Rogue 'Steppenwolf Planets' That Have Escaped From Their Suns Could Harbor Alien Life, Astrophysicists Say

In before nutcase Nibiru reference.

Life exists elsewhere. There is no doubt about it. Life exists here, because its here as we know it and understand it, and have had the opportunity to study it. Those principals may not be necessary for life to evolve elsewhere.Who knows what wonders the universe holds for us. It's just a shame that I won't be around to see it or hear about it. Unless that life actually makes contact with us.....

@NOCELL

"Life exists elsewhere. There is no doubt about it."

Oh really?

There hasn't been one working theory for abiogenesis proposed, all others that have been, have been proven false or not tested. And there is no doubt about it?

You got some explaining to do.

@Bagpipes100 Given the vastness and complexity of the universe it's pretty arrogant believe that our planet is unique.

Makes me wonder how long a Steppenwolf Planet would be able to sustain a relatively stable temperature for life to thrive in.

@RogueSquirrel

Maybe so....but so far it's a safe bet. There hasn't been any observation to say otherwise.

Nor experimental evidence to show its even possible to have life anywhere else.

But you can have blind faith in that sort of Star Trek stuff I guess. Not really that scientific though.

It's ridiculous to think that life evolved only on this planet.

@Bagpipes100

Yea i have to agree with the other people. its ignorant to think that life is only on this planet. life came from space, not earth. chances are that life is more advanced somewhere else, or has evolved more than us. just because they havnt contacted us doesnt mean there not there. and its not blind faith. if were here, then there probably out there too

Why? You don't have any scientific reason to believe that.

You don't have any scientific model to appeal to that says life can come from non life.

I've ran into street preachers between sandwich boards with less faith in what they are saying than you guys.

With all the scientific evidence we have in so far it is ridiculous to believe life came from non-life at all, this planet or otherwise.

Pushing it off to coming from space changes nothing, it's irrelevant where it came from if you still can't explain how the first life came to be at all.

Yet you believe in a bunch of mythical stories passed down for generations before they ever met paper that say humans were created out of thin air.

saying we are alone in the universe is like saying only one grain of sand on a beach has a microbe on it. hell even the fuckin pope says there could be life out there.

@ Bagpipes

Saying that life is basically guaranteed on other planets is a matter less of pure science than of pure statistics. There as many planets as there are grains of sand on the entire planet... honestly it seems to me to be more foolish to say that one grain is different from ALL the others than to say one was unique. Statistics, science, hell even common sense tells you that if there are billions upon billions of something more than likely there is not going to be one that is completely unique compared to the rest.

To say that life was introduced to Earth from outside the planet is only a theory, with no hard scientific backing. But then again, it was only a theory that the earth was flat. Or that it orbited the sun. Or that air and everything else are made up of atoms, not ether. All of these were theories with little/no scientific backing, and the originators of these theories were laughed at until science could catch up and show them right.

To me it seems to make more sense to assume that life is present elsewhere until otherwise PROVEN... not the other way around. Simple matter of statistics.

That is, unless you're trolling. Of course then I don't think I or anyone else in here cares what you think/say/type. If this is your best bet at backing up an honest opinion, then I'm all for the discussion, albeit with a little pity from me.

@Bagpipes I can see your side of the picture as I'm sure you can see mine. Much respect & to each his own.

I guess my main problem is that for you who only believe in the natural. Your entire paradigm depends on life coming from non life (including your reason why statistics should say there is other life out there). Though you don't have a reason to believe it does (outside of there is life at all...and you only accept natural causes....so you get pigeon holed into accepting that it must).

Statistics only would lead one to believe that there must be other life out there if you assume (because it surely hasn't been proven) that life can come from non life, with out that assumption statistics doesn't say anything about the possibility of other life out there.

So the thing that holds your entire understanding of science together has no scientific foundation? Seems kind of strange...unless of course you openly admit it is an assumption from which you build up your understanding of things. Because such assumptions must be made. But when you admit to that you allow others to also make assumptions, including those who believe in 'mythical stories passed down for generations'. (BTW abiogenesis will remain such a mythical story passed down by generations of 'scientists' until such a day {if it ever comes} that they can show it happens).

@Rogue Squirrel, Thanks, hope your day is well.

@jbmshasta

Appealing to future scientific discoveries which may or may not happen to fill in the gaps of a particular scientific mystery is a argument of little more substance than if I or anyone else appealed to a 'god of the gaps' argument.

