Of course. Just looking at all the places that life not only exists but thrives, places that humans would be killed, proves that life can exist in even the harshest conditions.
Also it's the height of human arrogance to believe that in the incredible vastness of the universe, among billions of stars and billions of planets, that we just happen to be on the ONLY place that's capable of supporting life.
==========================================
The thermodynamic theory of molecular assembly and the power laws that constrain and direct evolution all seems to suggests that life is actually hardwired in the physical laws of the universe. If so, why then is life not ubiquitously found in the universe? The fact that complex life is a finely balanced emergent construct and the extremely dangerous nature of the universe may be part of the reason why this is so. The existence of entire ecosystems of complex lifeforms on Earth therefore, should be viewed as an anomaly and space research so far seems to suggest this. Therefore we should all be thankful that we are able to enjoy the miracle that is Life and do our very best to preserve it.
So far, only Earth is known for certain to have life, although it may be present elsewhere in our solar system such as the liquid subsurface oceans believed to exist on moons like Enceladus, Europa, and Titan. It is almost certain some kind of life exists on Earth-like exoplanets - almost 40 billion of which are thought to be in our galaxy alone.
Probably, but currently none is confirmed. We estimate that billions of planets orbiting in the habitable zones of their stars in our galaxy alone, but we currently have no direct evidence of life anywhere but on Earth.
The theoretical physicist Paul Davies calculated that the chances of life existing are the same as aiming a laser from earth and hitting a 1 centimetre square at the farther corner of the universe; pretty slim to say the least. No other physicist has disagreed There are so many reasons why life on earth should not exist that it's almost miraculous that it does. So, the chances of life on other planets is slim - but not impossible because we exist.
A link to Davies' calculations would be extremely useful. Calculations of this type of necessity require a great deal of assumptions to be made on the basis of very little data, and news blurb summaries of them tend to be made by people who understand neither the assumptions nor the conclusion and often fail to fully comprehend what the question actually was to begin with.
That this is the case here seems particularly likely given that Davies is the chair of a SETI (that stands for "Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence") taskgroup. It would be rather like someone who calculates orbits for geostationary satellites being head of the Flat Earth Society.
no because it is very unlike for life to adopt to the other worldy habitit of other planets
This is a controversial area, but most astronomers now think life is probable in other parts of the universe, because the universe is so large.
Anything is possible ! Even from an early age - I refused to believe this is theonlyplanet in the entire universe that has life on it. The trouble is - scientists are obsessed with searching for 'carbon-based lifeforms' - when they should be looking for signs ofanyintelligent life, not necessarily carbon-based !
Microbial life? possibly. Intelligent life? I highly doubt it.
A persons hopes or beliefs cannot support the hypothesis that there is life on other planets. Only evidence and observable facts can support a hypothesis.
Yes I do because how can we be the only living planet in the universe. There has got to be another planet that has life on it.
There are no confirmed life forms on other planets. However, the possibility of life on other planets is very real. The number of stars with terrestrial planets in the Habitable Zone in our galaxy alone is immense. Given that number, up to 50 billion, multiplied by the possibility of millions of millions of galaxies makes it remarkably probable that life exists somewhere else.
Kepler is not a planet; it is a telescope used to find planets in other solar systems. Planets discovered by it are given names beginning with Kepler, such as Kepler-22b.
At the moment, there are too many variables, with too wide a margin of error to make a truly reasonable estimate. Too many factors (such as the number of planets and stars, number of planets able to support life, their vicinity to stars etc) are unknown, however a scientist has developed a formula to calculate the probability of life on other planets once these other factors have been satisfactorily settled. That and the fact that life here on earth happened , due to a long line of specific circumstances, and accidents, this makes the chances smaller than the present theories floating around.
"Jovian" planets are named after our Solar System's premiere gas giant, Jupiter. "Jove" is another name for the old Roman god "Jupiter" after which the planet was named.
They are categorized as "dwarf planets" now, leaving only 8 regular planets in our solar system. The names of all the dwarf planets are:CeresPlutoHaumeaMakemakeEris
It is not currently known. It seems very likely, given the huge amount of stars/planets in the Universe. (There are roughly 1011 galaxies in the observable Universe, with an average of 1011 stars per galaxy; it is now believed that most stars have planets.)
a hypothesis is given to explain a phenomena which has not been explained till then. it can be supported by an experiment if that experiment gets the other results regarding that particular phenomena in agreement with that being predicted by the hypothesis and if any contradictory fact arises or the result doesnt match the prediction then the hypothesis is again thought upon or totally discarded at times
As we have yet to determine the characteristics of every planet in the Universe, or even small details like inclination, the answer is, at the moment, no. However, given the amount of possible planets in the Universe - upwards of 10 sextillion, the chances are VERY high. Guess it would depend on what degree of accuracy you require.
Working from the list given in the question ... -- The Earth is closest of all items on the list. -- The Moon is next. -- Three of the solar system's planets are next, then the sun, then the rest of the planets. -- The galaxy of which our solar system is a part is next, followed by all other galaxies. -- The universe is defined as "everything ... all space and all time", so parts of the universe are the nearest, middlest, and farthest things from us, and from anything else.
Gravity exists throughout the universe, so the answer is yes. The strength of the gravitational field of any given body will depend upon the size, and density of the body
Currently, we don't know. So far we have never found any direct evidence of life beyond Earth. But, given the incomprehensibly large number of planets in the universe, many people think there probably is life elsewhere.
Another word for 'hypothesis' is an educated guess, which is essentially what a hypothesis is. It is a guess taked from what you assume will happen, given your current knowlege.
Given a conditional statement of the form:If "hypothesis" then "conclusion",the inverse is:If "not hypothesis" then "not conclusion".
No life has been discovered on other planets yet. However, given the huge amount of planets in the Universe, and the fact that hardly any planet has been thoroughly investigated, it's quite possible that life does exist.
that portion of the universe that we can see in principle, given the finite age of the universe
We have two types of hypothesis i.e., Null Hypothesis and Alternative Hypothesis. we take null hypothesis as the same statement given in the problem. Alternative hypothesis is the statement that is complementary to null hypothesis. When our calculated value is less than the tabulated value, we accept null hypothesis otherwise we reject null hypothesis.
No. The null hypothesis is assumed to be correct unless there is sufficient evidence from the sample and the given criteria (significance level) to reject it.