Slashdot Mirror


First Organic Molecules Found on Alien World

Galactic_grub writes "The detection of planet HD 189733b is in some ways just another small victory for extra-solar planetary science. It is too hot for there to be anything 'alive'. Just the same, somewhere on the planet are trace amounts of the gas methane. The fact that the element was detected at all offers hope for understanding future discoveries of Earth-like worlds, says NewScientistSpace. Researchers from Caltech and University College London used the Hubble Space Telescope to peer at the planet and examined spectral signature of starlight filtered by the planet's atmosphere, to identify different chemicals. 'The authors suggest that some ill-understood chemical process might be responsible, either concentrating the methane in cooler parts of the atmosphere, or generating extra methane directly. Alternatively, the methane might simply mean that the planet happens to be very rich in carbon.'"

146 comments

  1. Yet another step closer to my goal by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    One day I'm gonna bang me a green chick.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Yet another step closer to my goal by radarsat1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      With that kind of mouth, it'll certainly happen before "you bang you" an earth girl.

    2. Re:Yet another step closer to my goal by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Funny

      Aren't we all going to be pissed if we finally find the green chicks one day and they're only interested in jocks and weightlifters?

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    3. Re:Yet another step closer to my goal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One day I'm gonna bang me a green chick. FTA:

      This combination of water and organic molecules would be a promising one for life if it were found in a less hostile spot than the atmosphere of a searing gas giant. I don't know. Would you still bang this green chick if she turned out to be a searing gas giant?
    4. Re:Yet another step closer to my goal by imikem · · Score: 1, Redundant

      There's no need to wait. St. Patrick's Day is approaching.

      --
      Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
    5. Re:Yet another step closer to my goal by kennylogins · · Score: 0, Informative

      Humor works good too, you should try it sometime.

    6. Re:Yet another step closer to my goal by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      searing gas giant
      I think I might have banged one of those in college after a keg party. My friends wouldn't look me in the eyes for a week.
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:Yet another step closer to my goal by JosKarith · · Score: 1

      "Would you still bang this green chick if she turned out to be a searing gas giant?" This is SlashDot - size and flatulence issues aren't going to put off most of the hyenas here.

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    8. Re:Yet another step closer to my goal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      "With that kind of mouth, it'll certainly happen before "you bang you" an earth girl."

      If you talked to your mom, you'd find out exactly how wrong you are.

      Son.

    9. Re:Yet another step closer to my goal by IdleTime · · Score: 1

      No, why?
      It would only result in me getting some green chicks... ;-)

      --
      If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
    10. Re:Yet another step closer to my goal by Forge · · Score: 1

      That's probably because:

      1. You did it in front of them (and a few cameras)

      2. You did it in such a way that the "gas" stuck to your face for a week.

      3. You violently resisted their efforts to stop you.

      Lucky for you, the videos have been censured by youtube for being too obscene, although there are several "reaction shots" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xos1v5A2p94

      --
      --= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
    11. Re:Yet another step closer to my goal by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Well technically I was jock/weightlifter in high school too (I was referred to as the smartest guy on the football team :)), but I didn't play past high school. I fenced a little in college, but gave that up a year and a half in. Now, 4 years after college graduation, I've let myself go. Somebody with a the eating habits of one who works out like that who stops working out goes bad pretty quick. I went from 185lbs of pretty toned muscle mass to now 245 lbs of, er, not so toned stuff now. I want to join a gym and get into lifting again, but I keep putting it off :(.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    12. Re:Yet another step closer to my goal by robbiedo · · Score: 1

      Not an athlete in high school. Became an athlete after college. Twenty years later, I am totally fit and the same size waist. You peaked too soon, brother

    13. Re:Yet another step closer to my goal by steveo777 · · Score: 1
      Not a peak. Just a question of motivation and self-will or self-denial. Back in high school I was 240, after my first year of college I stopped drinking any sort of carbonated beverage. Nothing whatsoever. Lost 70 lbs in two months. I kid you not. My parents thought I was anorexic. Truth be told, I had cut my sugar intake from quite literally about 1.5KG PER WEEK to almost nothing. Just by not drinking my 4-6 cans of Pepsi a day (10 or so on Sat and Sun). After that I started working out a lot and I'm sitting at a rather muscular 190.

      Course, everyone has their vices, so you just have to know which ones to nix and what to do after that. If you weigh in at 250 you should start cardio and lifting. Building the muscle mass will burn more of your intake and the cardio will help your body regulate what you eat. Probably shouldn't eat like a power lifter either. ;)

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    14. Re:Yet another step closer to my goal by syousef · · Score: 1

      No with that kind of mouth the earth girl will be green

      http://tcm.health-info.org/Dermatology/Dermatology%20pages/Sexually%20Transmitted%20Disease.htm
      "Trichomoniasis
      A common STD that affects both males and females.
      Females may encounter a frothy, yellow-green vaginal discharge with a strong odor. It also causes irritation and itching of the vaginal area."

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    15. Re:Yet another step closer to my goal by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      Green jocks and green weightlifters...

  2. sooo... by Freeside1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    methane... aliens can fart...?

    1. Re:sooo... by sgt+scrub · · Score: 3, Funny

      aliens can fart...?

      Worse. We don't detect them unless they do. This explains why the fat guy in the room is the easiest to detect.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    2. Re:sooo... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1
      Worse. Aliens are actually Cows; and when they find out what we do to bovines down here, we're fscked.

      /P

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  3. Methane is not an element by I'm+a+banana · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The fact that the element was detected at all
    1. Re:Methane is not an element by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes yes... true enough. However, if incorrect reporting and misinformation weren't the norm, people might actually catch on to the fact that something might be wrong with the article their reading. If that happened, they might begin to question the validity of all the other news they absorb and their world might come crashing in around them. It's easier to just not point it out, and let people live in their little fantasy world. You know, for their own safety.