@bagpipes

I'm not making an attempt to appeal to scientific discoveries which may or may not happen... I'm merely pointing out that time and time again things that seemed laughable or completely impossible indeed turned out to be true.

The statistics of life coming from other life or non life sources has nothing to do with my statements. The discussion here is not how or where life began, it's about the probability of life being elsewhere. This is where the statistics enter the picture... when independent of origin the likelihood of there being life on only one of billions upon billions planets is basically negligible.

Think about it... we've only been able to locate and confirm extra-solar planets for 5 years or less now... and less than that when you consider that the technology in its infancy could only locate super sized Jupiters. We've been able to locate planets closer to Earth's size in the past 2 years or so... and in that short amount of time we've confirmed almost 400 and 1300+ have been preliminarily confirmed. Does the fact that in such a short amount of time we've found so many planets so close to home not point to the fact that at least a percentage of those throughout the cosmos must harbor life in some form?

It seems that you keep trying to steer the discussion towards where life came from and how it began... I'm simply stating that the statistics point to it existing elsewhere, regardless the origin or method of creation.

@Bagpipes100 sorry. I have to side with everyone else on this too. we have only explored about .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the universe. And that is a low ball figure. The little bit we have explored is just pictures or measurements of energy. very little of our resources is spent looking for life compared to other forms of solar exploration. Life would be increadly difficult to detect.
I think its pretty silly to think the universe isnt teaming with life.

at the very least. Humans going into space should be proof enough that life exists out there. They have found Bactria surviving on satellites and such. If earth born bacteria an survive in space its pretty silly to think that it could not be launched into space from a meteor impact. as it is the a very popular theory is that life came to earth from "out there"

hmmm. I think I left out some zeros in my estimate. oh well.

@inaka
Thank you for finally pointing out that we have found life in space... It might be micro but it's still there... To think that humans are so big headed that they believe in a thing as silly as being the only ones with written or spoken words is laughable:.. There are cave trout that have been discovered thriving in sulphuric acid... Shrimp that live in boiling water... And there is still ppl who have some sort of meglamainiac view that theyre the best the universe can make.... Just baffling.... Completely baffling

Ah... there's always one! Stirring up the same nonsensical debate for which there are no definitive answers. God doesn't disprove science. And science doesn't disprove god... So give it a rest already.

Though its kinda funny watching your comments, prodding the waters; waiting for someone to bite. So you can let it rip with your text-book preaching to the same old debate! Looking to lure some new followers to the worlds biggest pyramid scheme lol.
But nobody has quite taken the bait lol.. Kinda funny seeing the number of times you've had to post controversial points before you got any attention. (Think that says something!)

Sounds like you have some issues though...You've flipped the question that's obviously bugging your own beliefs - via questioning someone else's faith in science (what they can see/prove) vs your presumed faith in what some dehydrated, delusional dude in a beard once said two thousand years ago.

If you want to get into that philosophical nonsense; look up empiricism. Or watch The Matrix!

Just let it go... we'll see what happens soon enough. Meantime - enjoy the show! There's some interesting sh*t out there ;) Let's go find it, learn & make the best of it.

Quit standing religion in the way of progress.
That's even more annoying than politics poking its nose in! (re: Stem Cells!).. Religious hypocrites; "all sperm are sacred" and so on. Meanwhile you kill anyone who doesn't agree with your brand of delusional uncertainty. Or puts the price of gasoline anywhere near 50% of what Europe already pays!

GAh! People annoy me. Find me another planet ASAP!

Call me a buzzkill, but I take issue with this:
"Rogue planets that have been kicked out of their solar systems (which is apparently common throughout the cosmos)..."

Now, I know that the logic behind why these planets are more than likely out there is actually pretty simple and the mathematical support for it is, at least respective to the field, nearly just as simple, but that's not the basis for saying "well this is something that happens all the time". Unless I'm just colossally wrong and blacked out for a year or two, there has never been a direct observation of any of these free-roaming planets.

That's not to say I don't think it's likely there are plenty of these little planets zipping around in interstellar space, it just seems kind of stupid for a science magazine to have a statement so devoid of scientific logic.

