[Closed] Moon Landing Hoax? Channel 5 now!

do they believe we landed on the moon?

Wouldn't you bounce off the firmament first? Or is it the other way round, I can't remember now.

I meant did the aliens believe we landed on the moon 🙂

Mathematically speaking, given our current understanding of the universe, it seems very likely.

What do we understand that means it's lilely there's life anywhere else?
Other than "the universe is really really big so there might be a bit more life somewhere" ... seems a bit of a presumptious assumption to make considering we have not identified anything trying to make contact with us, and we've found a massive total of absolutely zero evidence of life anywhere outside of our own atmosphere.

There also seems to be the assumption that the lack of or presence of water will dictate where life might be ... considering evolution is apparently the way life appeared 🙄 , would it not seem likely that life might have evolved differently somewhere else, whereby water was not required to sustain it etc?

What do we understand that means it's lilely there's life anywhere else?

Infinity.

The chances of throwing one hundred dice and them all coming up six is really pretty vanishingly small, about 1 in 653318623500070906096690267158057820537143710472954871543071966369497141477376 by [url= http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=100+dice+all+6 ]my reckoning[/url].

But if you made an infinite number of throws then how many winners would we get?

Answer: an infinite number!

i.e. in an infinite problem space, if the probability of something happening is anything other than zero, then it happens in infinite number of times 😀

(Of course there is a good chance the universe isn't actually [i]infinite[/i], and instead just really, really, really, really, big)

What do we understand that means it's lilely there's life anywhere else?

Infinity.

That's more down to our understanding of maths rather than the understanding of the universe.

For a start, this only works if the universe is infinite.

However, all this looking for things that might not even be there has led us to discover all sorts of really interesting stuff, so it's not all wasted.

seems a bit of a presumptious assumption to make considering we have not identified anything trying to make contact with us

Is it not more presumptuous to assume that there isn't?

Contact is irrelevant. We've not been in contact with anyone else, does that prove we don't exist?

i.e. in an infinite problem space, if the probability of something happening is anything other than zero, then it happens in infinite number of time

So space aliens have visited earth an infinite number of times?

I meant did the aliens believe we landed on the moon

During my weekend googling I found there's some there's some "evidence" that blurring of pictures highlights structures on the dark side of the moon (the space object not the album). I can't remember now if the author claimed they we US, Russian or other life forms. 😀

Kryton57 went away, did some research, and came back on here with a revised opinion. Sounds like a decent and intelligent bloke to me

Maybe Molgrips, but people always need someone to point and gloat / laugh / criticise at, and those that have more knowledge and time than me to quote this things will have a superior hand - therefore as long as I continue posting (after Friday's events here) I'll never be able to alter thier actions or opinion toward me - I just don't have the time or inclination to research to the nth conclusion.

So space aliens have visited earth an infinite number of times?

Only over an infinite amount of time, I expect.

(Of course there is a good chance the universe isn't actually infinite, and instead just really, really, really, really, big)

Fair point. But, if its just really really really really big, what's that, over there, on the other side of it? 😉

My head hurts

I think a slightly more interesting question is whether people, including "atheists/rationalists/humanists", believe in intelligent extra-terrestrial life?
I'll start, no.

I think it's likely there's simple/non-intelligent life in our own solar system right now, and very likely there's intelligent life further out- and probably quite a lot of it.
As above though it's unlikely we'll ever meet them, so I don't think there are aliens buzzing the Earth right now.

I think it's likely there's simple/non-intelligent life in our own solar system right now

I think some of it has forum logins.

(-:

Fair point. But, if its just really really really really big, what's that, over there, on the other side of it?

The new improved Hope Pro2? 😉

As above though it's unlikely we'll ever meet them, so I don't think there are aliens buzzing the Earth right now.

But given the infinite universe idea, there is no such thing as 'unlikely' is there?

Veering dangerously back on topic for a moment, I've just spotted this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

Interesting reading for anyone still of a "NASA made it all up" persuasion, perhaps.

There also seems to be the assumption that the lack of or presence of water will dictate where life might be ... considering evolution is apparently the way life appeared , would it not seem likely that life might have evolved differently somewhere else, whereby water was not required to sustain it etc?

There's life on Earth that doesn't need water or oxygen. (It looks like snot.) This [i]increases[/i] the chance of there being life out there.

But, we [i]know[/i] that life requiring water exists, so looking for evidence of water is a good place to start.