      /bring on the corrections

    2. Re:Methane is not an element by Discordantus · · Score: 1

      ...something might be wrong with the article their reading...

      /bring on the corrections hmmmm, where to start?
  4. Methane is an element? by blcamp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The fact that the element was detected at all There's certainly an element of misunderstanding here.

    --
    The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
    1. Re:Methane is an element? by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Funny

      There's certainly an element of misunderstanding here. Are you talking of me, Thane?!
      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    2. Re:Methane is an element? by chemisus · · Score: 2, Funny

      The fact that the element was detected at all There's certainly an element of misunderstanding here.


      What we have here is failure to compound.
    3. Re:Methane is an element? by Paradigm_Complex · · Score: 1

      Ohhh I see it. Silly slashdot title. "First Organic Elements Found on Alien World" Better? No?

      --
      "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
    4. Re:Methane is an element? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      That's not any better. It is not an alien world. It is a normal world. If we were to go there, WE would be aliens.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  5. Unfortunately, not a smoking gun... by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Methane can be formed by inorganic processes...although how enough of it could be formed to be detectable to us way over here is an intriguing question.

    Also, the planet is around 700 degrees Celsius...why are we so sure this completely precludes the possibility of life?

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Unfortunately, not a smoking gun... by fizze · · Score: 3, Funny

      Also, the planet is around 700 degrees Celsius...why are we so sure this completely precludes the possibility of life?

      Actually, who knows what our planet may look like from a few lightyears afar in, say, a couple of hundred years?
      --
      Powerful is he who overpowers his temptations.
    2. Re:Unfortunately, not a smoking gun... by mea37 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Methane can be formed by inorganic processes"

      And even when that happens, it's still an organic molecule.

      "700 degrees Celsius...why are we so sure this completely precludes the possibility of life?"

      That may depend on how we define "life". In the sense that life could vary widely from what we know and understand, maybe you're right. Of cousre, if it's not a bit closer to "life as we know it" than that, then we don't know what to look for anyway. Would such life depend on water? Well, not liquid water. It wouldn't be made up of combustable carbon chains, either.

      So within the limits of "life based on processes we understand", "life we have a clue how to look for", "life we have a reason to believe is possible", etc., it is safe to assume it couldn't exist in those conditions.

    3. Re:Unfortunately, not a smoking gun... by esocid · · Score: 1

      Methane can be formed by inorganic processes...although how enough of it could be formed to be detectable to us way over here is an intriguing question.
      Agree with you there, but if it is in a quantity enough to attribute to microbes in anaerobic conditions it would be interesting to see just what sort of microbes are living on that planet.

      Also, the planet is around 700 degrees Celsius...why are we so sure this completely precludes the possibility of life?
      Sulfur and hydrothermal vents in the ocean can sustain life at temps around 400 degrees C, so who knows what temps might be able to sustain life elsewhere? (not that I'm an expert on that)
      --
      Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
    4. Re:Unfortunately, not a smoking gun... by sempernoctis · · Score: 1

      This is your planet. This is your planet on global warming. Any questions?

    5. Re:Unfortunately, not a smoking gun... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the methane was produced by all of the planet's lifeforms simultaneously defecating themselves when they were burned to death from the 700 degrees Celsius heat?

    6. Re:Unfortunately, not a smoking gun... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Is it man made or a result of natural processes? /troll

      Sorry. Haven't had my caffiend yet. :)

    7. Re:Unfortunately, not a smoking gun... by gurps_npc · · Score: 2, Informative

      No one is an expert on that. That is one thing that pisses me off. We constantly have people saying moronic things like "Gas giants can't sustain life." We no so little about them, yet we have arrogant people saying things are impossible. The honest truth is that we have so little experience with conditions outside the planet that we can in NO way make statements about life in general. Pretty much every single statement about life made by a human being should really have an asterick saying "Life as we know know it." For ages we used to think that organic chemicals must be rare in temperatures below zero because with lower temperatures, less reactions occure. But instead we found that if the ice was formed from water that was at ONE time at a reasonable temperature, then orgainc chemiclas are CONCENTRATED by the ice, as they clump together. If the ice is subject to a cycle of warming then freezing, this leads to more common organic reactions than if you just leave the water alone in the first place. The chemiclas clump together when they freeze, then react when you heat them.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    8. Re:Unfortunately, not a smoking gun... by Metasquares · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Would such life depend on water? Well, not liquid water. It wouldn't be made up of combustable carbon chains, either.

      Slightly tangential, but I never did understand why we primarily evaluated the life supporting capability of a planet based on whether water could be present. We might know tons about terrestrial life, but we know nothing about how life could begin in a different environment. Our earth-centric assumptions may not hold, even though the same laws of chemistry and physics do.

    9. Re:Unfortunately, not a smoking gun... by cyclopropene · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Methane can be formed by inorganic processes...although how enough of it could be formed to be detectable to us way over here is an intriguing question.
        I think it's less a question of how enough of it could form--Titan in our own solar system has 1.6% methane in its atmosphere, and reasonable geochemical processes for the formation have been described by Sushil Atreya (see this article, or here for the actual journal article, if you have access)--but rather why it can survive in a 700C atmosphere long enough to be observed. (or maybe that just means it's forming really f*cking fast?)

      FTA:

      "When the temperature is this high, the dominant form of carbon should be carbon monoxide, not methane," But then they go on and say "Alternatively, the methane might simply mean that the planet happens to be very rich in carbon..." so maybe it's not so strange after all...

