Scientists identify exoplanets where life could develop as it did on Earth

August 1, 2018, University of Cambridge
This artist's concept depicts a planetary system. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

Scientists have identified a group of planets outside our solar system where the same chemical conditions that may have led to life on Earth exist.

The researchers, from the University of Cambridge and the Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology (MRC LMB), found that the chances for life to develop on the surface of a rocky planet like Earth are connected to the type and strength of light given off by its .

Their study, published in the journal Science Advances, proposes that stars which give off sufficient ultraviolet (UV) light could kick-start life on their orbiting in the same way it likely developed on Earth, where the UV light powers a series of chemical reactions that produce the of life.

The researchers have identified a range of planets where the UV light from their host star is sufficient to allow these chemical reactions to take place, and that lie within the habitable range where liquid water can exist on the planet's surface.

"This work allows us to narrow down the best places to search for life," said Dr. Paul Rimmer, a postdoctoral researcher with a joint affiliation at Cambridge's Cavendish Laboratory and the MRC LMB, and the paper's first author. "It brings us just a little bit closer to addressing the question of whether we are alone in the universe."

The new paper is the result of an ongoing collaboration between the Cavendish Laboratory and the MRC LMB, bringing together organic chemistry and exoplanet research. It builds on the work of Professor John Sutherland, a co-author on the current paper, who studies the chemical origin of life on Earth.

In a paper published in 2015, Professor Sutherland's group at the MRC LMB proposed that cyanide, although a deadly poison, was in fact a key ingredient in the primordial soup from which all life on Earth originated.

In this hypothesis, carbon from meteorites that slammed into the young Earth interacted with nitrogen in the atmosphere to form hydrogen cyanide. The hydrogen cyanide rained to the surface, where it interacted with other elements in various ways, powered by the UV light from the sun. The chemicals produced from these interactions generated the building blocks of RNA, the close relative of DNA which most biologists believe was the first molecule of life to carry information.

In the laboratory, Sutherland's group recreated these under UV lamps, and generated the precursors to lipids, amino acids and nucleotides, all of which are essential components of living cells.

"I came across these earlier experiments, and as an astronomer, my first question is always what kind of light are you using, which as chemists they hadn't really thought about," said Rimmer. "I started out measuring the number of photons emitted by their lamps, and then realised that comparing this light to the light of different stars was a straightforward next step."

The two groups performed a series of laboratory experiments to measure how quickly the building blocks of life can be formed from hydrogen cyanide and hydrogen sulphite ions in water when exposed to UV light. They then performed the same experiment in the absence of light.

"There is chemistry that happens in the dark: it's slower than the chemistry that happens in the light, but it's there," said senior author Professor Didier Queloz, also from the Cavendish Laboratory. "We wanted to see how much light it would take for the light chemistry to win out over the dark chemistry."

The same experiment run in the dark with the and the hydrogen sulphite resulted in an inert compound which could not be used to form the building blocks of life, while the experiment performed under the lights did result in the necessary building blocks.

The researchers then compared the light chemistry to the dark chemistry against the UV light of different stars. They plotted the amount of UV light available to planets in orbit around these stars to determine where the chemistry could be activated.

They found that stars around the same temperature as our sun emitted enough light for the building blocks of life to have formed on the surfaces of their planets. Cool stars, on the other hand, do not produce enough light for these building blocks to be formed, except if they have frequent powerful solar flares to jolt the chemistry forward step by step. Planets that both receive enough to activate the and could have liquid water on their surfaces reside in what the researchers have called the abiogenesis zone.

Among the known exoplanets which reside in the abiogenesis zone are several planets detected by the Kepler telescope, including Kepler 452b, a planet that has been nicknamed Earth's 'cousin', although it is too far away to probe with current technology. Next-generation telescopes, such as NASA's TESS and James Webb Telescopes, will hopefully be able to identify and potentially characterise many more planets that lie within the abiogenesis zone.

Of course, it is also possible that if there is life on other planets, that it has or will develop in a totally different way than it did on Earth.

"I'm not sure how contingent life is, but given that we only have one example so far, it makes sense to look for places that are most like us," said Rimmer. "There's an important distinction between what is necessary and what is sufficient. The building blocks are necessary, but they may not be sufficient: it's possible you could mix them for billions of years and nothing happens. But you want to at least look at the places where the necessary things exist."

According to recent estimates, there are as many as 700 million trillion terrestrial planets in the observable universe. "Getting some idea of what fraction have been, or might be, primed for life fascinates me," said Sutherland. "Of course, being primed for life is not everything and we still don't know how likely the origin of is, even given favourable circumstances—if it's really unlikely then we might be alone, but if not, we may have company."

Explore further: Researchers show role for cyanide in origins of life

More information: P.B. Rimmer el al., "The origin of RNA precursors on exoplanets," Science Advances (2018). DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aar3302 , http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/8/eaar3302

Related Stories

Ultraviolet light may be ultra important in search for life

August 31, 2017

In everyday life, ultraviolet, or UV, light earns a bad reputation for being responsible for sunburns and other harmful effects on humans. However, research suggests that UV light may have played a critical role in the emergence ...

Cool Stars Have Different Mix of Life-Forming Chemicals

April 7, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Life on Earth is thought to have arisen from a hot soup of chemicals. Does this same soup exist on planets around other stars? A new study from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope hints that planets around stars ...

Recommended for you

Unusual doughnut-shaped jet observed in the galaxy NGC 6109

August 15, 2018

Astronomers from the University of Bristol, U.K., have uncovered an unusual doughnut-shaped jet in the radio galaxy NGC 6109. It is the first time that such a jet morphology has been observed in a low-power radio galaxy. ...

Iron and titanium in the atmosphere of an exoplanet

August 15, 2018

Exoplanets, planets in other solar systems, can orbit very close to their host stars. When the host star is much hotter than the sun, the exoplanet becomes as hot as a star. The hottest "ultra-hot" planet was discovered last ...

Unraveling the stellar content of young clusters

August 14, 2018

About twenty-five percent of young stars in our galaxy form in clustered environments, and stars in a cluster are often close enough to each other to affect the way they accrete gas and grow. Astronomers trying to understand ...

85 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (14) Aug 01, 2018
While it is laudable for researchers to search out earth-like planets that experience(d) the same quantity, temperature and chemical makeup of star Matter/Energy (comparative to our Sun) that could possibly enable an electric charge let loose upon a tightly-knit aggregation of the planet's basis for life-enhancing chemistry, these researcher are STILL unable to CREATE LIFE HERE ON EARTH, even within a lab setting and under the PRESUMED similar conditions to early Earth. IT ELUDES THEM.

The process of creating a new life form out of a group of chemicals/molecules that are believed to have been the basis for accomplishing creative processes is still an unknown factor/commodity, even with the proposed conditions of the early Sun as regards to the Sun's alleged in situ "life-giving" powers. In actuality, the researchers are searching for evidence of a MANUFACTURING process of Life, rather than its creation.