But given the infinite universe idea, there is no such thing as 'unlikely' is there?

But humans don't/won't have an infinite existence. So far, we've only been around for somewhere between 100000 and 250000 years, which is a blink in cosmic terms.

There's a difference between unlikely ever and unlikely within a limited timeframe.

But humans don't/won't have an infinite existence. So far, we've only been around for somewhere between 100000 and 250000 years, which is a blink in cosmic terms.

Sure but some other race might have been here sometime in the last [s]6000 [/s]13 billion years and left something behind

There's a difference between unlikely ever and unlikely within a limited timeframe.

Oh, that's an interesting one. Do explain

Personally, as others note .given the size of the universe it is nearly inevitable there is other life out there - just due to the odds- we are finding earth like planets "locally" for example

I am less sure that it will be intelligent as it does seem we will **** up our planet and cause orself some seriious harm so evolutionary spoeaking it may not be that helpful to survival
I am even less sure [ almost certain] given the distances involved we are highly unlikely to be able to have a chat or know it for definite one way or the other
The balance of probabilities is on the side of yes but it is not conclusive

Other than "the universe is really really big so there might be a bit more life somewhere" ... seems a bit of a presumptious

we have not identified anything trying to make contact with us, and we've found a massive total of absolutely zero evidence of life anywhere outside of our own atmosphere.

There also seems to be the assumption that the lack of or presence of water will dictate where life might be ... [b]considering evolution is apparently the way life appeared[/b] , would it not seem likely that life might have evolved differently somewhere else, whereby water was not required to sustain it etc?

Making quite a few assumptions there yourself 😉
Do you dount evolution?

We know nothing of exo biology so we generalise from here - anything we say is little more than science fiction

Sure but some other race might have been here sometime in the last [s]6000[/s] 13 billion years and left something behind

Possibly. But given what we know about geology and archeology, it's unlikely to have survived or to be discovered by humans.

There's a difference between unlikely ever and unlikely within a limited timeframe.

Oh, that's an interesting one. Do explain

I'm unlikely to eat a biscuit in the next five minutes, but the probability increases as the timeframe increases.

Mmmm, biscuits. Will extra-terrestrial life have invented biscuits?

I'm unlikely to eat a biscuit in the next five minutes, but the probability increases as the timeframe increases.

I thought you were going to show that the probability of something occurring within an infinite set increased with an increased time frame

Possibly. But given what we know about geology and archeology, it's unlikely to have survived or to be discovered by humans.

Ok, so if it is possible, then from an infinite set, it has already happened, lots of times. Does this mean they have visited and all traces are gone?

Secondly, even if all earth bound traces are gone, surely SETI might have picked something up?

I thought you were going to show that the probability of something occurring within an infinite set increased with an increased time frame

I'm not an expert on set theory.

Ok, so if it is possible, then from an infinite set, it has already happened, lots of times. Does this mean they have visited and all traces are gone?

Or, they haven't.

I thought you were going to show that the probability of something occurring within an infinite set increased with an increased time frame

Why would you think thet chances of something happening do not increase with time?

He did IMHO with the biscuit thought experiment- its like STW shroiedingers cat is it there is it not who knows

I'm not an expert on set theory.

You don't need to be. I'm only asking if the number of outcomes is infinite, then time is not a factor is it?

You don't need to be. I'm only asking if the number of outcomes is infinite, then time is not a factor is it?

Why don't you tell me what you think?

Why don't you tell me what you think?

There's a difference between unlikely ever and unlikely within a limited timeframe.

It seemed that I misunderstood something and I want to understand

/*edited for clarity*/

It seemed that I misunderstood something and I want to understand

I obviously didn't explain clearly enough. In the limited time I have available to explain, it's unlikely you'd understand. Perhaps you would if I had longer?

So space aliens have visited earth an infinite number of times?

Nope.

For one thing you are then dealing with intelligent decision rather than random chance (i.e. intelligent aliens would presumably need to decide they want to visit us for some reason).

But more importantly you are up against hard physical limitations which may completely prevent it from happening (i.e. the light barrier).

I obviously didn't explain clearly enough. In the limited time I have available to explain, it's unlikely you'd understand. Perhaps you would if I had longer?

so either you can try every (outcome) over time or they would all occur simultaneously and i would only need to hear the right one.

PAh they sent themselves here witha tachyon* beam GrahamS

* technically above light speed speeds are possible[ that is they dont violate Einsteins theory] but not for entitities that exist below light speed.