      --
      Shouldn't you be doing something useful?
    10. Re:Unfortunately, not a smoking gun... by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      Maybe they nuked it.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    11. Re:Unfortunately, not a smoking gun... by inviolet · · Score: 1

      [Life on this 'hot Jupiter' planet] wouldn't be made up of combustable carbon chains, either.

      Why not? As long as there is no oxygen around, they'd be fine. Indeed, there was no oxygen around for a lot of Earth's history either... Oxygen's arrival here was as a corrosive pollutant pumped into the atmosphere by short-sighted greedy industria^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hplants and microbes.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    12. Re:Unfortunately, not a smoking gun... by Josef+Meixner · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We might know tons about terrestrial life, but we know nothing about how life could begin in a different environment.

      And that doesn't strike you as a reason "we" are looking for familiar signs? How would you interpret things as life if you don't know how it would work, what it would consume and what produce? We would need to be able to closely inspect the planet to tell if we found life. But if we find familiar conditions, where we know with a high probability that certain reactions won't happen "naturally" and that the signature of products can't be produced in their relation to each other by natural processes (at least with a high probability), we have a much higher chance to tell life from other effects. Even so we still couldn't be sure.

      So I would say looking for conditions known to be able to support life is the only thing which can do, because it is unclear if we would understand forms of life working completely differently to be alive.

    13. Re:Unfortunately, not a smoking gun... by Kid+Moxie · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our new Lava-Monster overlords!

    14. Re:Unfortunately, not a smoking gun... by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Slightly tangential, but I never did understand why we primarily evaluated the life supporting capability of a planet based on whether water could be present. We might know tons about terrestrial life, but we know nothing about how life could begin in a different environment.

      You've answered your own question with the second sentence.

      See, we don't know how to look for things we can't even fathom. If we look for places with liquid water, we know that "life as we know it" might exist there. All other statements are guess-work.

      Looking for forms of "life as we can't even fathom it" is sorta difficult --- you could look at anything, and you say "well, a form of life I can't conceive of might be there, but I have no test or measurement", which is meaningless. Basically, scientists are sticking to what they know and can make statements about, since anything else would be random conjecture and speculation, and have nothing to do with science.

      It's not that tough of a concept. Once we know about life forms we've never conceived of, we could expand our search for the conditions which those might thrive in. Until then, we just kinda assume that anything there would have to be a total long shot and beyond what we can know. Since it has no predictive value whatsoever, they ignore it completely.

      Cheers
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    15. Re:Unfortunately, not a smoking gun... by julesh · · Score: 1

      Slightly tangential, but I never did understand why we primarily evaluated the life supporting capability of a planet based on whether water could be present.

      One reason is that liquid water is an amazing solvent, and there are few other simple substances that would be as likely to form a substrate for life to begin (at least in as far as we understand how such a process might occur).

    16. Re:Unfortunately, not a smoking gun... by Touvan · · Score: 1

      Yes. Is it man made or a result of natural processes? /troll

      I know that was probably just a bad joke, but why would it matter? It's still a problem for us, either way.

    17. Re:Unfortunately, not a smoking gun... by PCM2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Another reason is that water molecules are highly polar, which gives them a comparatively high boiling point compared to other, similar molecules. Hydrogen sulfide (H2S), for example, boils at -60 degrees Celsius. If we assume that primitive life would have an easier time getting on with the business of life within a liquid, rather than lying out in the open air, then the fact that water is still liquid at 90 degrees Celsius makes it a very useful medium.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    18. Re:Unfortunately, not a smoking gun... by pinkstuff · · Score: 1

      In a nutshell,, we have to narrow down the search criteria so we don't have to search every planet for signs of life. Whether it is a right assumption or not, it gives some direction.

    19. Re:Unfortunately, not a smoking gun... by thrawn_aj · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pretty much every single statement about life made by a human being should really have an asterick [sic] saying "Life as we know know it." That's rather redundant. You've fallen into the same semantic trap that most armchair philosophers do (I'm not calling you one, just saying). Our usage of ANY word for a concept automatically implies the concept "AS WE KNOW IT", and not "as all it could ever be". If and when life that operates on principles other than "as we know them" is discovered, we will then have to decide whether to expand the meaning of the word 'life' to include the new stuff or whether to come up with a new word for it. Do you see what I'm getting at here? Science, thankfully, has explicit definitions for words. "Life" means something specific and is not wishy-washy and fluid as it is in mysticism and popular perception.

      Michael Crichton had a witty scene in The Andromeda Strain where the lead scientist systematically "proves" that a rock is "alive". It illustrates perfectly the danger of losing oneself in semantic trivialities instead of heeding the advice of an ancient quantum mechanic [sic] :P to "shut up and calculate".

      If I said that humans can't fly, it's not arrogance on my part. Our current definition of "human" has implicit "no-fly" clauses built into it :P. If you find a flying human somewhere, the International Linguistics Organization* would have to convene to redefine "human".

      ____

      *it could exist!

    20. Re:Unfortunately, not a smoking gun... by gurps_npc · · Score: 0
      No. You are wrong. The wierd part is you proved it yourself. Mainly because YOU were "wishwashy" about life, not me. You never gave a definition, you just said "Life is what we know".

      Like you said, the word "life" has a specific meaning, but NOT the rather crappy one you use. While there are several in use (Schrodigner has a nice one about entropy), NONE of them restrict life to DNA based or even carbon based life forms. However "Life as we know it." is rather restricted to a small subset of carbon based forms. If you ignore the argumetns about Viruses, we don't even have any non-DNA based carbon life. If you include Viruses, then we have some RNA based life forms that are not DNA based.

      The best definition I have seen is a complex thing that eats, grows/reproduces, and adapts to the environment.

      That definition negates fire (complexity), negates normal - non-movie - crystals (adapts), and most other things.