@Bagpipes100: I think you are the one backing yourself into a corner. You need to keep your mind open. Like jbmshasta said, there are way too many stars, galaxies, and planets in the universe to say that we are the only life that exist. That's just pure ignorance. Since 1995 we have discovered over 1,000 exoplanets (While they may be inhospitable, it's all our CURRENT technology allows us to find), there are 1 trillion stars in our galaxy (or 100 billion correct me if I'm wrong. More than likely I am a bit off), and many billions of galaxies in the universe. Come on open your mind. Science is about theorizing and gambling AS WELL as hard facts.

"Quit standing religion in the way of progress."

Merely exposing the religion of the people here really.

Like I said before, you must have abiogenesis first, before you can talk about life forming elsewhere.

You all act like you can have a house of cards built on thin air.

It doesn't matter how many earth like planets are out there, or if life from here can survive in space if life can't form from non life to begin with.

Until that happens, all those who believe in this life elsewhere stuff ought to number themselves amongst the religious.

@Bagpipes100

"it is ridiculous to believe life came from non-life at all, this planet or otherwise."

It's ridiculous to think life happened any other way.

"It doesn't matter how many earth like planets are out there, or if life from here can survive in space if life can't form from non life to begin with."

The default position is that life came from non life.

You are the one making a claim that life was created by a 'God' thus first you must prove his existence and then prove that he indeed created life.

but you are also left with a loop hole to explain

would your 'God' be considered living? and if so how do you explain his coming to be? wouldn't he need to come from non-life or are you going to use the lazy explanation he always existed, which again you need to prove.

So in short your telling me the best explanation is a God (unproven) created all life (unproven/assertion) and has always existed and falls outside life from non-life itself (unproven/assertion)... and also didn't create any other life in the universe(unproven/assertion)... that is all laughable

You start with the most simple answer one that doesn't rely on a bunch of unproven assertions and move from there...

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!"

@Bagpipes100: You can keep your faith in god then. Keep believing that humans came to exist merely 3000 years ago and that a single man created the solar system in 7 days. Right, that's definitely not farfetched..........

The only logical stance on other life in the Universe is the neutral stance--we have no rationale that would prevailingly support one theory more than another.

It's arrogant to think that our planet is unique, but it is at least as much arrogant to think that our current idea of life in the Universe is anywhere close to the actual facts.

Seriously, how can you argue that the vastness of the Universe is evdence enough to support the theory that it is full of life? Based on statistics, at least one of the multitude of reports about could fusion should be true, huh? Well, statistics is just not enough.

At the moment, we don't even know that "the edge of the Universe" is--is it a wall? Is it a portal to multiverse? Or if we went in a straight line through the entire space, would we get back to the starting place at some point?

So, although it's fun to spectulate, life--other than terran--is just a possibility from the scientific point of view; please do keep than in mind :-)

@CClaudio21

The idea of treating a text whose influence spans for almost 5000 years as 100% literal, not symbolical and prone for interpretation, is as close-minded as Bagpipes100's far-fetched belief.

@Bagpipes100
Is abiogenesis really that hard to believe? We are made of non-living components.

Let me ask you another question: If man proves abiogenesis is possible by creating life in a lab, are you going to change your mind? Or are you going to change your argument to support the only conclusion you will allow yourself to make?

Abiogenesis can exist with God. You do not have to choose between the two.

It is arrogant to assume that there is other life in the universe.

Granted, there are vast numbers of stars, planets, nebula, etc - many of which MIGHT contain life.

As of right now, the only life we have found in space we sent there. The best evidence for life in space we have found here on Earth (always leaving open the potential for contamination).

We know that life is rare - in part because it is fragile - in part because we havn't found it yet (either in places we can reach, or evidence of it - like radio waves - in places we cannot reach).

How rare life is in the universe is an unknown, because life has not yet been found. Therefore, the ratio of life is 1:ALL.

That ALL, however, is still very poorly explored, meaning that the potential for life to swing that ratio is great.

However, there is, as of now, no evidence to swing that ratio. As of right now, life is unique.

If later on we find life, we might learn that life is a common occurance (1:100stars).

Today, however, life is still unique.

Therefore, while those who are claiming that life only exist here are arrogant, the facts are on their side. Those who claim that life MUST exist out there are arrogant and do not have the facts on their side.

I'll put it another way - with an infinate number of shots, I would be able to hit a penny with a .22 at a range of 1 mile - unless the penny is in my pocket. So, if life is truely unique, no number of stars or planets would change that. If life is not unique, then the amount of it out there is a simple ratio or odds vs. oppurtunities.

