Life could be abundant in the Universe

NoNukes writes: I once heard that the human body contains only a teaspoon of actual matter (atoms). The movement of atoms create a larger volume than the individual elements provide. This is the point I am making. Steam is less dense than water which is less dense than ice. The same content is in each and yet their density is dependant on how tightly packed the molecules are.

Does ice float?Think before posting.

Catholic Scientist writes: Determining we only perceive a limited range of sight and sound does mean that it is plausible that we are limited in other areas of perception. It is foolhardy (and unscientific) to assume we don't and not investigate the possibility. Our instruments to determine density spectra are quite likely to be limited to the density spectrum they are constructed in and will likely only perceive within that spectrum. The difference with perceiving the spectra of sound and sight is that there is a wide spectra of both on Earth (of which humans only perceive a limited range). I am proposing that life exists on other planets in different density spectra, that we can never perceive.To make myself better understood I will use an example of scale: A cell on my leg may have a perception of me (I am anthropomorphising) but certainly cannot perceive nor likely conceive of the world I inhabit, nor the level of complexity and movement. Even greater it could never conceive of the universe beyond me. We are limiting ourselves if we think everything we see is all there is.The astronomers who discovered dark matter and dark energy did not do so by perception but through deduction. It was the movement of galaxies (the fact that they didn't break apart when spinning at such vast speeds) that led astronomers to propose a limiting factor/energy that restricted the breaking up of galaxies. It is wrong to believe we must perceive something in order for us to believe in it. If that is the case then most of evolutionary science is made null and void.

jar writes: Good point! My example is lacking, did you nonetheless understand what I was saying?

No, I don't understand your point, if there is one.

jar writes: Pixels on a computer screen only form an image if they are close enough to be perceived as one entity, otherwise they are simply a bunch of dots. The more dense the pixels the more obvious the image. The less dense the image the more likely we do not perceive it.

You imagine a teaspoon full of atoms moving around to occupy your volume? But somehow, the composition of your hair, for example does not change?

Giving Vanessa the benefit of the doubt, I imagine she means on an atom-by-atom basis.
Not in a "My body is a bag of electrons and neutrons which whirl around like bees in a sack" way.Instead, what I think she has done is got completely confused about what an atom is.
Perhaps she meant electrons and neutrons? Who knows.Either way, any sentence that starts with "I once heard..." is going to be lacking any real knowledge of the subject.

This does not pose a problem for detecting life. We could use plankton as an example. We can not see these lifeforms with the naked eye. They are the diffuse dots you speak, and dots that are too small to see with the naked eye. However, we can still detect that there is life by the oxygen that they produce and the carbohydrates found in layers on the bottom of the ocean. Again, it is metabolism that gives life away. It is the chemistry of life that makes it detectable.So we have organisms we can't see with the naked eye who produce a gas that does not absorb in the light frequencies that our eyes detect, YET WE ARE STILL ABLE TO DETECT THIS LIFE.

Yup, as I thought, no point.Think things through.Can we see amoebas?

Like others, I'm having some trouble understanding what you mean by "density spectra." The closest I can gather is that you're suggesting that we may not be able to see the forest because we're only looking at the trees, but I don't think that's quite it.Your cell analogy suggests that you're really talking about a difference of scale, but we readily observe and are quite capable of comprehending scales that range from the subatomic to the scale of galactic clusters, even if we haven't completed our examination and investigation of either. So I don;t think that's quite what you mean, either.The final thought that occurs to me is that you're really trying to describe something akin to the more popular idea of "higher planes of existence," where there may be "other dimensions" that we cannot yet perceive and yet which could contain other life that what we know. Something akin to the idea that all entities have a specific "vibration," and are only perceptible or capable of interacting directly with other entities of a compatible "vibration," leaving large stretches of a much larger Universe nearly imperceptible to human beings. Is this something akin to what you're actually trying to suggest? This brings two primary questions:1) How do you think you know what you think you know?For example, I know that there is a 20oz bottle of Coca-Cola on my desk. I know this because I directly observe it; I see it even in my peripheral vision as I type this sentence. My knowledge is gained through direct sensory input, as opposed to "just knowing." Because of this, any passing observer can also gain knowledge of my bottle of soda; where if I "just knew" that it was there, I may have knowledge that does not actually correspond to a real soda bottle in reality.By what mechanism did the possibility of life existing in "different density spectra" occur to you? Did you gain knowledge through the use of your senses, aided or unaided by technological equipment? Was the knowledge imparted to you by another individual? Is it simply an idea you had?The reason this is relevant is simple: ideas are all well and good, but ideas that result from a careful examination of evidence that can be repeatedly and independently tested by any number of other individuals regardless of whether they currently believe a given hypothesis is always going to be far more likely to actually reflect reality than ideas that simply come from within the mind.2) Assuming or the sake of argument that life does exist in a "different density spectrum," how would we be able to tell?Imagine that some alternate-density life exists in a garage somewhere on your home street. What tests can we perform to determine which garage contains this life, and which do not?