      It however does not negate things such as a silicon based life form, or many other such things.

      The basic problem is you have not made ANY effort at all to look up the definition of the word you are arguing about. Instead you just made one up, which is not a smart thing to do.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    21. Re:Unfortunately, not a smoking gun... by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      No, they react in the partially-frozen water. The water component freezes, increasing the concentration of non-water molecules in the unfrozen water. Reaction rate depends both on concentration and temperature, and the increased concentration is more than enough to overcome the lower reaction rate due to temperature.

    22. Re:Unfortunately, not a smoking gun... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares, we'll never be able to "go" any place that has life. Unless you geektards start talking worm holes, anti-matter, warp drive, or other stupid geek shit.

    23. Re:Unfortunately, not a smoking gun... by Gax · · Score: 1

      Slightly tangential, but I never did understand why we primarily evaluated the life supporting capability of a planet based on whether water could be present.


      Pah! Forget water, there's no life on a planet if it doesn't have alcohol.
    24. Re:Unfortunately, not a smoking gun... by softdevs · · Score: 0
    25. Re:Unfortunately, not a smoking gun... by mollymoo · · Score: 1

      Who cares, we'll never be able to "go" any place that has life.
      The second best bet for finding life in our solar system is Europa. It would only take a few years to get there. Humans encountering real alien creatures isn't really all that fantastic. Practically everywhere on Earth with liquid water we look we find life. Europa has water under the ice. With large expanses of water there's a fair chance not only for traces microbial life as me might hope to find on Mars, but more complex organisms.
      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    26. Re:Unfortunately, not a smoking gun... by thrawn_aj · · Score: 1

      Mainly because YOU were "wishwashy" about life, not me. You never gave a definition, you just said "Life is what we know". Like you said, the word "life" has a specific meaning, but NOT the rather crappy one you use. I NEVER attempted to define "life". Please read what I actually wrote. I will attempt to clarify it again: "Life" as currently defined (whatever the definition is :P) can ONLY make sense in the context of what we currently know. It is ABSURD to try to cram every possible meaning into the term just because a science fiction writer had the imagination to dream up a plausible organism that didn't fit into current biological norms. I could then argue that "life" might everywhere, including the interstellar vacuum, because beings composed of resonant EM fields might possibly exist there, fulfilling all the terms in the "best" definition you found.

      You seem to be tense, seeing argumentative opponents where none exist :P. I have no intention of looking up the word because I am NOT arguing about the word itself. I was pointing out to you that it is ridiculous to brand scientists as arrogant for using "life" or "life forms" in the way they do because the limitations of the definitions are understood, implicit and trivial.

      The rest of your post did not arouse my interest so I did not respond to it, particularly your biochemical conjectures.

    27. Re:Unfortunately, not a smoking gun... by treeves · · Score: 1

      Not really. Since most reaction kinetics are linearly or squarely dependent on the concentration and Arrhenius-like dependent on temperature, and we're talking about a 100 or 200 K difference in temperature between the Earth and a Jupiter or Uranus-like planet, a reaction rate difference is dominated by the temperature difference.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    28. Re:Unfortunately, not a smoking gun... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For life as we can conceive it to exist you need a solvent. water.

    29. Re:Unfortunately, not a smoking gun... by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      The person was referring to recent findings that early biogenesis on Earth may have taken place in ice, since partially-frozen ice does exactly as I described. I did mention a water-ice mixture concentrating chemicals, which suggests temperatures in the regime of the freezing point of water, not 100-200K below average Earth temperature.

    30. Re:Unfortunately, not a smoking gun... by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

      Unless, of course, the planet is a cool -60 C, or even a boiling 700 C. Water is right for us, but we shouldn't preclude alternate environs from our search for life.

    31. Re:Unfortunately, not a smoking gun... by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      True, but those temperatures preclude many organic chemical reactions being able to proceed at a manageable rate. Either the reactions won't happen at all or they will happen too quickly to arrive at the desired products. Again, we're talking about forms of life that we know about, but it seems unlikely that all of the basic building blocks that we know about would be absent in other forms of life. Temperature plays a very important role in the organic chemistry that we have observed thus far.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    32. Re:Unfortunately, not a smoking gun... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      [Life on this 'hot Jupiter' planet] wouldn't be made up of combustable carbon chains, either.

      Why not? As long as there is no oxygen around, they'd be fine. Indeed, there was no oxygen around for a lot of Earth's history either... Oxygen's arrival

      Be careful - you mean FREE oxygen, or ELEMENTAL oxygen, but you're not saying it. Oxygen is a vital part of the composition of most biologically active molecules, as is nitrogen, phosphorous, and to a lesser extent sulphur.

      here was as a corrosive pollutant pumped into the atmosphere by short-sighted greedy industria^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hplants and microbes.
      [ SNIGGER ]
      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  6. Test of Faith by Psiren · · Score: 5, Funny

    Meh, I'm positive that the FSM put it there, to test our faith in his noodly appendages. Life on another planet?! Preposterous!

    1. Re:Test of Faith by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      HD 189733b is a graphic illustration of the fate of any planet that fails to maintain a sufficient population of pirates.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    2. Re:Test of Faith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Prepastarous!

    3. Re:Test of Faith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Life on another planet preposterous !???!!!
        Whatever the heck the FSM is, the fact that life exists elsewhere is just a few years from being proven. A decade ago, the idea of other planets at all was preposterous. Surely you are not that conceited to think the universe revolves around humans ? What a jerk!

    4. Re:Test of Faith by Psiren · · Score: 1

      FSM = Flying Spagehetti Monster. Do a little research. It was a joke. Wow.