Applauds Mike - what a super answer

Single track - is there an actuall point to this - no offence like but I cant see one and I dont want to go to infinity to get an answer 😉

so either you can try every (outcome) over time or they would all occur simultaneously and i would only need to hear the right one.

Nope.

For one thing you are then dealing with intelligent decision rather than random chance (i.e. I would presumably need to decide I want you to understand for some reason).

But more importantly you are up against hard limitations which may completely prevent it from happening (i.e. my patience).

For one thing you are then dealing with intelligent decision rather than random chance (i.e. intelligent aliens would presumably need to decide they want to visit us for some reason).

But more importantly you are up against hard physical limitations which may completely prevent it from happening (i.e. the light barrier).

Why would that be a barrier to travel? they wouldn't need tot travel fast than light, just take their time.

Ok, i see what you are doing now.

For one thing you are then dealing with intelligent decision rather than random chance (i.e. I would presumably need to decide I want you to understand for some reason).

But more importantly you are up against hard limitations which may completely prevent it from happening (i.e. my patience).

seems a bit of a presumptious assumption to make considering we have not identified anything trying to make contact with us

Is it not more presumptuous to assume that there isn't?

Seeing as there's no inidication either way, at worst it's equally as presumptious, not more.

* [s]technically[/s] [b]Mathematically[/b] above light speed speeds are possible[ that is they don’t violate Einstein’s theory] but [s]not for entities that exist below light speed.[/s] [b]the barrier separating subluminal and superluminal velocities requires infinite energy[/b]

Have you ever thought they might not be able to survive in our atmosphere?

The thing about alien life forces, it in reality we only know what we know and are limited by our knowledge and intelligence such that it is. Therefore, aliens appearing in a time / matter we don't know, will not be obvious to us.

Two things that strike me as an example; EE Doc Smiths Series (Gaseous and mentally apparent life forms) and the "Marble" containing a universe in MIB - now, who's to say that isn't the case - and it could well be that our limited understanding / Einstein is currently being raucaously laughed at by other forms of life that may (or may not) surround us.

Right, but there are Gazillions of them, and let's say 1% of them decided to visit us, for a picnic, fun, long walks on the beach and good times, there would still be loads who decided to head over here, either physically or by sending some kind of signal. So still Bazillions would have made that decision.

Yeah, but sadly an infinite number of them are infinitely far away 😀

And infinity is a long journey even at the speed of light.

who's to say that isn't the case

uh oh... be careful..

some of the militant science disciples on here have been known to turn inside out in an apoplectic rage if anyone dares to suggest a theorem that cannot be substantiated by hard evidence and thorough peer based review..

Have you ever thought they might not be able to survive in our atmosphere?

The thing about alien life forces, it in reality we only know what we know and are limited by our knowledge and intelligence such that it is. Therefore, aliens appearing in a time / matter we don't know, will not be obvious to us.

Two things that strike me as an example; EE Doc Smiths Series (Gaseous and mentally apparent life forms) and the "Marble" containing a universe in MIB - now, who's to say that isn't the case - and it could well be that our limited understanding / Einstein is currently being raucaously laughed at by other forms of life that may (or may not) surround us.

don't know these

Yeah, but sadly an infinite number of them are infinitely far away

And infinity is a long journey even at the speed of light.

Ok, that explains a bit, but some would still be nearer even if lots were further away, wouldn't they?

Because if they were so far away that nothing from there could reach here (infinite distance), then that wouldn't be part of our universe would it?

Yup, i can see that, but it still means they have been here

The time since the universe began is not infinite.

Ok, but 13 billion years is still quite a long time, and light / stuff could travel quite a long way in that time.

Unles we're doing the infinite recurring universes thing, in which case there has been a universe where Hitler and Jesus were the same person.

Well, ok, if that's the nature of infinite recurring universes. i can't see why that would be strange

Because if they were so far away that nothing from there could reach here (infinite distance), then that wouldn't be part of our universe would it?

Because if they were so far away that nothing from there could reach here (infinite distance), then that wouldn't be part of our universe would it?

Yes

Because if they were so far away that nothing from there could reach here (infinite distance), then that wouldn't be part of our universe would it?
Yes

OK, i see by some definitions that is true. I was thinking of universes as disconnected space-times.

some of the militant science disciples on here have been known to turn inside out in an apoplectic rage if anyone dares to suggest a theorem that cannot be substantiated by hard evidence and thorough peer based review..

Really? I hadn't noticed.

Yup, i can see that, but it still means they have been here. Do you believe that?

Based on what I wrote, there is no way to prove or disprove it, unless you can show me a life form that is clearly not from this planet and is on a "plane" that my limited Human senses can work with.

Based on what I wrote, there is no way to prove or disprove it, unless you can show me a life form that is clearly not from this planet and is on a "plane" that my limited Human senses can work with.

Yeah, but do you believe it has happened?

I think it is more likely your own lack of understanding which is the barrier

Quite possibly. As I said earlier, I'm not an expert on set theory (or anything).

Put it on a local scale. Lets say you and I start back-to-back then walk directly away from each other for an hour.

After an hour I decide I miss the banter, so I turn around and start walking in your direction. But as you're still walking I'll [i]never[/i] catch you up even though we were once right next to each other.

Now scale that up to 13 odd billion years and the expansion of space-time in all directions. Most of the universe is "unreachable" even at light speed.

And even if we could somehow go at light speed it would still take a long time to get to the parts we can "reach" (e.g. we only know of [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars ]41 stars that are within 15 light years of Earth[/url])

Most of the universe is "unreachable" even at light speed.

I kind of see and don't see this. Yes i get the bit about parts of the universe heading away from each other. I guess i'm just not sure what 'most' means in this context.

And even if we could somehow go at light speed it would still take a long time to get to the parts we can "reach" (e.g. we only know of 41 stars that are within 15 light years of Earth)

But I'm not suggesting that these spacemen left anytime in recent history. Even if the left half the life of the universe ago, that's still an awful long way they could have got, even subluminally.

Quite possibly. As I said earlier, I'm not an expert on set theory (or anything).

Ok, but it's not set theory

that's still an awful long way they could have got, even subluminally.

Even if the left half the life of the universe ago, that's still an awful long way they could have got, even subluminally.

But, even if there was an intelligent alien race out there capable of fast interstellar space travel that long ago, why would they set out on a mission, that would likely take them thousands of years and huge amounts of resources, to visit our particular uninhabited planet (as it was then) out of all the choice they have?

I'm sure any civilisation so advanced would have much more interesting things to do.

Simply playing the odds here. Space is vast. The Milky Way is a few hundred billion stars, and that's just our own back yard. As a rough estimate, there's a few hundred billion other galaxies too, all containing stars. That's *handwave* 10^23 stars; ie, 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 separate solar systems, potentially like the one we've got. And that's probably a conservative estimate, based on figures I've just pulled out of my chuff.

The exact set of circumstances for life to be created is in itself highly unlikely (which the goddish love to remind us), but when you're playing with such big numbers, the unlikely becomes really rather likely indeed. The odds of winning the lottery are astronomically low, yet people do, week in week out.

The problem is that multiplying a really large number by really small number doesn't necessarily result in anything other than another really small number - that's a typical calculation fallacy when you start playing with really big numbers. The lottery example is no proof at all, as in that case the odds of winning are carefully calculated so that you do get winners every week (otherwise nobody would play) - in fact the odds of winning the jackpot are something like 1 in 14 million, which no astronomer would describe as astronomically low.

Say for example that the chances of intelligent life forming on any given planet are 1 in 10^30. Then even given your theoretical 10^23 inhabitable planets the chances of life forming on any one of those is still only 1 in a million. Now I don't know what the real probability of intelligent life forming is, but then neither does anybody else on this thread, and I'd suggest it's just as likely to be less than in in 10^23 as it is to be more than that. Yes, there is a very real possibility that we are the only ones here.

I don't believe anybody is seriously suggesting the universe out there is infinite are they? That appears to be the argument a lot of the more recent discussion is relying on, without anybody challenging the validity of the initial assumption. 10^23 is nowhere near infinity.

Now I don't know what the real probability of intelligent life forming is, but then neither does anybody else on this thread

That's the crux, isn't it. So you can't say it's "not likely" any more than I can say it's "likely."

I said earlier that I believe there's other life out there. "Believe" is probably a bit strong; I really don't know, but there's certainly a possibility, and I'd like to think that the numbers came up more than once. Whether they actually did or not, who knows.

The problem is that multiplying a really large number by really small number doesn't necessarily result in anything other than another really small number

What if you multiply lots of them?

[img] [/img]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

If the Universe isn't infinite, what is "outside" of it?

We dont know as we canot see it

[s]some of the militant science disciples on here have been known to turn inside out in an apoplectic rage if anyone dares to suggest a theorem that cannot be substantiated by hard evidence and thorough peer based review..[/s] sometimes I come on here and deliver some hippy drug induced drivel about stonhenege, laylines and the cosmic universe i discovered whilst mashed and its like you guys like want like evidence and shit well Dude screw you

FTFY

The thing is if we have competing theorems [accounts] what else can we do other than look at the evidence

The thing is if we have competing theorems [accounts] what else can we do other than look at the evidence

How do you know if the evidence has been interpreted correctly?

If the Universe isn't infinite, what is "outside" of it?

Think of it like a really big version of The Truman Show 🙂

Kryton57 - Member

If the Universe isn't infinite, what is "outside" of it?

Nothing. Now try and picture what "nothing" is like. I don't mean a space with nothing in it, because a space is defined by either what's in it or around it - a boundary is "something". I mean nothing. Not even 3-dimenSional space....

If the Universe isn't infinite, what is "outside" of it?

Nothing, it's like asking what was there before the Big Bang

Not even 3-dimentional space....

yeah, and no 'time'

How do you know if the evidence has been interpreted correctly?

How do you know if the evidence has been interpreted correctly?

What do you mean?

🙂 I suspect you know exactly whatI mean ...

Mr Woppit - Member

Kryton57 - Member

If the Universe isn't infinite, what is "outside" of it?

Nothing. Now try and picture what "nothing" is like. I don't mean a space with nothing in it, because a space is defined by either what's in it or around it - a boundary is "something". I mean nothing. Not even 3-dimenSional space....

But how do you and Singletracked know that?

Well, that's pretty much the definition of a Universe

singletracked - Member
Well, that's pretty much the definition of a Universe

...according to the boundaries of human knowledge and interlect, yes. Thats not to say that beyond our own arrogance of assuming we know everything, actually we don't.

Ok, but it's not set theory

I did tell you I wasn't an expert.

I'm sure any civilisation so advanced would have much more interesting things to do.

One theory is that any intelligence capable of interstellar travel will also be capable of building a Matrix-like construct capable of satisfying their every base desire and that once your civilisation develops that you've no hope of getting boring things like building interstellar craft done.

So, no little green men will visit Earth, because they're all getting their rocks off in Ultra HD VR.

So, no little green men will visit Earth, because they're all getting their rocks off in Ultra HD VR

That would have been much more useful spend than the space programme

What if you multiply lots of them?

Handily, the answer to that is given at the link you provided:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#Equation_results

oh, and also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#Criticism

Afternoon folks. I'm liking this thread now.

But, if its just really really really really big, what's that, over there, on the other side of it?

It can be finite but closed. Like the surface of a planet. Imagine how surprised early man would have been if he'd been able to simply keep walking in a straight line and end up back where he started.

would it not seem likely that life might have evolved differently somewhere else, whereby water was not required to sustain it etc?

Well not really likely, no. See, water is incredible and bizarre stuff. It has a huge list of unique properties that make it one of the universe's strangest substances, which seems weird to us since it's so ubiquitous. Its molecules are polarised (ie they have a positively charged end and a negatively charged end), which (I think) means that a very large number of chemicals can dissolve in it. It's been called the universal solvent for this reason. So that means that water can (and often does) have loads of chemicals floating around in it in a way that they can all meet each other and react. This clearly makes it much much easier for life to evolve. And once it does, it can be mobile and meet lots of other nutrients to eat or other life to interact with. It's considered extremely likely that water is a pre-requisite for life to exist.

Likewise carbon. Our life is carbon based, because carbon readily forms covalent bonds which can create long and very complex molecules. These molecules can incorporate the complexity required to create stuff like DNA and proteins. Other elements are not at all suitable for this.

So chances are other life on other planets needs water and will be surrounded by lots of carbon-based organic compounds.

Other than "the universe is really really big so there might be a bit more life somewhere" ... seems a bit of a presumptious

Not really - the universe is made of the same elements in similar proportions wherever we look. So given the right temperatures for liquid water, and enough of it, why would what happened here not happen there?

we have not identified anything trying to make contact with us, and we've found a massive total of absolutely zero evidence of life anywhere outside of our own atmosphere.

