Do you believe in UFO?

[DrSmellThis]

Ah, well first off, I agree

with you, but had considered something like that to be from another dimension. You know, since the giant planet

crystal minds would have to construct ships somehow.

So no argument about the possibilities there.

But I

sort of assumed beings basically from this dimension that are observed in this dimension interacting with it. Is

it far fetched that creatures that construct spacecraft in this same dimension would be similar?

We don't have

to assme that if you don't want to.

If not, I can't think where we disagree. If we do have to assume that,

then I'd have to ask about some of these "extreme condition creatures" that definitely exist: Could they construct

a space shuttle? Why not?

[belgareth]

You know, that crystal mind was

purely imaginary. I never considered what universe it would be in. That would have been a fun argument to bring up.

It was always assumed to be in this universe, one of those one in ten billion chances.

My imaginary planet was

designed in a particular way. There's no chance of fire there but plenty of other energy that could be used to

manipulate matter. The heavier gravity would make space travel or even flight more difficult because it would take

far more energy to escape the gravity well. You wouldn't even know about combustion so developing rocket motors

would be impractical to improbable. Would a creature like that jumpover the whole phase and develop nuclear power or

would they be stuck in an evolutionary cul de sac?

Would such a creature be able to develop space craft? I've

no idea whatsoever. Overall, it's a fun excersize with absolutely no value other than a little mental gymnastics

for entertainment. The whole thing is far outside of my education so I am just playing and realize I don't know a

thing.

[belgareth]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/200708...<br /> <br />

Ker

Than
SPACE.com staff
SPACE.com
Tue Aug 14, 2007


Electrically charged specks of interstellar dust organize into DNA-like double helixes and display properties

normally attributed to living systems, such as evolving and reproducing, new computer simulations

show.

But scientists are

hesitant to call the dancing dust particles "alive," and instead say they are just another example of how difficult

it is to define life.

Plasma life

The

computer model, detailed in the Aug. 14 issue of the New Journal of Physics, shows what happens to microscopic dust

particles when they are injected into plasma.



Plasma is the fourth state of matter along with solids, liquids and

gases. While unfamiliar to most people, plasma is the most common phase of matter in the universe. It's everywhere:

Stars are luminous balls of plasma, and diffuse plasma pervades the space between stars. Plasma forms when gas

becomes so hot that electrons are stripped from atomic nuclei, leaving behind a soup of charged

particles.

Past studies

on Earth have shown that if enough particles are injected into a low-temperature plasma, they will spontaneously

organize into crystal-like structures.



The new computer simulations suggest that in the gravity-free

environment of space, the plasma particles will bead together to form string-like filaments that then twist into

corkscrew shapes. The helical strands resemble DNA and are themselves electrically charged and attracted to one

another.

The

computer-modeled plasma particles can also divide to form two copies of the original structure and even "evolve"

into more stable structures that are better able to survive in the plasma.

"These complex, self-organized plasma structures

exhibit all the necessary properties to qualify them as candidates for inorganic living matter," said study team

member V.N. Tsytovich of the Russian Academy of Science.



Is it alive?



Nevertheless, Tsytovich's colleague and study team member, Gregor

Morfill of the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany, is hesitant to call the

plasma particles alive.

"Maybe it's a question of upbringing," Morfill said in a telephone interview. "I would hesitate to call it

life. The reason why we published this paper is not because we wanted to suggest this could evolve into life, but

because we wanted to start the discussion ... once more of what exactly do we mean by

life."

Seth Shostak, a

senior astronomer at the SETI Institute in Mountain View, California, also was cautious in calling the particles

alive. "The facts are, we still don't have a good definition of what 'life' is," Shostak told

SPACE.com.

Shostak

points out that while most high-school biology textbooks include as requirements for life the ability to metabolize

and reproduce, it's easy to think of things that break these rules. Fire, for example, reproduces and metabolizes,

but most people would not say it is alive; and mules, which are clearly alive, can't

reproduce.

"We still

stumble on what it means to be alive, and that means that these complex molecules are in a never-never land between

the living and the merely reacting," Shostak added.



If the particles were considered alive though, Shostak said, it would

completely overturn another common assumption about life.



"We've always assumed that life was a planetary phenomenon. Only on

planets would you have the liquids thought necessary for the chemistry of life," he said. "So if you could have life

in the hot gases of a star, or in the hot, interstellar gas that suffuses the space between the stars, well, not

only would that be 'life as we don't know it' but it might be the most common type of

life."

[gaf]

Just thought I'd throw this out

there...

A few years ago I worked on an interview with Glenn Dennis at the UFO museum in Roswell , interesting

and regardless of weather you belive or not you can find out more information on him and his experiences here.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Dennis
(he was a junior mortician at the time and claims to have

provided caskets for the crashed aliens , although the story he told us was different from the "official" one)