Rahvin writes: Those terms smack of New Age explanations, which always seem too obscure to get a grip on. I do not mean to be obscure. I thought 'density spectrum' would be self-explanatory - the more dense something is, the more impenetrable it is. The less dense it is, the more ethereal it becomes. In comparison to Earth, Venus has a dense atmosphere, whereas the atmosphere of Mars is less dense than the Earth.I think the problem is, as you say further in your post: This is where I am not been clear. In the mid-1980s, in the Far East, I learned a completely different explanation for evolution - no meteor strikes, cosmic collisions or mutations in sight. It was a fascinating and clever theory, with supporting evidence and argument. More importantly it made predictions, which at the time seemed far-fetched and now are proving true. It's time I put the explanation forward.

And so your proposal includes forms of life that are so diffuse that we cannot detect them - ethereal life, in other words. Spirits and ghosts, essentially, but with a rationalization (supremely low density) for why we cannot detect them via conventional means?It's extremely similar to the "vibration" hypothesis in what it attempts to do (explaining the lack of detection of certain entities), differing mainly in the specific mechanism.Aside from the sense of distaste, what separates your hypothesis of differing density from the hypothesis of varying vibration? Is there some additional evidence-based argument that makes "density spectrum" life more likely to actually exist than life "vibrating at a different frequency?" Is there good reason to believe that one, both, or neither might accurately reflect some part of reality? While I;d very much like to see that hypothesis, for the sake of accuracy a few points should be mentioned.Meteor strikes have nothing to do with evolution, save when a sufficiently large strike has altered the environment such that the previously active selective pressures acting on extant populations were significantly changed. That's rather more specific to history than to the actual Theory of Evolution. Evolution only requires that populations of life forms exist, that they reproduce and imperfectly pass heritable traits to their offspring, and that resources necessary for life are limited. Beyond those factors, evolution is inevitable. Meteor strikes are incidental, just as any other natural disaster.Cosmic collisions are even less relevant, as beyond meteorite impacts there have been no cosmic collisions with the Earth since life formed. The Moon was likely formed via a cosmic collision, but that impact would have killed off any and all life that may have existed previously. Certainly, cosmic collisions are not at all a prerequisite of either life or evolution.Mutation, finally, is an observable event. We can see it happen, proven beyond any reasonable doubt, any time we like. The most obvious example would be bacterial colonies beginning with a single bacterium. Since there is only one in the beginning and bacteria reproduce by simply dividing with no input of additional genetic material, it's very easy to test to see if mutations actually occur - simply allow a large colony to form from a single progenitor,a nd then test a few of the billions of resulting offspring. If mutations do not occur, then all of the offspring should be genetically identical to the original parent and each other. If mutations do occur, then the offspring should have some small (but potentially significant) differences. As those are the only two options when using a sealed petri dish in a sterile environment using only nutrients and a singe bacterium, the results are as conclusive as any experimental result can possibly be. And, of course, this experiment has been performed a multitude of times, and mutations do in fact occur. Regardless of whether or not your alternative hypothesis requires mutation, mutation does in fact happen. We know this with at least as much certainty as we know that gravity will cause a thrown ball to fall back to the Earth, or that opposite magnetic charges will attract each other.

Rahvin writes: I will post it.

Hi Vanessa, May I suggest a new thread for that, or discussion of it will likely take over this thread (unless that is what you want)Enjoy.