    5. Re:Test of Faith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cances of anything coming from HD 189733b are a million to one, he said.
      But slowly and surely they draw their plans against us.

    6. Re:Test of Faith by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      You are pathetic scumbags, mods. Here is for you.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    7. Re:Test of Faith by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  7. Am I missing something here by kellyb9 · · Score: 0, Troll

    A planet with violent eruptions thats filled with methane gas offers hope for life on other planets? Does this mean theres hope of finding WMD's in Iraq?

    1. Re:Am I missing something here by BForrester · · Score: 1

      No. Violent eruptions and methane gas means that we may yet discover intelligent life in the White House.

  8. Please... by Joseph1337 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Please no more overlords, my back fucking hurts from the whip with those we got now...

    1. Re:Please... by Jeng · · Score: 3, Funny

      Would you not welcome an overlord who won't be whipping you?

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    2. Re:Please... by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

      Don't blame me for your back hurting! I voted for Kodos!

      --
      The game.
    3. Re:Please... by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      Aw... What do you have against our new methane farting overlords?

      Oops... Sorry.

    4. Re:Please... by corbettw · · Score: 1, Funny

      Sheesh, another Paul supporter. Haven't you guys given up yet?

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    5. Re:Please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, welcome our new whipless methane overlords.

    6. Re:Please... by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      Would you not welcome an overlord who won't be whipping you? I, for one, would.

      - RG>
      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    7. Re:Please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the strange voice keeps saying that the unit limit is reached and to spawn more overlords. Also there must be a problem with a vespene gas, it keeps asking for that too. Maybe you're not working hard enough?

  9. HD 189733b by calebt3 · · Score: 1

    Is that the next step after 2160p?

  10. Misleading by Webs+101 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The surprising thing here isn't that the astronomers discovered methane on a planet. Heck, Uranus is full of the stuff and other gas giants have it as well.

    It's not surprising to find methane on an extrasolar planet. What is different about this is, to QTFA:

    "Initially, that is surprising," says Sara Seager of MIT in Cambridge, US, who was not involved in the study. Because HD 189733b orbits very close to its parent star - just 10% of Mercury's distance from the Sun, it is very hot, with atmospheric temperatures of about 700 Celsius. "When the temperature is this high, the dominant form of carbon should be carbon monoxide, not methane," says Seager.

    --

    "Even for Slashdot, that was a very obscure reference!" - Anonymous Coward

    1. Re:Misleading by kannibul · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same thing.

      Methane isn't exclusive to life. It CAN be a byproduct, but as with planets (and moons) in our own solar system, methane isn't exactly a rare substance.

      I was wondering what it would cost to build a ship to Uranus and transport a "really big" amount of Methane back here for use as fuel would cost...if it would be profitable given today's technology...

      I just don't want to hear "Sir, she's gone from suck to blow" if/when we do it - lol...

    2. Re:Misleading by aztektum · · Score: 1

      Heck, Uranus is full of the stuff... *ba-dum tsch*

      Does this mean the only other intelligent life out there is cows?
      --
      :: aztek ::
      No sig for you!!
    3. Re:Misleading by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      The surprising thing here isn't that the astronomers discovered methane on a planet. Heck, Uranus is full of the stuff and other gas giants have it as well.

      Was this a pun?

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    4. Re:Misleading by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      "...Alternatively, the methane might simply mean that the planet happens to be very rich in carbon, Seager says.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    5. Re:Misleading by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Funny

      *ba-dum tsch*

      I use tcsh, you insensitive clod!

      /P

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    6. Re:Misleading by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      Burning our current carbon reserves is probably enough to get us all killed in a huge greenhouse. I would be completely against the idea unless we could make the excess carbon to be fixated in, say, more trees.

      Perhaps it could be shipped to the Moon or the asteroids to be used as fuel or propellant. I am not in a mood to calculate how good that would be.

    7. Re:Misleading by Webs+101 · · Score: 1

      No. How would it be a pun?

      --

      "Even for Slashdot, that was a very obscure reference!" - Anonymous Coward

    8. Re:Misleading by Zymergy · · Score: 1

      Carbon Monoxide = CO
      Methane = CH4

      If there were lower amounts of Oxygen in the planet's atmosphere, possibly Methane might be the more dominant gaseous compound of Carbon?

    9. Re:Misleading by jddj · · Score: 1

      The surprising thing here isn't that the astronomers discovered methane on a planet. Heck, Uranus is full of the stuff and other gas giants have it as well.

      [insert joke here]

    10. Re:Misleading by ShadowBot · · Score: 1

      Uranus is full of the stuff and other gas giants have it as well. Well sir, u'r anus may be full of the stuff... but I assure mine get's released regularly!


      :( someone had to say it

      --
      Quantum Physics a.k.a. sub-molecular statistics
    11. Re:Misleading by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      I'd like to know how he thinks my anus is considered a gas giant!

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    12. Re:Misleading by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

      Burning our current carbon reserves is probably enough to get us all killed in a huge greenhouse. I would be completely against the idea unless we could make the excess carbon to be fixated in, say, more trees

      Quite.

      The printing industry had better take note.

      Trees = paper.

      People carry around little electronic gadgets and think they are better informed, but if they would only carry around more books and papers too, where the real knowledge still is.

      Rather than only OLPC (one laptop per child) how about one set of DVDs per child, containing a set of textbooks holding the knowledge that can be gained from public school, any mainstream baccalaureate university degree, and any mainstream technical diploma, plus other reference materials such as encyclopedias, software, industry and academic references.

      I venture it would be more economical to sink carbon into "value added trees", being hard copies of knowledge, rather than raw trees due to the need that poor people have of clearcutting forests for agricultural land. If we let the tendencies of the market to occur based on popular thinking in the population, we may rely on the hope an educated community would develop energy supplies that cause less pollution.