Abiogenesis is comparable to the manufacture of replicable robots.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 01, 2018
It is also an imperative that researchers/scientists suggest that a Star such as our Sun must BE the catalyst for the manufacture of Life on our, and other planets. The real deal is that only a source of Energy of a powerful enough Star will ever have the strength to direct its Energy toward the place on a planet where the right chemicals have previously congregated, knowingly awaiting the Star's Energy to give instructions to the waiting chemicals that will enable those chemicals to communicate their intents to each other. It would be either the Star as the source for instructions, OR the chemicals/molecules themselves are that source. If both are the sources of instruction, then there may have been a "conflict of interest" whereby the two sets of instructions could result in a Null Effect. The manufacturing process would have failed.

In such a scenario, God the Creator is not present. Thus, everything that has occurred since then is NOT the fault of God, who is absolved.
dfjohnsonphd
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 01, 2018
Firstly it is important to avoid the temptation to anthropomorphize chemical reactions and/or radiation. There is no "intent" or "instructions" involved in any of this. It is all natural, random events, and in some cases those random events could lead to life, as we know it or otherwise. If 700 trillion planets is right, the odds are overwhelming that this scenario has played out many, many times.

The previous posts are a vast oversimplification of the issues of abiogensis. The most erroneous of these is the notion that a star would "direct its Energy toward the place on a planet where the right chemicals have previously congregated". Clearly the entire planet is being irradiated with light of the kind indicated in this outstanding report on how life might arise from inanimate chemicals. The chemicals could be anywhere on the planet's surface so long as the water is liquid and sufficient UV reaches the chemical mix to provide for the critical reactions to occur.

cont.
dfjohnsonphd
5 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2018
Given sufficient time to cook and a long term stable environment, life elsewhere is almost certain, and did not require a deity for it to arise. It is all in the photochemistry, one might say! The plants on earth and their photosynthetic reaction centers with its electron transport and resulting gluconeogenesis pretty much says it all.

There is another aspect to life developing on other planets, and that is the stability of the environment. All life on earth could have been destroyed at any number of times due to massive impact events, or even a near-by gamma ray burst. It is not just the origin of life that matters, but its long term survival which ultimately leads to an incredible diversity via evolution. The right photochemistry and environmental stability for billions of years is likely essential for complex life to arise anywhere.
dfjohnsonphd
5 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2018
An example of the perils preventing long term life on any planet occurred on earth about 250 million years ago during the "Permian–Triassic extinction event". It is also known more colorfully as "The Great Dying". In this event, 96%!! of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species became extinct in a very brief period of time (see wiki).

This dying likely occurred as a result of a massive impact event, and/or extensive volcanism. In either case, vast amounts of gases and microparticulates blocked out the sun for an extended period. If the event had be five times as powerful, earth would again be sterile and the abiogenic kick-start would have to happen all over again.

Happily some life did survive, and multiple extinction events before and after The Great Dying have certainly impacted the course of evolution, and very likely the appearance of man.

malapropism
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2018
@SEU
You appear to be suggesting that: 1) stars are sentient -
a... Star will... direct its Energy toward; Star's Energy... give[s] instructions to the waiting chemicals

and that 2) chemicals are sentient (or perhaps, benefit of the doubt, pre-biotic chemical systems)
the right chemicals have... congregated, knowingly awaiting...

Now while humanity certainly doesn't know everything, there is nothing in scientific thinking that I'm aware of, nor in this article, to suggest that either of these statements is true or even remotely possible. To then conflate these ideas to derive a sort of religiously-based pseudologic pertaining to a speculative and supernatural (or, at best, metaphysical) god or creator-being doing "manufacturing" as you appear to, presumably via these mechanisms since you mention them "in conflict", seems somewhat psychologically unbalanced. Go lie down.

Besides, why do you think that because we can't yet do something, we never will be able to?
Anonym334113
not rated yet Aug 02, 2018
I quote from a post, "Happily some life did survive" (The Great Dying). Sadly, some of it evolved into hominids/humans and all our extravagant, arrogant destruction of the rest of Life. Who wants that again? Don't ruin another part of the Universe. First, let's clean up the sorry mess we've made - before everything becomes extinct.
Parsec
5 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2018
I quote from a post, "Happily some life did survive" (The Great Dying). Sadly, some of it evolved into hominids/humans and all our extravagant, arrogant destruction of the rest of Life. Who wants that again? Don't ruin another part of the Universe. First, let's clean up the sorry mess we've made - before everything becomes extinct.


Cheer up dude. humans are like cockroaches, you can kill most people, but we are very difficult to eradicate completely.

Nope, we will probably manage to match the great dying itself before we finally expire...
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 02, 2018
Nevertheless, I am still waiting for scientists to manufacture a new Life Form in a lab out of the ingredients which they believe to have been present as a group or conglomerate of chemicals, without contaminating that group of chemicals with the DNA/RNA, etc. of something which had been alive previously. The sample must be pristine; free of all contaminants.
Such an event will never happen, of course, but we can all sit around and wait for that Eureka moment and then the somber realisation that their little experiment was a complete and utter failure...again.

I say "manufacture", which most aptly describes such a goal, to manufacture Life. Create and creation is not appropriate since only a sentient, intelligent being is capable of creating Life.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2018
In my second post, I said, "It would be either the Star as the source for instructions, OR the chemicals/molecules themselves are that source. If both are the sources of instruction, then there may have been a "conflict of interest" whereby the two sets of instructions could result in a Null Effect. The manufacturing process would have failed."

Malaprop's seeming inability to comprehend my meaning is worrisome.
It seems to be that for some, the term "instructions" need to be clarified wrt the manufacture or creation of Life without having had a predecessor's example to follow, such as DNA/RNA, etc.
Anything that is manufactured (or created) would need a blueprint or instructions, or an algorithm for it to succeed as being endowed with Life. Scientists who don't believe that God created life would require an alternate theory and method of manufacturing Life in the lab. Therefore, the instructions must be either in the chemicals, or in an Energy source such as the Sun, a Star.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 02, 2018
-CONTINUED-
I also said: "The real deal is that only a source of Energy of a powerful enough Star will ever have the strength to direct its Energy toward the place on a planet where the right chemicals have previously congregated, knowingly awaiting the Star's Energy to give instructions to the waiting chemicals that will enable those chemicals to communicate their intents to each other."

Meaning that a powerful enough Star will direct its Energy toward a group of chemicals that are waiting to receive its Energy in order for it to come alive. The part that the chemicals were "knowingly awaiting" was strictly "tongue-in-cheek". Although I meant the 'awaiting' to make the distinction that without an intelligence doing the creating, it would, by necessity require either the Star's Energy to impart instructions to the chemicals to arrange themselves in the correct configuration; OR the chemicals themselves had that ability which, of course, is absurd.
-CONTINUED-
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 02, 2018
Since a bunch of chemicals, no matter how compatible they are to each other, are known to be unable to provide its own instruction manual to itself, even with a strong jolt of electrical energy to all of its molecules from the local Star, the next question should be: "What (or WHO) and how did those molecules come to be alive when it lacked ancestry/parentage and DNA/RNA?" It is the DNA/RNA that is the instruction manual that was missing within the very first Life Form - a living cell. I would say that that was a bit of a miracle.
So our scientists continue in their quest to manufacture a pristine life form and give it life through methods which they believe to have been available a few billions of years ago. They will fail, time and again, but they will have earned their funding for trying.
So, any good suggestion? And no ad hominem, please.
dfjohnsonphd
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2018
Humans would have a very rough time creating life in a test tube. Some do suggest that this proves life arose by the "magic wand event". These people fail to appreciate the vast complexity of even the simplest life form.

