might have sufficiently large moons. The planets are too dim and too close to their suns to be seen by telescopes. They are detected by their gravitational pull on the stars they orbit.

2007-02-28 00:44:07 · answer #8 · answered by novangelis 7 · 1 0

This is the same old fundie trash...you cannot explain how we got here, so that means there must be a god...thus god is a creation of ignorance. Every civilization had a theory of life's creation. Yours is just one. Just because all the pieces to the puzzle are not together does not "prove" there is a god. Life take many forms. We have no idea what kind of life exist on other planets and solar systems.

2007-02-28 08:56:41 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Which planets are you refering to?

They have found evidence of water, but not actual water. when that happens I'm sure they will look for microorganisms there. So it's not fair to say that very few have life because we have limited ability to search for life.

Do you realize how far away the other planets are? The ones in our solar system are millions of miles away. The ones outside of our solar system are TRILLIONS of miles away. Let's say they found a planet 25 light years away. Thats 25 times 6 TRILLION miles, 150 TRILLION miles away! That's why we can't see the surface.

2007-02-28 00:44:49 · answer #10 · answered by ? 5 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers