Celestia Forums

I was just wondering if someone could point me in the right direction for info regarding the atmospheres of these two planets and how they differ. Specifically I'm interested in how they would compare in terms of the posibility of harbouring life.

Yes, there are search engines I will search for you. AfterI finish typing this, I will go to a search engine website called Alta Vista and enter the phrase "life Jupiter" into the entry point. I will click the on the big button that as the word FIND on it. I will then wait for two seconds to receive words on my monitor. I will then read the words. Tomorrow, at this time, I will report back to you what the words said. Please be patient. I promise that within 24 hours, I will type in a thorough report for you to read in this forum. Stand by...

GlobeMaker wrote:Yes, there are search engines I will search for you. AfterI finish typing this, I will go to a search engine website called Alta Vista and enter the phrase "life Jupiter" into the entry point. I will click the on the big button that as the word FIND on it. I will then wait for two seconds to receive words on my monitor. I will then read the words. Tomorrow, at this time, I will report back to you what the words said. Please be patient. I promise that within 24 hours, I will type in a thorough report for you to read in this forum. Stand by...

GM, Perhaps this is a job more suited to the skills of ArtificialDeity!

Yes, I do know how to use search engines. However I can find plenty about Jupiter or Saturn, just nothing with any comparisons of the two.

What I mean by the possibility of harbouring life, is actually 'Can the planet or atmosphere support complex organic molecules and reactions?'

Thurlor wrote:Yes, I do know how to use search engines. However I can find plenty about Jupiter or Saturn, just nothing with any comparisons of the two.

What I mean by the possibility of harbouring life, is actually 'Can the planet or atmosphere support complex organic molecules and reactions?'

Dunno .

I don't think it's been completely ruled out, but there's not much to support the idea either. The general idea is that at a depth not too far below the cloudtops you might have a layer of organic compounds and relatively stable atmospheric conditions, which might allow 'gas-bag life' to exist, but conditions would have to be stable enough for "dead" organic compounds to turn into self-replicating organisms and evolve from there.

File under "unlikely, but not impossible, but we just don't have anywhere near enough data yet". The Galileo probe didn't detect any signs of life when it plunged into Jupiter's atmosphere in 1995 though.

Malenfant wrote:I don't think it's been completely ruled out, but there's not much to support the idea either. The general idea is that at a depth not too far below the cloudtops you might have a layer of organic compounds and relatively stable atmospheric conditions, which might allow 'gas-bag life' to exist, but conditions would have to be stable enough for "dead" organic compounds to turn into self-replicating organisms and evolve from there.

(Very) Loosely related to this Thurlor, I think you would enjoy reading my revered lord master and creator Larry Niven's "Integral Trees", (that is if you're less interested in hard science facts, than hard science fiction).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Integral_Trees

Disclaimer: This in no way constitutes product placement or promotion which would contravene the boards rules. As a member of the Kzinti noble classes I am obligated to spread the word about my creators other creations.

My internet research gives the following figures:

24.8 % likelihood of life on Jupiter

and 20.2 % likelihood of life on Saturn:

Telepath wrote:My internet research gives the following figures:

24.8 % likelihood of life on Jupiter

Code: Select all

GOOGLE jupiter life = 6,960,000 hits
GOOGLE jupiter = 28,000,000 hits


and 20.2 % likelihood of life on Saturn:

Code: Select all

GOOGLE saturn life = 6,550,000 hits
GOOGLE saturn = 32,400,000 hits

You rate the chances of something happening on how many hits you get in google?

Please tell me you're joking.

Telepath wrote:My internet research gives the following figures:

24.8 % likelihood of life on Jupiter

Code: Select all

GOOGLE jupiter life = 6,960,000 hits
GOOGLE jupiter = 28,000,000 hits


and 20.2 % likelihood of life on Saturn:

Code: Select all

GOOGLE saturn life = 6,550,000 hits
GOOGLE saturn = 32,400,000 hits

That indeed looks like a perfect PURGATORY candidate...

Bye Fridger

Telepath wrote:My internet research gives the following figures:

24.8 % likelihood of life on Jupiter

Code: Select all

GOOGLE jupiter life = 6,960,000 hits
GOOGLE jupiter = 28,000,000 hits


and 20.2 % likelihood of life on Saturn:

Code: Select all

GOOGLE saturn life = 6,550,000 hits
GOOGLE saturn = 32,400,000 hits

...and in related news, ice cream stalls on beaches result in higher numbers of shark attacks.

So, Jupiter might have life. Okay. What about Saturn? Are it's conditions almost the same as Jupiter's or what?