Traveling to the nearest star would be infinitely easier than creating a true life form in a lab. It is vastly beyond our means to do this from scratch, and even if we could, it would be a very, very long experiment to be sure. Almost certainly longer than that star trek to the Alpha Centauri "system".
Captain Stumpy
1.7 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2018
@dfjohnsonphd
Humans would have a very rough time creating life in a test tube
it also doesn't help that we have no clear, firm definition for "life" to classify anything

EDIT: the definition is still highly contested
dfjohnsonphd
4.3 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2018
@Anonym334113, I must agree in part that "Sadly, some of it evolved into hominids/humans and all our extravagant, arrogant destruction of the rest of Life."

However, keep this in mind: without intelligent life to appreciate the wonderful nature of life and its diversity, it might as well not even be there.

Which brings up the question of intelligence. One might say that humans know enough to be dangerous, but the real definition of intelligence clearly remains nebulous. Anybody paying attention to world affairs and is familiar with the proliferation of nuclear weapons and accurate delivery systems must realize that we may be headed for a very unpleasant ending.

And to the one who posted that humans are very resilient, I must remind you that the dinosaurs were also, dominating the planet for well over 100 million years. We have only been in our present state for maybe 200,000 years or so. If humans did survive a mass extinction event, it would be a nasty thing to recover from.
dfjohnsonphd
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2018
@Captain Stumpy, it is not true "that we have no clear, firm definition for "life" " . They do not allow enough space in these messages for me to get into it, but having conducted Biochemistry for decades provides me with a very firm grasp of the nature of life on earth. It is clearly and unequivocally defined in chemical terms, which are then manifested in the animated objects we know as life.

That animation might take a microscope to see, or briefly experienced when getting stepped on by an elephant. But make no mistake, most Biochemists have no doubt about the nature of life in nearly all respects, at least on this planet. That "alternate chemistries" could be involved is irrelevant to the notion of life "as we know it", which is the only rational course for this debate. Alternate chemistry notions are highly variable, and mostly nonsense. And nonsense is not in my time lines for consideration.

Merrit
5 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2018
@egg there are no "instructions". The formation of life was complete chance. All that is necessary is having the required ingredients. It was likely a very small chance like the probability of winning the lottery five times in a row. But, given enough planets and enough time it will happen eventually like here on earth. This is exactly the same reason why it will likely never happen in a test tube and why I wouldn't be surprised to find the entire universe sterile.

Ever hear the expression that a million monkeys given a million years and a million type writers will write a novel? It is the same idea.
Captain Stumpy
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 02, 2018
@dfjohnsonphd
It [life] is clearly and unequivocally defined in chemical terms
You can link studies that reference material to help here and I would greatly appreciate it - Thank you

I'm taking a few cues from the literature, like "Law, Legal Culture and Society: Mirrored Identities of the Legal Order" - Febbrajo

this would also include the 2018 Mariscal, Doolittle paper (Life and life only: a radical alternative to life definitionism)
To date, no definition of life has been unequivocally accepted by the scientific community
Also, Lacanzo states essentially the same in "The emergence of life"

perhaps I should have stated there is no general consensus on a definition to be clearer:
https://boris.unibe.ch/114555/
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2018
Interesting research, but there were many other sources for RNA. The same environment that life emerged in accoring to current research can do it, for instance. We can question use as search filter for other life.

@SEU: It is irrelevant for us whether or not we can reproduce the exact lineage for knowing that life emerged here on Earth, in the same way that fossil gaps are irrelevant for knowing evolution happened here on Earth.

The young planet was sterile (too hot), the modern planet is not, life emerged. And it happened quickly, suggesting it is easy.

Moreover, we have already evidence that suggests how it happened. The last universal common ancestor was half alive and the lineage from non-life over half-life (and then to life) connected to the same geology (alkaline hydrothermal vents): https://www.natur...l2016116 . So, problem likely solved and no biggie, it *was* an easy enough process.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2018
@egg there are no "instructions". The formation of life was complete chance. All that is necessary is having the required ingredients. It was likely a very small chance like the probability of winning the lottery five times in a row. But, given enough planets and enough time it will happen eventually like here on earth. This is exactly the same reason why it will likely never happen in a test tube and why I wouldn't be surprised to find the entire universe sterile.

Ever hear the expression that a million monkeys given a million years and a million type writers will write a novel? It is the same idea.
says Merrit

Certainly there would have to be 'instructions', even if the required chemicals came together randomly or by gravitational attraction (which is unlikely);
-CONTINUED-
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2018
@Captain Stumpy, it is not true "that we have no clear, firm definition for "life" " . They do not allow enough space in these messages for me to get into it, but having conducted Biochemistry for decades provides me with a very firm grasp of the nature of life on earth.


That is good for you, but astrobiologists cannot agree on a clear definition, which was probably meant. (When I say half alive, I mean vital biochemicals are produced in the environment as opposed to simpler nutrients. But that goes only towards the emergence observation.)
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2018
Certainly there would have to be 'instructions', even if the required chemicals came together randomly or by gravitational attraction (which is unlikely);
-CONTINUED-


Did you even read the reference I provided? Not only is there no need - who would write those 'instructions' and do you really think we accept mechanism-less magic in science - we know there is no 'instructions' since evolution goes all the way back. It did not need to be so, but it is.

There are no 'gods', there are no 'instructions', there is no magic - nature tells us so. Drop the magic act.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2018
-CONTINUED-
...the chemicals would have to be in the correct formation (such as atop each other or side by side), quantity, quality and motility (such as in what occurs during tidal actions) in order to perform any necessary overriding of any one chemical's potency & potential performance over the others' potential and potency.
The "test tube" in the lab would not have all the accoutrements of a properly functioning environment and size to allow all the chemicals within the tube to homogenise (as in an emulsion) or spread sufficiently, if that was the course of action and work in the manufacturing of the first living cell. Therefore, test tubes are out. It would need to be done outdoors in, at least, an approximation of the conditions of the early Earth.
-CONTINUED-
barakn
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 02, 2018
@Captain Stumpy, it is not true "that we have no clear, firm definition for "life" " .... But make no mistake, most Biochemists have no doubt about the nature of life in nearly all respects, at least on this planet. -dfjohnsonphd

I'm joining the Cap'n on this one. There is no one universally agreed on definition of life. Even if there was just one among biochemists (and I bet there's greater diversity of opinion even there than you are admitting to), biochemists are not the only biologists.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2018
-CONTINUED-
Chemicals are able to interact with others, such as sodium chloride, but none have an ability to make an intelligent decision wrt those abilities and their outcome(s). Other chemicals are not friendly with others, or are volatile when contacting certain ones.

But, in any case, chemicals cannot construct a living cell without the ability and "know-how", which is an extremely essential part of manufacturing or creation. Consider graphene and its peripherals that are manufactured in the lab. The graphene has a 'platform' on which to 'grow'. That platform is created by scientists and their intelligence.
dfjohnsonphd
5 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2018
@Captain Stumpy, you simply must be joking about drawing conclusions regarding the definition of life from legalese, or am I reading that wrong!

The notion that "to date, no definition of life has been unequivocally accepted by the scientific community" is comparable to debating the Flat Earth Society. There are quacks, just like many duck ponds.

All I can suggest is to get an advanced book used for graduate studies in Biochemistry and read it from start to finish. If you are still not convinced, then there is no hope for it.

There are lots of people out there who like to throw wrenches into the gears of well established aspects of science. It is how half-witted people try to make names for themselves. For example, agreeing with Darwin doesn't get much attention. But radical and ludicrous notions on evolution to ill-informed people makes big waves. Knowledge is the key to understanding all that we are capable of deciphering. Without it, you have nothing.

cont....
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 02, 2018
Certainly there would have to be 'instructions', even if the required chemicals came together randomly or by gravitational attraction (which is unlikely);
-CONTINUED-


Did you even read the reference I provided? Not only is there no need - who would write those 'instructions' and do you really think we accept mechanism-less magic in science - we know there is no 'instructions' since evolution goes all the way back. It did not need to be so, but it is.

There are no 'gods', there are no 'instructions', there is no magic - nature tells us so. Drop the magic act.

says t b g l

Yes I read your posts but haven't yet read the reference. I will do so shortly. I never inferred a "mechanism-less magic in science".
WRT WHO wrote those instructions, it may be possible that such instructions would have been "built-in" to deal with the heretofore possibility that life would eventually be manufactured by chemical means.
dfjohnsonphd
5 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2018
cont. from Stumpy

If however you are not capable of understanding such text books, you are clearly in no position to make suggestions about topics you have little (or faulty) information about, particularly about a subject as complex as a definition of life.

If all this is unsatisfactory to you, perhaps you should try the King James version of the Bible. A lot of people who read that also do not accept clear definitions established by thousands of scientists around the world who have brought us realities like vaccines, moon-shots and thermonuclear weapons. With sufficient knowledge of the subject matter and an open mind, most people will accept that most real scientists are convinced of a clear definition of life, at least on this planet.
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2018
@dfjohnsonphd
you simply must be joking about drawing conclusions regarding the definition of life from legalese, or am I reading that wrong!
no, I am not joking
you are a biochemist by admission
I am a retired paramedic Truck Captain and Investigator

the general consensus in science definitely spills over into forensics and emergency medicine, even though we also have specialised criteria for calling TOD on a scene

Just because you have a specific technical definition doesn't mean it's universally applicable, nor does it mean it is the consensus definition, hence my addition above
If all this is unsatisfactory to you, perhaps you should try the King James version of the Bible
1- I despise religion

2- I provided links and references to make a point that even a simpleton could comprehend - if that point was too hard for you to read or understand then maybe you should try the KJV?

3 - see also above: Torbjorn_b_g_larsson
Barakn
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2018
@t b g l
Re: the last common ancestor of all living cells - LUCA - from your link.

"Its genetic code required nucleoside modifications and S-adenosyl methionine-dependent methylations. The 355 phylogenies identify clostridia and methanogens, whose modern lifestyles resemble that of LUCA, as basal among their respective domains. LUCA inhabited a geochemically active environment rich in H2, CO2 and iron. The data support the theory of an autotrophic origin of life involving the Wood–Ljungdahl pathway in a hydrothermal setting."

First of all, we are examining the genesis of the FIRST common ancestor, not the last. (could have been a slight differentiation in meaning, but I am taking it literally).
No question that the first single cell lived in hydrothermal environment, but your link concerns the already finished product in which the chemicals transformed into - a living cell. I-we are concerned with the basis of this transformation into a cell.
-CONTINUED-
Captain Stumpy
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2018
@dfjohnsonphd cont'd
If however you are not capable of understanding such text books, ... complex as a definition of life
I can understand your immediate reaction and assumption of trolling given the site, and unlike most folk I can respect your jumping to conclusions because you obviously didn't catch the drift above, however, if you're incapable of comprehending what consensus means or the presented prima facie argument - with requisite reference material - then it can be stated that you, also, are in no position to make suggestions about topics you have little (or faulty) information about

your technical definition isn't listed as the consensus definition
I chose to present that point with multiple sources of evidence
you have yet to provide any links or references to demonstrate or support your point
period
full stop

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2018
-CONTINUED-
@t b g l
"Its genetic code required nucleoside modification...(...)
WHAT GENETIC CODE? Does this mean that the chemicals somehow coordinated a process that transformed those chemicals into - a living cell? That bunch of chemicals did not have a genetic code, they were CHEMICALS. Neither did the first single cell have a 'genetic code'. A genetic code is a formal set of INSTRUCTIONS.

"Autotrophs"

"Overview of cycle between autotrophs and heterotrophs. Photosynthesis is the main means by which plants, algae and many bacteria produce organic compounds and oxygen from carbon dioxide and water (green arrow).
An autotroph ("self-feeding", from the Greek autos "self" and trophe "nourishing") or producer, is an organism that produces complex organic compounds (such as carbohydrates, fats, and proteins) from simple substances present in its surroundings, generally using energy from light (photosynthesis) or inorganic chemical reactions (chemosynthesis).(...)"
dfjohnsonphd
5 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2018
After 40+ years of research in macromolecular interactions, I categorically do NOT jump to conclusions. (That would be very unscientific of me.) But that is a tired and tattered accusation for discrediting people who tell the truth about something they don't want to hear.

I will take a page out of the legal arena regarding a judge's ruling on pornography, and apply it to life on earth:

'It may be difficult to define, but I know it when I see it.'

Actually I do not need to provide any proof to anyone on this thread since their acceptance or rejection of my commentary is outside my control, even when providing all the facts.

Again, if you cannot read and understand the science, it is you, not me, who has no support for your point.

There is no greater proof than empirical evidence, which is defined as observational and reproducible data. It is the all and everything of science. Like it or not, the observational data define life in unquestionable detail. I know it.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2018
@dfjohnsonphd

Captain Stinky. er - I mean Stumpy - is a veteran "Information Vampire" in phys.org. Stinky never ever produces scientific theory in his posts that he had learned from book learning' while retaining all information about science in his head, as others do. Instead, Captain Stinky produces some links to show some evidence (which in most cases are incorrect wrt the topic of the article).
But anytime someone makes a statement which might sound about right to others, Captain Stinky goes to work in DEMANDING verifiable evidence of that someone's idea, theory, opinion on science.
So, in effect, Stinky insists on seeing all evidences wrt all claims by other posters. He uses a lot of big words, which is supposed to impress and build on the premise that Captain Stinky knows what he is talking about...which he most often doesn't.
He is also fond of using ad hominem, so as to try to intimidate those who express their opinions.
It is best to ignore such Vampirism of Science.
dfjohnsonphd
3 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2018
@Surveillance_Egg_Unit

I appreciate the update and understand the type of person you are describing. My uncle is just like him. He expects me to describe some obscure cutting tool and claims I don't know anything if I didn't know what that tool was. This is due to a lack of knowledge on his part.

I must declare to all who read my posts that the most important thing to me is the truth, which I define in science as reproducible results, and which are reproduced by other experts in a given field. The truth is more important to me then my very life.

Without the truth, we are all lost. And right now we are trending that way big time.