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
    13. Re:Misleading by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      But paper is not a bad thing by itself. It's carbon in the form of cellulose - it's not in the atmosphere contributing to the greenhouse effect and is much denser than CO2 or methane (at room temp).

      As long as you don't burn it or allow bacteria to decompose it, paper is a perfectly safe carbon sink that can even be turned into fuel if, someday, we need more greenhouse gases.

  11. This is a huge step. by freedom_india · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    This is a huge step and an advancement towards detecting alien life.
    What we consider as hot may be normal if beings exist on that planet.
    Yes, just like the 1970s Mars experiments led to inconclusive evidence of life on Mars, this too is inconclusive.
    If this doesn't speed up Astronomy studies in Europe (USA is a basket case since Bush came to power), then what else will?

    As usual this doesn't make front page news anywhere.
    Fox starts with a pleasant "Pregnant women as bombers" fear mongering: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330415,00.html/

    --
    "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    1. Re:This is a huge step. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      As usual this doesn't make front page news anywhere

      Gee, maybe because we've seen methane on other planets in our own solar system, and this discovery - while interesting - doesn't even begin to point, specifically, to life elsewhere just yet?

      Fox starts with a pleasant "Pregnant women as bombers" fear mongering

      Well, let's see. As I write this, the BBC web site is talking about a Russia/Ukraine gas deal, Danish cartoon plotters, and the US election primaries. No mention of alien methane. CNN? Mexican earthquake, sub-prime mortgage trouble, a yachting accident, primaries, hollywood writers strike, etc. No mention of alien methane. Hmm. Maybe if we look around the world a bit more... Times Of India? No mention. Spiegel in Germany? Nothing. Internazionale.it? Nothing. Home page of Agence France-Presse? Nothing.

      Wow, the evil anti-science Bush adminisration sure has a lot of control over the world's media!

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:This is a huge step. by mozkill · · Score: 1

      i find it interesting that there are 2 anti-gun articles on the front page area of fox news today. you would think that they, of all the news sites, might not report stuff like that , but they are.

      --

      -- Betting on the survival of the media industry is a serious risk. I advise investing elsewhere.
    3. Re:This is a huge step. by ardle · · Score: 1

      you would think that they, of all the news sites, might not report stuff like that , but they are. They're thinking ahead ;-)
      Douglas Adams reference, please:
  12. dogmatic anthropocentricity by kennylogins · · Score: 0

    What about life about oceanic volcanic vents? Also others discovered which use non-standard (other than oxygen) as the basis of their biological process? Never ceases to amaze me, the lack of imagination.

  13. TFA by matt+me · · Score: 1

    TFA doesn't describe methane as element. I for one welcome our new earth, wind, fire and water overlords. Anyway. Titan has methane. We know this.

  14. Re:plz spam me massjunk@gmail.com thank you by rubycodez · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I'm going to poison your spam honeypot with millions of high quality emails from decades of backups, whatever algorithms you're trying to develop will reject anything except truly randomly generated data streams. come to think of it, I'll send you a buttload of those too.

  15. HD 189733b? by Mickyfin613 · · Score: 1

    Congratulations for finally emerging from beneath the shadow of that glory hogging planet HD 189733a!!

  16. Misleading headline by slapout · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "trace amounts of the gas methane" != "First Organic Molecules Found"

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    1. Re:Misleading headline by Alioth · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes it does. Methane is an organic molecule. If you find methane, you've found an organic molecule. Organic chemistry is not necessarily produced by life forms.

      That group of compounds (things like methane, ethane, propane, butane etc.) are all part of organic chemistry, and whether you find them with or without life they are still organic chemistry.

    2. Re:Misleading headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "trace amounts of the gas methane" != "First Organic Molecules Found" Agreed. And 2+2 != 5. As has been pointed out, methane occurs on many
      Gas giant worlds. Maybe it's cause is organic, and maybe we just don't
      know everything about everything regarding chemical behavior, especially
      on extra-solar worlds.
    3. Re:Misleading headline by bcattwoo · · Score: 1

      But these aren't the first.

    4. Re:Misleading headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not even on extrasolar planets?

    5. Re:Misleading headline by Domint · · Score: 1

      I believe the point trying to be made is that this is the first extra-Solar organic compound observed. Granted, I don't know if that is true or not. I'm at the office right now so I can't spend the little bit of my remaining lunch-break researching it, otherwise I'd provide linkage.

    6. Re:Misleading headline by julesh · · Score: 1

      Not even on extrasolar planets?

      The headline doesn't say extrasolar.

    7. Re:Misleading headline by bcattwoo · · Score: 1

      True, the summary does say extra-solar, but the "misleading headline" merely says "alien".

    8. Re:Misleading headline by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

      Wow. It's amazing they couldn't fit the contents of the summary in the headline. They really expect us to read an entire half-a-dozen sentences before spouting off bullshit posts! It's a disgrace, and will be the last straw causing the downfall of slashdot itself, you just wait and see.

  17. Drake Equation by rijrunner · · Score: 2, Interesting

    N = ( R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc) x L

    R* = The number of stars born each year.
    fp = the fraction of those stars which have a planetary system.
    ne = the number of "earth-like" planets in a solar system.
    fl = the fraction of these planets on which life arises.
    fi = the fraction of these life forms that evolve into intelligent civilisations like ours.
    fc = the fraction of these civilisations that choose to attempt to communicate across the Galaxy.
    L = the average time they have been trying to communicate.

    The range of life forms found on Earth in extreme conditions have pushed the "ne" category into much higher ranges. You could make an argument for a lot bodies within our own solar system that have conditions less extreme than those found on Earth where life exists. We have found life in volcanic vents. We have found them in extreme cold areas. All of which really pushes "ne" closer to 1.0. And, solar systems seem to be more the rule than the exception.