That's cos the distances are so big. If faster than light travel is indeed impossible, then it's quite UNlikely that any of this life would be able to travel here in a context that's acceptable to them.

Remember there are pre-requisites for the evolution of life.

The early universe was just hydrogen. You have to wait for that hydrogen to coalesce into stars, burn all the way up, start creating other elements in nuclear reactions, then explode in supernovae and spread those other elements around the universe in gas and dust clouds, NEW stars to form from this dust along with planets from the heavier elements, then these planets to stabilise enough to start life evolving. Basically, life isn't possible with the first generation of stars so only second generation ones can support life - like ours. So that cuts time frame down a lot. And once you have a planet stable enough, it has to exist for long enough without catastrophe for life to appear.

Given that, intelligent life is only likely to be what, a couple of million years old at best. So for it to reach us, it has to be within a few million light years of us. The infinite probability arguments fal down there because there's not THAT much space and planets within a few million light years, comparitively speaking. If you consider the light speed barrier, most creatures are unlikely to be interested in spending millions of years in deep space, so you need to cut that down to what, a few hundred light years MAYBE if a society was long-sighted enogh to commit lots of people and resources to an ark style mission that won't deliver anything for hundreds of years. And a few hundred light years is naff all. IF there is anyone within that kind of distance (which is much less likely) then they are not really likely to be sending people over here. Especially as they won't know we exist until a few hundred years' time when they start receiving our radio noise.

So in summary - yes, likely that life exists out there somewhere, rather unlikely that we'll ever meet it.

Have you ever thought they might not be able to survive in our atmosphere?

We can't survive on the moon, didn't stop us going there.

If the Universe isn't infinite, what is "outside" of it?

If space is the universe, then by definition there's nothing outside it. You're not thinking in terms of curved geometry.

What's 25,000 miles away from here in a straight line? Australia, at a guess. What's 50,000 miles away from here in a straight line? Er well, we are. We are both 0 miles away and 50,000 miles away. Neat 🙂

The thing with the universe is,

there are things we don't 100% know, or understand. Perhaps we never will. But the dangerous failing here is to assume that if we can't explain it, or even comprehend it, that it must be incorrect. If you don't accept that (and it's a very human reaction) then we segue very quickly into convenient but insubstantial explanations like "god did it."

When you start bandying about concepts like infinity, or what's outside a finite universe, or what was here before the big bang, you start to raise more sticky questions than you had when you started. Just because it makes our heads hurt doesn't necessarily mean these theories are wrong.

Plus, it's a bit silly to try and figure this stuff out in common sense terms, since common sense only applies to the every day world. You need to start thinking in mathematical terms, which isn't easy if you don't know the maths well enough. That's why physicists talk in terms of equations rather than noodling on about analogies and whatnot.

Our life is carbon based, because carbon readily forms covalent bonds which can create long and very complex molecules. These molecules can incorporate the complexity required to create stuff like DNA and proteins. Other elements are not at all suitable for this.

As an aside,

Science fiction tells us that silicon-based life forms might be possible on extra-terrestrial worlds. Does this actually hold up in any sort of theoretical fashion, or is it all, er, science fiction?

there are things we don't 100% know, or understand. Perhaps we never will. But the dangerous failing here is to assume that if we can't explain it, or even comprehend it, that it must be incorrect [u]or doesn't exist[/u]

This is where I was going with it - I added the underlined words to complete my theory.

Cougar, silicon can form these complex compounds but not as readily, so whilst possible to have silicon based life forms it's not that likely - especially given that carbon is so abundant, it'd be unusual to have a load of reactive silicon floating around and no carbon.

Kryton - are you alluding to the possible existance of things we cannot conceive?

That is of course possible, but there are a few things in our favour here when reasoning.

1) The whole universe seems to be made out of the same basic stuff, and the same laws apply.

2) This stuff would therefore be arranged in the same fairly limited combinations that we know as the periodic table wherever it ended up. So the periodic table on the planet Tharg would be the same as ours.

3) Given the same set of elements with the same properties, chemistry would be the same anywhere in the universe.

4) Therefore the basic compounds we know about would also exist on other planets just the same, and have the same implications.

5) So a lot of what we know about the mechanics of life and things still applies.

[s]The thing with the universe is,

there are things we don't 100% know, or understand. Perhaps we never will.
[/s] There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns; that is to say there are things that, we now know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know.

FTFY

Nice post molly its ace knowing we are all literally stardust probably appeals to Yunki as well 😉