I keep seeing this calendar in the distance, and the year keeps getting clearer and clearer, but I still cannot quite read it. But I think I can make out enough to predict that this new calendar, which will be used in perpetuity once it arrives, has the year 1984 stamped on it in big numbers.

Perhaps I am jumping to conclusions.....
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2018
@Surveillance_Egg_Unit

I appreciate the update and understand the type of person you are describing.

I must declare to all who read my posts that the most important thing to me is the truth, which I define in science as reproducible results, and which are reproduced by other experts in a given field. The truth is more important to me then my very life.

Without the truth, we are all lost. And right now we are trending that way big time.

Perhaps I am jumping to conclusions.....


"The truth shall set you free"
No. You appear not to be the type to jump to conclusions...at least not without verifiable evidence to back up your stance.
I have been reading old physorg articles and comments so that I may understand the psychological nuances of certain physorg commenters such as Captain S. and his water bucket boy whom I won't mention for now. I find it to be offensive that those two (and their fans) are commenting in a science site without knowing much about science.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2018
I have to agree that with the way of current events, such events are too distracting in a negative way to have any personal positivity for a great global future for all of the Life Forms of Earth. As a Conservative I find some solace in my personal faith/beliefs, but I also find that there are a few who are working hard to benefit every Life Form on Earth, not just in the US. And yes, I am a believer in a higher power and that sustains me and gives me hope. Science explains that which was, and is, unknown, which makes scientists a very valuable commodity who earn our respect.
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2018
@dfjohnsonphd
I categorically do NOT jump to conclusions
except you just did

perhaps I should explain something
open your profile (or mine) by clicking the link that is your username
you will see the number of comments and the average rating
That explains a lot about the type of person you're dealing with

if the number averages 3.0 they're an average poster
3.4 or above and they typically do homework or post science (with rare outliers who build sock armies)

you don't have many posts (133, avg of 3.9) so you post science, but you're a nooB
others like eggy (a new sock) have a poor rating (1.8) so it tells you he posts pseudoscience, religion or BS
Torbjorn (1099, avg. 5.4) is well established and demonstrates knowledge

I can see you know WTF you're talking about which is why I asked you to post references
I'll not continue to be nice if you keep jumping to conclusions

try re-reading what I posted (including when I use your own words, mind)
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2018
@dfj cont'd lesson
Actually I do not need to provide any proof to anyone on this thread
you made the claim
you provide the evidence

it's the same in science, isn't it?

so if you say
There is no greater proof than empirical evidence, which is defined as observational and reproducible data
& I provide exactly that: empirical evidence that there is no consensus on the definition
I gave an example too

your argument shouldn't be
All I can suggest is to get an advanced book used for graduate studies in Biochemistry
it looks as if you can't substantiate your claims with the empirical evidence you claim to know or have as a biochemist

(mind you, a biochemist isn't the only scientific field that requires a definition for "life")

so, if " the most important thing to [you] is the truth" and you're a scientist, then please provide references

PS - unless you're delusional or an idiot, I never said you "don't know anything"
I asked you for references
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2018
Torbjorn (1099, avg. 5.4) is well established and demonstrates knowledge
sorry Torbjorn, that is a misprint on my part
My fat fingers f*cked it up

Average is 4.5

.

@dfjohnsonphd
also note, and you can inquire to other posters if you like: Surveillance_Egg_Unit is the latest sock puppet of a religious looney who has historically posted creationist dogma in the hopes that he can legitimize his beliefs

a forensic linguistic analysis will clearly show his multiple sock-puppets on this site alone, all of which eventually get banned for religious trolling like above

take that or leave it, but do your homework before you jump to any more conclusions about anyone here at PO

dfjohnsonphd
3 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2018
I repeat I do not need to provide any proofs regarding my posts. They are all main stream scientific realities. You read them or not and make of them as you will, more accurately IF you can. Nothing could be more irrelevant to me than the people who read my posts and provide "feedback". Who are they? Yep, it is all on science, as if there would be something else.

There is no point in dealing with all of the tripe you are piling on me. It serves no useful purpose, which indicates you have nothing to offer regarding the core of issue of abiogenesis. I get this now. Debating with you is an endless stream of irrelevant issues. It has become pointless.

Benni
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 02, 2018
Pop-Cosmology is just filled with these Stumpy characters., righto Stub?
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2018
@dfjohnsonphd
They are all main stream scientific realities. You read them or not and make of them as you will, more accurately IF you can
you mean your argument, that life has a clear, concise definition that is accepted by all science, is a main stream scientific reality regardless of the empirical evidence that is shown above, from as late as this month 2018?

were you injured recently? https://www.news-...ion.aspx

There is no point in dealing with all of the tripe you are piling on me
sorry but... I highly recommend being able to differentiate between a trolling idiot like SEU or benni above and a poster seeking facts considering your inability to read or comprehend basic english, as demonstrated above
Debating with you is an endless stream of irrelevant issues
one issue
only one issue

one that you can't answer without an appeal to your authority and a pretentious belief that no one else can read

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2018
@dfjohnsonphd

You are now the latest recipient of Captain Stinky's invective.

A friendly word of advice: Avoid providing ANY personal information lest it be used against you and may even compromise your private life as has happened to others.

Captain Stinky has a tendency to lure commenters into revealing such information and then repeating it back at a later time, and often changing what you have said in your post to make it seem that you are as mentally ill as he is.
The ratings system on physorg is abused by Captain Stinky and his followers no matter how brilliant the comment is. The ratings system mean nothing and has been used, and is being used, for the purpose of intimidation. Don't fall for it.
I suspect that Stinky may be a paid agent for Universe Today, which he provides links to frequently so that physorg commenters will go to that site, which is physorg's competitor.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2018
ROFLOL now that comment by Captain Stinky that I am a 'sock puppet' is hilarious. My User Name is the only one I have used on physorg and the proof is the date in which I began using the Comments Forum.
It is now of the utmost certainty that Captain Stinky Stumpy is batshit crazy and is now in a panic that he is being outed as an Information Vampire of both scientific knowledge and personal information from unwary commenters.
There have been many victims of Stinky's sheer lunacy and his apparent desire to have power and control over the Comments Forum of physorg. This is his big chance to show he is boss - Mafia style - in his own mind.
LMFAO indeed!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2018
Here is a clear, concise definition of Life that is accepted by mainstream science:

What makes a thing alive?
Living things use energy within their cells. This energy powers all kinds of processes, such as reproduction, growth, or body temperature regulation. Some living things take in nutrients, such as eating food or absorbing materials through roots or a cell membrane. Other living things get energy from the sun.Jan 1, 2016

What is the definition of being alive?
The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

-CONTINUED-
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 03, 2018
-CONTINUED-
What are the characteristics of life?
The seven characteristics of life include:
• responsiveness to the environment;
• growth and change;
• ability to reproduce;
• have a metabolism and breathe;
• maintain homeostasis;
• being made of cells; and.
• passing traits onto offspring.

What is the definition of life in biology?
From Biology-Online Dictionary. Definition. noun, plural: lives. noun, plural: lives. (1) A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce.Jan 15, 2017
Life - Biology-Online Dictionary
https://www.biolo...ary/Life

Benni
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 03, 2018
It is now of the utmost certainty that Captain Stinky Stumpy is batshit crazy and is now in a panic that he is being outed as an Information Vampire of both scientific knowledge and personal information from unwary commenters.
There have been many victims of Stinky's sheer lunacy and his apparent desire to have power and control over the Comments Forum of physorg. This is his big chance to show he is boss - Mafia style - in his own mind.


....but beyond this, there is an underlying reason that someone wants to be tagged with a name like "Stumpy", and then to add "Captain" to that?

"Captain Stumpy" is a profiling allusion stemming from HIS unchangeable anatomy that makes him feel inadequate in gaining the respect of others around him, it's an identity feature about him that he simply resents but has learned to accept, thus adopting the profile he feels others have of him thus resulting in his persistent anger management rantings you read here......Right Stubbo?
Captain Stumpy
2 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2018
@eggy the delusional
Here is a clear, concise definition of Life that is accepted by mainstream science
no
that is *a* general definition of life

like doc johnny the misinformed, it is not *the* consensus definition, proven above in my references and links, which you are still not giving, you idiot illiterate
being outed as an Information Vampire
LMFAO
coming from a sock-puppet that can be verified easily by a simple google word/phrase check, that is hilarious
The seven characteristics of life include
seems to be derivative of the 2002 Koshland paper and "PICERAS"

except that it's also not the consensus definition

.

it doesn't matter how many definitions that you find that are valid in their specific field (like biochemistry)

that isn't the point or the argument

there is still no consensus definition for "life" used by all science
Captain Stumpy
2 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2018
@Idiot illiterate lying benji
Right Stubbo?
wrong
here is some valid information that can be checked
you can't do basic math (or astrophysics): http://phys.org/n...als.html

you can't do differential equations despite your claims to be a nuclear (and other) engineer(s)
http://phys.org/n...s_1.html

http://phys.org/n...ity.html

http://phys.org/n...and.html

https://phys.org/...ing.html

you don't know basic physics:
http://phys.org/n...rse.html

you plagiarize: http://phys.org/n...dio.html

that is just the tip, benni
all proved by your own words - not debatable, even by you

like eggy, you're a pretender seeking any attention you can get for whatever reasons
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
4 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2018
It is now of the utmost certainty that Captain Stinky Stumpy is batshit crazy and is now in a panic that he is being outed as an Information Vampire of both scientific knowledge and personal information from unwary commenters. (...)


....but beyond this, there is an underlying reason that someone wants to be tagged with a name like "Stumpy", and then to add "Captain" to that?

"Captain Stumpy" is a profiling allusion stemming from HIS unchangeable anatomy that makes him feel inadequate in gaining the respect of others around him, it's an identity feature about him that he simply resents but has learned to accept, thus adopting the profile he feels others have of him thus resulting in his persistent anger management rantings you read here......Right Stubbo?
says Benni

Perhaps you are correct. Captain Stinky could be suffering from a myriad of physical infirmities, as well as mind-affecting psychiatric issues. He is a very deeply mentally-disturbed individual.
dfjohnsonphd
4 / 5 (2) Aug 03, 2018
@Surveillance_Egg_Unit, that was a very good overview of a definition for life on our planet,

I can only add that these features of life can be certainly verified by reproducible experimental evidence, evidence which unequivocally provides proof of this definition. I would prefer a more flowing narrative approach over the point-by-point aspects you shared with us, but what you have posted pretty much says it all.

I didn't know you had it in you!

Cheers.....

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
4 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2018
-CONTINUED-
@Benni
Captain Stinky Stumpy has also alluded, in at least one post which I read, that he is, in effect, a psychiatric patient and referenced his female psychiatrist....in a jocular vein. It is a good thing that Stinky recognises his need for psychiatric care. Otherwise, it could be possible for him to severely hurt someone or himself. Instead, he takes out his anger and frustrations on the commenters in physorg. The phys.org "terms of use" should also include that "psychiatric patients" should limit their posts to discussing and debating the SCIENCE article itself without making demands on other commenters.
Ad hominem attacks are used by Stinky to try and overwhelm his targets with ridiculous verbiage. It is best to ignore such stupidity.
I have to wonder how much money or goods Stinky is being paid to push the website "Universe Today" onto physorg commenters. He certainly links to UT a lot - too much to not be by design.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
4 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2018
LOL I see that Captain Stinky retains a file of links to physorg articles in which persons of his hatred and frustrations have commented, either casually or earnestly. As Captain Stinky produces only links to where he will insist that other commenters should go to reference what he THINKS is correct, it is probable that Stinky uses such links in Universe Today also, to impress upon people there of his self-recognition of his fantastic knowledge of all things Science.
Captain Stinky may one day write a book containing the wealth of all the knowledge that he fancies, but with none of the realities that he finds imperfect.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2018
@Surveillance_Egg_Unit, that was a very good overview of a definition for life on our planet,

I can only add that these features of life can be certainly verified by reproducible experimental evidence, evidence which unequivocally provides proof of this definition. I would prefer a more flowing narrative approach over the point-by-point aspects you shared with us, but what you have posted pretty much says it all.

I didn't know you had it in you!

Cheers.....

says dfjohnsonphd

The definitions of life are in many science sites, if not all. It is also found while doing a Search for the words Life Definition Science.
YOU have the knowledge of the chemical makeup of Life Forms of Earth, which is of far more importance than my attempt to find when and how it was that those chemicals were able to transform themselves into a single-celled Life Form without the ability to self-coordinate..an act or event that REQUIRES some form of intelligence - ingrained or spiritual.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2018
The Rules of Life are written in the Pristine Proton

When pristine protons appeared in the vacuum, each proton is governed by a set of strict rules in creating helium, lithium and through the elements
The elements themselves are governed by a second set of strict rules on how they chemically combine forming molecules

When planetary conditions are just right these atomic and chemical rules combine forming all the chemicals of life as the rules are written in those pristine protons

Which is why the Andromedians on planet Andromeda; in the Andromeda galaxy, being form from the exact same pristine protons are duplicate copies of earthlings 2 arms 10 fingers a head with 2 eyes a nose a mouth and ears, bipedal with knee caps and 2 feet with 10 toes

The dinosaurs still roam the earth with the same skeleton structure in alligators and crocodiles that we humans posses continuing though all the billions of years of these pre--written rules in pristine protons!

IwinUlose
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 03, 2018
to try and overwhelm his targets with ridiculous verbiage. It is best to ignore such stupidity.


There's only one person posting comments on this thread using 'ridiculous verbiage'. Well, two now that I see granville's post at the bottom.

*hint - 'ridiculous verbiage' requires constantly using '-CONTINUED-' to get around the 1,000 character limit.

Now, let's see four or five posts in a row to rebut.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2018
@ IwinUlose3

Your remarks are silly nonsense. Now get out of your mom's basement and do some yard work.
IwinUlose
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 03, 2018
Another case of projection or just hurt feelings?

:)
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Aug 03, 2018
It is now of the utmost certainty that Captain Stinky Stumpy is batshit crazy


beyond this, there is an underlying reason that someone wants to be tagged with a name like "Stumpy", and then to add "Captain" to that?