The only proof that life is not unique is to find other life.

You cannot prove a negative (there is no other life in the universe). Therefore, the burdan of proof falls to those who believe that life is out there to be found to find it.

@bagpipes - Please show me proof of a god. Any god.

I have to agree with bagpipes. Why do you have to believe there is life out there, just because there is a lot of planets out there doesn't mean there is life out there. There is equally a chance that life just happened to only happen here in the entire universe.

@Greg_NJ I don't think that bagpipes actually said anything about go at all in his comments you just assumed that he did, because you can't think for yourself and assume just cause someone says that life isn't on other planets that they are some nut job that believes in a god.

BTW why would some other life out there be more advance than us that seem absurd, if there was other "life" out there, there is an equal good chance we are the most advance civilization in the universe right now. Maybe that is why it has been hard finding other life because they are not as far as us.

@flyingkite - No comments about god or religion? You should read the posts.

So, I read through all of this and the only person who has a logical understanding regarding life on other planets appeared to be Whizzkid. Well done.

Seriously people, without supporting evidence there is no way one can make a claim. Even if abiogenesis were possible, that does not imply it is the way life came about on Earth or other planets. Even if some omnipotent being were possible, with an extremely emphasized if, that does not mean it is the way life arose on Earth or elsewhere.

If we are talking about life elsewhere in the universe, then leave the origins of life on Earth out of it. Please realize that they are two separate discussions.

Still no one has given any scientific reason to believe in abiogenesis. Ergo, no reason to believe in alien life. (Though I will admit that IF abiogenesis could be observed THEN it alien life would be highly likely, but that's IF abiogenesis could be observed).

So I guess I would like to ask then. Many of you seem to think the idea of God is ridiculous....because you can't scientifically prove it.

You don't have much luck with abiogenesis either.....so why do you buy into it so much?

I see some hypocrisy here. Most of you are not being intellectually consistent or honest in your reasoning.

@bagpipes - Who created god?

Man did.

@ Bagpipe100

I believe your thesis that because "no one has given scientific reason to believe in abiogenesis there is no reason to believe in alien life" falls prey to a logical fallacy. This is known as 'the burden of proof fallacy,' the burden of which falls to YOU, therefore, your fundamental argument here is illegitimate.

Personally, and I think purely logically, it is impossible to make any conclusions on the real possibility of extraterrestrial life, especially complex--even sentient--life. Which is why I agree that the only legitimate position is a purely neutral one. Time will tell I suppose.

But you cannot simply say that because X cannot be proven therefore Y is true.

@VeritaDialecta

Purely neutral? So then you'd agree that Theism is on the same intellectual level as Naturalism?

Because without abiogenesis Naturalism is not logical.
Without God Theism is not logical.

If there is no scientific evidence for abiogenesis nor God. Both must be assumed to establish either paradigm.

(And again, appealing to a potential future scientific discovery of abiogenesis is on the same level of thinking as appealing to the 'god of the gaps'.)

I find it rather cute that @Bagpipes100 keeps implying that life cannot come from non life just because we are, at this point, unable to prove it... If life hadn't come from non-life, then please, intrigue me and explain to me where it has come from..

Further more, the thought that there isn't life on another planet is fairly close minded and rather ridiculous, IN MY OPINION. I'm saying this because the universe is so immense that we haven't even discovered a full percent of it, yet we're consistently discovering new planets in the universe. Adding on to that, on our Earth, if you really think about it, almost everything that we have come to know, has happened on luck/chance/mistake, more so meaning that it wasn't intentional. The fact that we have discovered so much of Earth, but still not close to all of it, and have found that there are a lot of things that happen spontaneously would be another point to go towards life being on another planet, whether we are able to find it our not. Chances basically 1 out of... who knows, lets just say a lot. But one in a million chances happen daily/hourly on our planet, so why wouldn't these, chances/'mistakes', happen somewhere else within the universe. My question is, why are you so immediate to think that we would be the only life forms in the whole universe just because life has yet to be discovered on another planet?

Bagpipes, what I am saying is that as a logical person presented with Theism or Naturalism, taking into account that both are decidedly devoid of hard objective proof, the logical conclusion to such a problem is to make no conclusion until objective proof can be obtained. Perhaps I should quantify my statement that "time will tell." At this point in time, there is no conclusion, nor is there a conclusion that can be pointed to in history that is legitimate in our modern context (if you want to start citing the two and a half thousand years of monotheistic theological discourse go ahead, but it doesn't prove anything--assuming you're a Christian that is), therefore, time will tell: if God does exist, I would assume that at SOME point it would make itself explicitly known to us; or, at some point proof of Naturalism will emerge.