    Whether this planet can support life as we know it is a different proposition than what it means overall. The Drake Equation is getting pretty close to 1.0 in a lot of categories.

    1. Re:Drake Equation by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      The problem that may occur with your argument is exactly what conditions are needed to formulate and develop life. I can see life evolving somehow to exist in those conditions, but can it begin there? I know that conditions were theoretically extreme on earth, but some parts seem a little iffy...

    2. Re:Drake Equation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The drake equation is a fancy way of framing the statement, "We have no bloody idea." It's a bunch of unknowns multiplied by each other in the guise of appearing to be science. Now, I have no problem with the idea of intelligent life out there. I think it's even likely. However, I've got a serious problem with guesses masquerading as science. fl, fi, fc, and L are complete unknowns, which makes the equation worthless. Instead of parading something like the Drake equation to garner credibility, SETI would have a lot more of my respect if it said, "We haven't the foggiest idea what the odds are, but we're looking."

    3. Re:Drake Equation by Shotgun · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Drake Equation is getting pretty close to 1.0 in a lot of categories.

      Dude! That's funny.

      R* = We have some guesses from a few years of observation, but nothing approaching mathematical certainty.
      fp = We just recently learned how to find planets, and the number found is extremely low compared to the number of stars found. It would be silly to try to assert with any certainty what percentage of stars have planets.
      ne = Other than Earth, none have been found. No indication that any other will be found has been found. Nearly everything found so far have been gas giants orbiting close to their suns.
      fl = Other than Earth, none have been found. No indication that any other will be found has been found.
      fi = Other than Earth, none have been found. No indication that any other will be found has been found.
      fc = Other than Earth, none have been found. No indication that any other will be found has been found.
      L = Other than Earth, none have been found. No indication that any other will be found has been found.

      If anything, the Drake equation is still sitting imperceptibly close to 0.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    4. Re:Drake Equation by Tejin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Even if the numbers get close to 1, we still have the Fermi Paradox. If this equation starts to say that life should be everywhere, yet we can't find any, should we question the usefulness of the equation?

      --
      The seekers do no need truth, the seekers do find truth and the finding do be painful
    5. Re:Drake Equation by rijrunner · · Score: 1

      You're misreading what ne is. It is not Earth. It is not defined as rocky planet with X amount of sunlight. It is "Conditions comparable to places where life has been found on Earth". Take the range of life supporting environments on Earth and apply them to planets and bodies we know about and you get a much wider range. Just in our solar system alone, we have 3 planets with less extreme environments than where we have discovered life existing on Earth and we have found a couple Moons with less extreme conditions.

      Given that we can only identify specific types of planets in certain orbits and we are getting into the hundreds of known planets, then the whole picture changes a lot. We would not be able to identify our own solar system from those distances with current technology. What percentage of solar systems are we identifying planets in right now? Its a subset of those with planets, not a total. Given 221 current planets all of which match a single characteristic, it kinda begs the question of how many others our outside our observation range right now. "no indication of other to be found has been found" is as scientifically misleading as it is grammatically misleading. You find a planet close in to a Sun with a planetary disk also present, well.. that planet is not likely alone. And, in fact, we have discovered solar systems with as many as 5 planets. Shoot, let's take HD 142 b as an example. It is a jovian sized plantet, but it is located about 1AU away from that Sun and is in the habitable zone. That is a another planet for ne right there. Upsilon Andromedae d. Habitable zone. HD 28185 b is also in a habitable zone.

      These are not 0's.

  18. Nevermind by CarpetShark · · Score: 0, Redundant

    There's certainly an element of misunderstanding here.


    Some people just aren't in their element when it comes to elementary science. Perhaps they're confused by their background in elemental magic.
  19. The Gas Giant Uranus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (and Neptune as well) is an alien world and has an abundance of CH4. Seriously!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_giant/

  20. I hope... by popmaker · · Score: 1

    Good god I hope they'll find life on this planet. Not that I'm really that desparate about alien life but because people would NEVER stop confusing the famous astrologer "Mark Swain" with that other guy.

  21. Only one? by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    In any case, don't tell him. He can't do it if he's paying attention.

  22. Oh crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this mean that we have to call the life there
    Species 189733b??

    Grrr..

  23. Ah...no! by monkeyboythom · · Score: 1

    Pig shit. The lights, the motors, the vehicles, all run by a high-powered gas called methane. And methane cometh from pig shit.

    - The Collector

    Duh!

  24. It's not only Methan we have to search... by The+Friendly+Strange · · Score: 1

    Methane is not only a byproduct of organic chemical reactions. But if you really want to see the thriving extraterrestial life yo have to check the Sulphiric Acid deposits. Only there you will find a plethora of life, microscopic of course, but it could be the most amazing sight you could see!

  25. why bother? by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1

    Earth girls only have one vagina. How lame is that?

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:why bother? by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Earth girls only have one vagina. How lame is that?

      Anyone who has actually been with a woman knows that "exactly one" is the correct number of vaginas. Less than that and you end up only being able to have oral and anal sex, and of course those are in much lower supply compared to vaginal coitus so your overall sexual activity will decrease substantially. More than one is just too much work.

    2. Re:why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who has actually been with a woman knows that "exactly one" is the correct number of vaginas... More than one is just too much work.

      Speak for yourself...
    3. Re:why bother? by ari_j · · Score: 2, Funny

      You are making a critical mathematical error. This thread is about the number of vaginas per woman.

  26. Where are the bean fields? by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1

    You should be able to see those with Hubble.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  27. Missing a factor. by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    Maybe they'd communicate by farting and think we're answering them?