"Captain Stumpy" is a profiling allusion stemming from HIS unchangeable anatomy that makes him feel inadequate in gaining the respect of others around him, it's an identity feature about him that he simply resents but has learned to accept, thus adopting the profile he feels others have of him thus resulting in his persistent anger management rantings you read here....Right Stubbo?


Perhaps you are correct. Captain Stinky could be suffering from a myriad of physical infirmities, as well as mind-affecting psychiatric issues. He is a very deeply mentally-disturbed individual


I've had him on Ignore for a long time, but "King Stub" would be another good moniker for him, he'd wear it proudly. He's been married multiple times, I wonder why?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2018
The Rules of Life are written in the Pristine Proton

When pristine protons appeared in the vacuum, each proton is governed by a set of strict rules in creating helium, lithium and through the elements
The elements themselves are governed by a second set of strict rules on how they chemically combine forming molecules

When planetary conditions(...)

Which is why the Andromedians on planet Andromeda; in the Andromeda galaxy, being form from the exact same pristine protons are duplicate copies of earthlings 2 arms 10 fingers a head with 2 eyes a nose a mouth and ears, bipedal with knee caps and 2 feet with 10 toes

The dinosaurs still roam the earth with the same skeleton structure in alligators and crocodiles that we humans posses continuing though all the billions of years of these pre--written rules in pristine protons!

says granville

Funny way of putting it. Are you sure that there are Andromedians living on Andromeda? Think it over more carefully, ok?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 03, 2018
It is now of the utmost certainty that Captain Stinky Stumpy is batshit crazy


beyond this, there is an underlying reason that someone wants to be tagged with a name like "Stumpy", and then to add "Captain" to that?

"Captain Stumpy" is a profiling allusion stemming from HIS unchangeable anatomy that makes him feel inadequate in gaining the respect of others around him(...)


Perhaps you are correct. Captain Stinky could be suffering from a myriad of physical infirmities, as well as mind-affecting psychiatric issues. He is a very deeply mentally-disturbed individual


I have thought of putting the dullard on ignore also, but my curiosity gets the better of me. Multiple marriages often indicate that the wives are sexually unfulfilled by the husband. Perhaps Stinky's appendage is inadequate...(can't get it up), thus requiring psychiatric help to find out why it is that he is unable to perform adequately when indulging in sex.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 03, 2018
Re: "Multiple marriages often indicate that the wives are sexually unfulfilled by the husband. Perhaps Stinky's appendage is inadequate...(can't get it up), thus requiring psychiatric help to find out why it is that he is unable to perform adequately when indulging in sex."
...with Captain Stinky's wives, that is.

There is also the possibility that Captain Stinky was sexually or otherwise abused as a child - his father having been in the military (so he says). It is well known in psychiatric circles that abused children, especially those who were sexually abused, are more prone to abusing others as an adult. Or else they go into chatrooms where they maintain a certain amount of anonymity while pretending to be open about their own lives.
Captain Stinky exhibits the classic case of having been an abused child, which is the reason why he is so full of invective to strangers in a science website.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2018
@Benni
Additionally, I have noticed that Captain Stinky seems too lazy to search the internet in order that he may find verifiable evidence of another commenter's idea, opinion, theory. So he wants everyone else to do his homework, rather than doing it himself. He may have copied other student's homework and test papers in high school also and barely got enough of a GPA to attend Harvard or Princeton or....
Instead, he says that he went into the military, then somehow he became a firefighter in later years.
And now he spends a lot of time in physorg as an INFORMATION VAMPIRE, attempting to steal the scientific knowledge of others to claim for his own.
Thoroughly disgusting, Captain Stinky is.

LOL I love reading old physorg articles and comments. One learns a lot from them.
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Aug 03, 2018
Re: "Multiple marriages often indicate that the wives are sexually unfulfilled by the husband.


Earlier this year I just happened to click on a post he'd made here about his "ex-wives", so it's evident he has trouble creating stable relationships with women. I seem to recall in that same post he referred to his last ex-wife as his third. Maybe he'd be willing to clarify the details? If he does, I won't be reading them, but if he does & you spot the Comment, let us know what he said.
Captain Stumpy
2 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2018
doxxed some trolls, and what happens?
projection
https://en.wikipe...ojection
Multiple marriages often indicate that the wives are sexually unfulfilled
was sexually or otherwise abused as a child
abused children, especially those who were sexually abused, are more prone to abusing others as an adult
Or else they go into chatrooms where they maintain a certain amount of anonymity while pretending to be open about their own lives
which is the reason why he is so full of invective to strangers in a science website
He's been married multiple times, I wonder why?
"King Stub"
suffering from a myriad of physical infirmities, as well as mind-affecting psychiatric issues. He is a very deeply mentally-disturbed individual
at least now we know why benji and eggy et al are the way they are - thanks for the details

considering your admissions of abuse, multiple marriages etc, yall need professional counseling
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Aug 03, 2018
The Rules of Life are written in the Pristine Protons inhabiting the vacuum
granvill583726> When pristine protons appeared in the vacuum, each proton is governed by a set of strict rules in creating helium, lithium and through the elements
The elements themselves are governed by a second set of strict rules on how they chemically combine forming molecules

Surveillance_Egg_Unit> Funny way of putting it. Are you sure that there are Andromedians living on Andromeda? Think it over more carefully, ok?

- Well to be 100% certain, no one can be. For want of what the multitude of Andromedians living on their planets throughout Andromeda (Andromeda galaxy) with the billions of planets of planetary life it is meant as a universal descriptive to drive home the point we are not alone as it is only distance and the snail pace of light that eternally separates us in the vacuum, Surveillance_Egg_Unit. -
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (2) Aug 03, 2018
The Rules of Life are written in the Pristine Protons inhabiting the vacuum
granvill583726> When pristine protons appeared in the vacuum, each proton is governed by a set of strict rules in creating helium, lithium and through the elements
The elements themselves are governed by a second set of strict rules on how they chemically combine forming molecules

Surveillance_Egg_Unit> Funny way of putting it. Are you sure that there are Andromedians living on Andromeda? Think it over more carefully, ok?

- Well to be 100% certain, no one can be. For want of what the multitude of Andromedians living on their planets throughout Andromeda (Andromeda galaxy) with the billions of planets of planetary life it is meant as a universal descriptive to drive home the point we are not alone as it is only distance and the snail pace of light that eternally separates us in the vacuum, Surveillance_Egg_Unit. -
says grand

I understand.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (2) Aug 03, 2018
@ granville
Life Forms may be plentiful in all of the Universe. It would not be surprising since we are here, and the odds are that they are there also, wherever "there" might be. I honestly like the idea that 'we are not alone', and yes, I know for a fact that we are NOT alone. ET arrived on our planet millennia ago and they are benevolent and helpful. Goodness and kindness are their natural traits/characteristics.
There are also the "others" who are NOT benevolent at all. Sometimes, the others make war, such as Aerial Combat on the ones who came here first. Sometimes humans get caught up in those conflicts and die.
They are called by many names and they avoid advertising their presence to humans. But some of us are aware of their presence and get along with them just fine.
Some of us have certain "abilities" that even we don't fully understand. But we enjoy what most other humans are not born with and know nothing about.
I never reveal to anyone the full scope of our abilities
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2018
I found this YouTube with Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Very enjoyable:

https://www.youtu...HPAXwJFw
granville583762
3 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2018
A video for all those in denial of Galactic Planetary Life in the Vacuum
Surveillance_Egg_Unit:- It became obvious when everyone started discussing the apparent lack of rules governing life and that it was just chance – it is not chance -
The Rules of Life are written in the Pristine Protons inhabiting the vacuum
Disregarding where matter came from - once created - The rules governing pristine protons from the first hydrogen to the first cellular form of life are governed by same rules in how quarks form pristine protons to the rules that govern how our cells combine inside us
You might ask Surveillance_Egg_Unit, where these rules came to be - this is exactly the same question as to where the matter came to be, to create the first quark, as matter is universal in the vacuum the rules governing how matter was ultimately created in the vacuum, are the same rules throughout the vacuum.
All rules are universal in the vacuum!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2018
@granville
Dr, Tyson's talk mainly concerned the existing three dimensionality we are all aware of, plus a possibility of a 4th dimension in which objects within the 3rd dimension could disappear into that 4th dimension - literally disappearing. And perhaps that 4th dimension could be home to an entity - a possible 4th dimensional Life Form who has the capability of interacting with, and reaching into a 3rd dimensional world/Universe. As a Scientist, Dr. Tyson must weigh ALL possibilities.
We only are aware of 3 dimensions in our human existence - Time not being considered as a dimension - so that in the human mind, a 4th dimension is unseeable and unknowable due to its not being of a material nature. And most humans are only concerned about the material world/Universe, after all is said and done.

I agree with your theory that the rules governing the quantum universe also govern the macro Universe in which we live, and of which we are slowly becoming more aware.
-CONTINUED-
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2018
From the smallest particle that pops in and out of the Quantum Universe - to the largest Stars in our Universe - the same rules apply. Where do the smallest pop into and out of? Perhaps it is yet another Universe where those that are the smallest in OUR Universe become the largest in that one. If so, then there need to be a yet smaller Quantum Universe with yet smaller Quarks, atoms, Protons, Neutrons, electrons, etc. The same situation would flow the other way. OUR Universe is quantum within a larger Universe which would need to be a 4th Dimension - a step up from our own.
Infinity and Eternity is not finite, after all.

Matter/Energy in our Universe is irreplaceable. And yet, Dr. Tyson in his talk mentions the possibility that an entity in the FOURTH dimension could reach down and pluck a material object from our Universe (where it would have disappeared from) and into the entity's 4th dimensional home.

You have to admit that the possibility is intriguing and valid.
IwinUlose
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2018
It's also strikingly similar to the story 'Flatland'

https://en.wikipe...Flatland
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2018
-CONTINUED-
@granville
Life as we know it is a result of Matter/Energy arranging and rearranging itself into a well-coordinated mass of chemicals that have settled into the correct environment, and into the correct quantity and configuration, all things considered. The next thing that is required is a source of strong Energy that will catalyse the process of transforming those chemicals into a viable Life Form - a single-celled ancestor and progenitor of all generations far into the future.

"Surveillance_Egg_Unit:- It became obvious when everyone started discussing the apparent lack of rules governing life and that it was just chance – it is not chance -" say granville

The pseudoscientists say it was random/chance that Life began, and that it could have happened anywhere, all because the Sun was shining all over the Earth. But if so, then Life would have formed from chemicals all over the world, not in just that one place. Where are they?

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2018
"Flatland"

Social elements
Men are portrayed as polygons whose social status is determined by their regularity and the number of their sides, with a Circle considered the "perfect" shape. On the other hand, women consist only of lines and are required by law to sound a "peace-cry" as they walk, lest they be mistaken face-to-face for a point. The Square evinces accounts of cases where women have accidentally or deliberately stabbed men to death, as evidence of the need for separate doors for women and men in buildings.

In the world of Flatland, classes are distinguished by the "Art of Hearing", the "Art of Feeling", and the "Art of Sight Recognition". Classes can be distinguished by the sound of one's voice, but the lower classes have more developed vocal organs, enabling them to feign the voice of a Polygon or even a Circle. Feeling, practised by the lower classes and women, determines the configuration of a person by feeling one of its angles. The "Art of Sight Recognition",
IwinUlose
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2018
Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions is a satirical novella by the English schoolmaster Edwin Abbott Abbott, first published in 1884 by Seeley & Co. of London.

Written pseudonymously by "A Square",[1] the book used the fictional two-dimensional world of Flatland to comment on the hierarchy of Victorian culture, ***but the novella's more enduring contribution is its examination of dimensions.[2]***
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2018
Unfortunately, exceeding 1000 characters results in cutoffs.
"Flatland" is a study in geometrical fiction. Entertaining, but still fiction.
IwinUlose
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2018
"Flatland" is a study in geometrical fiction. Entertaining, but still fiction.


If you actually knew what it was, by having read the book or even having seen the movie, you would have noticed the similarity. Remember the part where A Square cannot perceive A Sphere's dimensions due to..
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2018
While watching Dr. Tyson's video, I thought of the description of a "tesseract", and a few seconds later, he mentioned tesseract. I had read the fictional story, "The Tesseract House" and was intrigued by the concept. Bur in our 3 dimensional world, a tesseract house is not possible.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2018
Similarity is not actuality. Dr. Tyson was describing several dimensions and how they interact with each other - line drawings as one dimensional; a square as 2 dimensions; and 3 dimensions as height, width and depth. Those are all basic models of geometry.
But we live within 3 dimensions and the other 2 are within the realm of Art, Engineering, distance.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2018
"Flatland" is a study in geometrical fiction. Entertaining, but still fiction.


If you actually knew what it was, by having read the book or even having seen the movie, you would have noticed the similarity. Remember the part where A Square cannot perceive A Sphere's dimensions due to..


"Flatland" is a study in geometrical fiction. Entertaining, but still fiction.


If you actually knew what it was, by having read the book or even having seen the movie, you would have noticed the similarity. Remember the part where A Square cannot perceive A Sphere's dimensions due to..
says IloseUwin

No I did not see the movie nor did I read the "book". Talking geometrical forms is more similar to comic book reads.

A Square not being able to see and acknowledge the existence of A Sphere until the Sphere reveals itself to the Square - smacks of a religious experience. Think about that.
IwinUlose
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2018
Similarity is not actuality. Dr. Tyson was describing several dimensions and how they interact with each other - line drawings as one dimensional; a square as 2 dimensions; and 3 dimensions as height, width and depth. Those are all basic models of geometry.


This actually sounds strikingly similar to a story called 'Flatland' -

You could read it here for free:
http://www.geom.u...latland/

or watch it for free here:
https://www.youtu...Nrm4VK2w

But we live within 3 dimensions and the other 2 are within the realm of Art, Engineering, distance.


Ok...
IwinUlose
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2018
A Square not being able to see and acknowledge the existence of A Sphere until the Sphere reveals itself to the Square - smacks of a religious experience. Think about that.


You should really read or watch it.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2018
A Square not being able to see and acknowledge the existence of A Sphere until the Sphere reveals itself to the Square - smacks of a religious experience. Think about that.


You should really read or watch it.
says IloseUwin

I have read the Wiki version and that is sufficient. I am not into reading comic book fiction. And your "Flatland" has nothing to do with reality. Thanks anyway.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.