I suspect vertical turbulence could be the killer factor - if your lifeforms get thrown between temperature/pressure extremes, then things could be rather difficult for them, which is the usual argument against life in the atmospheres of gas giants.

The Fridgemeister wrote:That indeed looks like a perfect PURGATORY candidate...

Indeed!!

Malenfant wrote:You rate the chances of something happening on how many hits you get in google?
Please tell me you're joking.

"Malenfant...I'm joking" (did I really need to tell you?)

....although come to think of it, who's to say it's not as valid a measure as any other. After all it does call on the collective consciousness of all of humanity in that it gives a rough measure of how many people are interested/researching/writing about a subject, and therefore a measure of it's credibility or likelihood of being true (some might even be serious scientists).
The argument goes: "the fact that X number of people consider it worthy of interest, research, etc....means there must be Y likelihood that it is true"
If no-one thought the idea had any merit, etc... then there would probably be no discussion, and zero hits.....

OK, I'm joking again Malenfant!

I'm not sure if the following search (only 233 hits) supports my collective wisdom theory: http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&sa ... arch&meta=

...again Malenfant, I'm joking !

Note to self: " Bad telepath! Stop teasing Malenfant ! "

Thurlor wrote:Yes, I do know how to use search engines

I'm not convinced.... (and I'm being serious now believe it or not! )
I don't think you've tried hard enough, there's got to be something in this lot:
http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&sa ... arch&meta=

Telepath wrote:...
....although come to think of it, who's to say it's not as valid a measure as any other. After all it does call on the collective consciousness of all of humanity in that it gives a rough measure of how many people are interested/researching/writing about a subject, and therefore a measure of it's credibility or likelihood of being true (some might even be serious scientists).

Please don't offend serious scientists...

This sort of practice is in fact common as to the popular reviews of items with E-BAY, for example. The vast majority of the "reviewers" with E-BAY has NO idea what they are talking about, except perhaps "simplicity of operation" of the gadget in question. So also here statistical criteria are generated by people who have no concrete knowledge base for the statements they are making

The argument goes: "the fact that X number of people consider it worthy of interest, research, etc....means there must be Y likelihood that it is true"

This nonsense argument unfortunately appears to be a growing "pilar" on which our society is resting

Bye Fridger

Hi, I am acting as a substitute for someone you know,
who is not willing to responde today.
You were asking about Jupiter versus Saturn. You said serval things...
1 I was just wondering if someone could point me in the right direction for info regarding the atmospheres of these two planets
2 and how they differ
3 Specifically
4 I'm interested in how they would compare in terms of the posibility of harbouring life

I could go on and on about those subjects, just off the
top of my head, but instead, I cheked Alta Vista!
Here is a quote I found about you're subject :
0 At first glance one might suspect a difference in the makeup of the two planets,
1 and in fact Saturn contains a slightly higher proportion of hydrogen than does Jupiter,
2 but this difference is not enough to explain the large discrepancy in bulk density.
As far as your last question goes,

I'm interested in how they would compare in terms of the posibility of harbouring life,

Here is how I parse this issue:

interested? I am more than interested. Infact ,if interested was the only thing that
is important, then I would just ask someone else to use Alta Vista,
and wait here for hours until someone tells me what to think.
I hope that helps. Thnak you!

t00fri wrote:Please don't offend serious scientists...

No offense intended, as I'm sure you recognised by the
nature of my comments.

t00fri wrote:So also here statistical criteria are generated by people who have no concrete knowledge base for the statements they are making

As demonstrated by my original statistic.

Actually, the real problem is that statistics are often quoted in an authoritative manner but without any information on the collection methodology and assumptions made (even by serious scientists), which effectively makes them meaningless as well as unable to be refuted. (Politicians especially like to use this technique.)
For example:

According to internet research, there is a
24.8 % likelihood of life on Jupiter
and a 20.2 % likelihood of life on Saturn:

By transparently documenting the methodology in my original post I allowed you the opportunity to critique the statistic and the underlying assumptions. Sounds like good scientific practice to me!

Regards
A "not so serious" scientist

This is a science forum, Telepath. This is not a place to give fake answers, show doctored images, or "tease" people. Your continued baiting and frivolous behaviour is not amusing or impressing anyone, and is only serving to distract people from the original question.

If all you're going to do here is waste people's time (as you have been doing so far), then kindly don't bother. We don't need people like you clogging up this board.

I'm now going to stop being lazy and do some searching myself. Hopefully I can come up with somethign decent.

This thread can now sit back and relax, secure in the knowledge of a job well done! Sorted.