    Seriously though,there is a missing factor
    fd = fraction of those civilisations communicating in a way that we can detect.

    We've been in existence for some 100s of thousands of years, maybe millios of years and we've only had proper radio comms for 60 or so years - a small fraction of that. Its pretty arrogant to think that they'd use radio because that's the best technology we have. If other beings have SETI programs, perhaps they're using different communications methods. Perhaps direct brain communications but unfortunately we lock up the receivers in mental hospitals.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  28. Could our solar system have had a Hot Jupiter by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

    We are finding so many of these huge planets in close orbit to star, could our system have had one that was gobbled up by the sun? Could the process of gobbling up a planet cause a mass extinction on earth? Maybe the premian extinction was caused when our sun gobbled up a Hot Jupiter?

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  29. Carbon? Feh by ErikZ · · Score: 3, Funny

    Alternatively, the methane might simply mean that the planet happens to be very rich in carbon.

    Most likely it's because of cows. Space cows.

    --
    Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  30. Bah...700 Celsius?? by bdwebb · · Score: 1

    700 Celsius is a balmy summer on Moltor. Whether or not life still remains on this planet is a mystery, however. If memory serves, Moltar was taken captive a while back by some guy with a sissy yellow cape and powerbands that sounds like George Lowe.

  31. Can't be alien by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it's "organic" or "Earth-like", than it's not really alien.
    When we are looking for life-forms similar to us, we are not really looking for "alien".

    Alien shit is something that we can't even think of, because it's so different of anything that we are aware of even in our imagination, which is highly limited by our actual knowledge and experiences.

  32. Carbon + Cows..... by ardle · · Score: 1

    It's a big BBQ!

  33. Re:we don't have to want to be like somebody else? by DenDude · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's called "Risperidone". Use it. If already using, increase the dosage.

    --
    A Haiku: my language choices/assembler pascal lisp c/old school programmer
  34. Yep... by tubapro12 · · Score: 1

    And the residents of HD 189733b found Earth not too long, and dismissed for containing life as it was far too cold.

  35. characteristic of life by aepervius · · Score: 3, Informative

    We know tons about the enthalpy of formation of various chemicals, family of chemicals, not only from carbonated life but other type of chemicals. The problem is to have molecule which bond easily enough, quickly enough, but not strongly enough that you have to spend a lot of energy to break bonds. Furthermore there are good indication that a liquid phase of some sort is necessary. If I recall correctly from the first proposition one can deduce life would use carbonated compound, as other type of compound (Si for example) would either not bind strongly enough, or too strongly. From the second in conjunction of the first, water present all sort of advantage. It ain't that we are so earth centric that we can't imagine other form of life, it is more that the chemistry of other compound don't seem to lend to the type of reaction necessary for life. Finally if you have carbonated compound as condition sine qua non, then 700C is enough to dissociate most of them.

    Now, mind you, even if we have to abandon dreams of Silicate life in extrem hot environment, it does not mean we think life could be identical to what we have on earth.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  36. two reasons, chemically speaking by Quadraginta · · Score: 3, Interesting

    First, life as we know it is essentially a precarious delicate balance of chemical reactions that can go either way. For example, we need to break down the proteins we eat so that we can build up or own proteins. We need to create energy-rich substances (like fat) to store energy, so that later we can consume them to provide energy. We assemble DNA into chromosomes and then pack it away for safe storage, but then we need to partially disassemble it to use it. And so on.

    All this has to take place in essentially an isothermal environment. We can't change the temperature of a cell by several hundred degrees to get different reactions to go in different ways, or forward and back. We can't compartmentalize the cell and have different temperatures in different parts so that different reactions are favored.

    To get a set of chemical reactions that can be delicately balanced so that very small changes -- e.g. the addition or withholding of an enzyme (catalyst) -- can tip the balance this way and that, nothing is as useful as the hydrogen bond, which is a somewhat like a chemical bond in that it involves sharing a small charged particle between atoms, but in this case the particle is a proton instead of an electron. Since the proton is much larger than the electron, the bond is far weaker, typically. Helpfully, it can easily be broken and made at temperatures where water is a liquid by very small changes in the conditions. Indeed, they're made and broken in liquid water all the time.

    You might easily say that life is fundamentally based around the existence of the hydrogen bond, and its ability to be formed and broken easily at certain temperatures. There really isn't anything else like it in chemistry. You couldn't imagine ordinary chemical bonds playing this role at, say, a much higher temperature, because the problem is that all chemical bonds become flexible and easy to make and break at about the same temperature (5000-10000 K). You couldn't have some bonds flexible and some others sturdy. It would be like trying to pour and shape steel with iron tools close to the melting point of iron.

    Fortunately for us, because of the peculiar stability of the oxygen nucleus, there is a great deal of oxygen in the universe. Since there is also, naturally, a very large amount of hydrogen, it turns out that water (H2O) is probably the most common heteronuclear neutral molecule in the universe. There's a huge amount of it out there. And water is an ideal basic substrate on which to be building your life based on hydrogen bonds, because of course water is one of the best hydrogen-bonding substances there is. Think of it as the "silicon" in life "microelectronics," the substance that you can dope with other molecules and get all kinds of useful behavior.

    It might well be the case that there is some other model for life, one not based on ordinary chemistry -- for example you could have Robert L. Forward's life based on nuclear chemistry, living on neutron stars, with a natural time-scale a billion or more times faster than ours. But no one outside of fantasy has ever proposed a plausible model for it.

  37. already found by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I already found it with my smelloscope!

  38. um but not the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but not the first, carbon hydrogen and at least to my knowledge oxygen "organic" compounds have been found in interstellar gas clouds.