Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Aliens: Yes Or No?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 9081866" data-attributes="member: 177"><p>Yep.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Eh. Not quite?</p><p></p><p>In the basic eternal inflation scenario, there is one, continuous universe. There are no walls or discontinuities. It is one physical thing. Each observer in it has a perspective of an observable universe, but that's a matter of perspective, not a boundary within the reality. </p><p></p><p>To say this is a multiverse would be to say that North America is a "multicontinent" just because a guy in Los Angeles and a guy in New York don't have line of sight on each other. It is a sort of "weak-multiverse", where the limits are your perception - an <em>observable</em> universe.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Wired and Science Daily are popular science publications. See how each of those titles are questions, rather than assertions? That's not something that should be done when reporting actual science results - these are <em>speculative</em> articles, meant to titillate.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Nature is a far better source. And, we can look at the abstract/introduction here for a clue:</p><p></p><p><em>"...While it may have been possible to generate amino acids on the early Earth, only extraterrestrial sources have been found to contain abiotically synthesised </em>(sp)<em> amino acids with enantiomeric excesses of L-amino acids. As such, an extraterrestrial origin for at least some of the building blocks of life has been proposed."</em></p><p></p><p>In a big way, this is saying, "At the point the petri dish was found, it was covered in biological life, such that we cannot tell if a particular chemical on the dish came from a biological process, a local chemical process, or came from outside the dish. So, it has been suggested that it came from outside the dish." </p><p></p><p>The relevant scientific aphorism is, "lack of evidence is not evidence of lack." That you can't find abiological sources today does not mean those sources did not exist before biology. </p><p></p><p>Moreover, the Nature paper <em>doesn't actually take a position</em> on the matter. They are speaking of the formation of amino acids on meteorites. That they could be relevant to the origin of life on the planet is presented as a reason why the research might be interesting, but not actually the point. And, specifically, Nature is talking about <em>abiological</em> creation of amino acids on meteorites. There is <em>zero</em> implication in the article that the origin is from prior life outside the solar system. </p><p></p><p>When Nature mentions it, they refer to another article, from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS). And that's also a good source. But that article is about a model, not about physical evidence one way or another.</p><p></p><p>That article notes that the majority of the impacts that would have delivered amino acids to Earth would have happened 4.1+ Gigayears ago. The planet only <em>formed</em> 4.5 Gy ago. And at that point, you aren't really saying that the origin is "extraterrestrial" in the sense folks probably want it to mean. After all, in a very solid sense, the water on the planet is just as "extraterrestrial". Heck, the <em>ENTIRE PLANET</em> is extraterrestrial! The thing accreted from a nebula of gas and dust around the Sun, remember.</p><p></p><p>The more appropriate, thought less clickbaity, way to put the whole thing is that the origins of life may be part and parcel with the complex chemical dynamics of solar nebulae and the accretion and formation of planets, rather than solely due to chemical dynamics on the planet after formation. </p><p></p><p>And if you want to put it that more appropriate, less implication-laden way, then I'd find nothing worth arguing about in it. The phrasing implying that origin of life here is due to <em>life</em> elsewhere is the problem.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The point was that <em>abiologic</em> origin of amino acids seems like it could be common anywhere there are planets, and that life based on it could thus also be common - so if we find life elsewhere, our chemical underpinnings might be similar on that level, at least.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 9081866, member: 177"] Yep. Eh. Not quite? In the basic eternal inflation scenario, there is one, continuous universe. There are no walls or discontinuities. It is one physical thing. Each observer in it has a perspective of an observable universe, but that's a matter of perspective, not a boundary within the reality. To say this is a multiverse would be to say that North America is a "multicontinent" just because a guy in Los Angeles and a guy in New York don't have line of sight on each other. It is a sort of "weak-multiverse", where the limits are your perception - an [I]observable[/I] universe. Wired and Science Daily are popular science publications. See how each of those titles are questions, rather than assertions? That's not something that should be done when reporting actual science results - these are [I]speculative[/I] articles, meant to titillate. Nature is a far better source. And, we can look at the abstract/introduction here for a clue: [I]"...While it may have been possible to generate amino acids on the early Earth, only extraterrestrial sources have been found to contain abiotically synthesised [/I](sp)[I] amino acids with enantiomeric excesses of L-amino acids. As such, an extraterrestrial origin for at least some of the building blocks of life has been proposed."[/I] In a big way, this is saying, "At the point the petri dish was found, it was covered in biological life, such that we cannot tell if a particular chemical on the dish came from a biological process, a local chemical process, or came from outside the dish. So, it has been suggested that it came from outside the dish." The relevant scientific aphorism is, "lack of evidence is not evidence of lack." That you can't find abiological sources today does not mean those sources did not exist before biology. Moreover, the Nature paper [I]doesn't actually take a position[/I] on the matter. They are speaking of the formation of amino acids on meteorites. That they could be relevant to the origin of life on the planet is presented as a reason why the research might be interesting, but not actually the point. And, specifically, Nature is talking about [I]abiological[/I] creation of amino acids on meteorites. There is [I]zero[/I] implication in the article that the origin is from prior life outside the solar system. When Nature mentions it, they refer to another article, from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS). And that's also a good source. But that article is about a model, not about physical evidence one way or another. That article notes that the majority of the impacts that would have delivered amino acids to Earth would have happened 4.1+ Gigayears ago. The planet only [I]formed[/I] 4.5 Gy ago. And at that point, you aren't really saying that the origin is "extraterrestrial" in the sense folks probably want it to mean. After all, in a very solid sense, the water on the planet is just as "extraterrestrial". Heck, the [I]ENTIRE PLANET[/I] is extraterrestrial! The thing accreted from a nebula of gas and dust around the Sun, remember. The more appropriate, thought less clickbaity, way to put the whole thing is that the origins of life may be part and parcel with the complex chemical dynamics of solar nebulae and the accretion and formation of planets, rather than solely due to chemical dynamics on the planet after formation. And if you want to put it that more appropriate, less implication-laden way, then I'd find nothing worth arguing about in it. The phrasing implying that origin of life here is due to [I]life[/I] elsewhere is the problem. The point was that [I]abiologic[/I] origin of amino acids seems like it could be common anywhere there are planets, and that life based on it could thus also be common - so if we find life elsewhere, our chemical underpinnings might be similar on that level, at least. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Aliens: Yes Or No?
Top