Whether or not Theism and Naturalism are on the same intellectual level is irrelevant. I'm not trying to question your religious beliefs, as any such activity is a pointless endeavor between someone with Faith and someone without it.

But I do think you make a good point: in our current context, I would argue that appealing to the potential discovery of abiogenesis IS the same as appealing to the potential proof of a divine genesis. In my opinion, I don't think the latter will ever happen, as I don't believe in any sort of God, but I would never presume to prove to you that a God or any gods do not exist. Objective proof and Faith are mutually exclusive, and isn't that the whole point?

The point I was trying to make was that your argument above was a fallacy. Other posters at least attempted to provide legitimate arguments--admittedly they used dubious statistical extrapolation or just cited huge numbers that none of us can even conceptualize, let alone understand--but you did not.

@Whizzkid I'm not closed minded. I just go with what has been proven, and even though we don't have a whole lot to work in terms of extraterrestrial life, I still believe it's out there. Now, religion has the same basis of faith. But IN MY OPINION, our religions are merely interpretations of things that our ancestors could not explain. But if it is proven otherwise, I will concede.

@Bagpipes100: I can give you scientific reason. In fact, scientists have conducted multiple experiments where amino acids (The essential chemicals that are called "The building blocks of life" coincidentally) formed without anyone actually forcing them together. Keep in mind that the elements were formed in the cores of stars and that there could be billions of planets that have the right conditions to form amino acids and consequently, life.

@Bagpipes100: What's to say that however it is that life formed on this planet didn't also occur on another. Does it say explicitly somewhere that "God" (or Allah, Yahweh, Budha, or whatever) did not "create life in his image" elsewhere. What if Eden is another planet, and when Adam & Eve were banished, they were sent here to earth? No proof of any of this, just a simple "What if".

Either way I don't care, both sides have holes that need to be filled, but I'll go with we are not alone.

Disregarding the "God of the Gaps" controversy for a moment, have we actually detected any "Steppenwolf" planets yet (directly or indirectly)? If so, they would make great places to send probes to, if they are closer than Proxima Centari.

"Jesus Christ" people, chill out, there is a catch 22 with religion that rules it out, period, if god created everything, than who created god?...how about sticking to science and ignore the religious posts, oh, crap! :)

I read on another website that god exists in multiple dimension of time so he could have created himself.

Sure.

But bagpipes thinks we're ignorant because we believe in abiogenesis .

Bagpipes100- If one should not believe in a theory until said theory is proven, doesn't that point counter your own religion theory? No one can prove the existance of any god, that's the beauty of religion. And why do ALL religions feel it their duty to try to "one up" all other religions? Lets not forget how polytheism was ended!! A bunch of high and mighty christians running around cutting peoples heads off if they didn't renounce their gods in favor of "the one true god". And people have the balls to call radical muslums nuts. They are not crazy, they are just a thousand years or so behind christians.

All holy books were written by man/men/etc. And why is it, that today, if I have a conversation with god and I do what he tells me, I get locked up for being crazy? Yet, people hold the 10 commandments at heart, written by a dude on a mountain talking to a bush that was on fire? REALLY?

And yet.. thinking that there is SOME form of life SOMEWHERE else is that absurd a thought? I think the biggest problem is that all religions will have to face the facts that they might not have all the answers.

Before God there was nothing. So if we can't get life from "non-life"... well you know the rest.

And didn't they just prove that they found chemical traces on mars that prove that mars held life at some point?

@Bagpipes100:
Sure we haven't found any life YET because we aren't advanced enough to travel too far away from our own system. But the fact that you think Earth is unique to life, how could you say such a thing? Sure movies are so stupid sometimes throwing around aliens coming to Earth in giant flying saucers and all kinds of other weird crap, as much as we all know that probably isn't going to happen, we can't exactly say for sure. And hell we've been close before to finding life. And another thing, I'm sure everyone whose opposing you is asking themselves the same thing, where did you possibly get the idea we are the only life? We are in an enormous universe, an enormous EXISTENCE. Who are you to say there isn't any other life? Are you seriously going to go around and tell everyone, "Hey I've seen everything in existence,and just to let you know there isn't any other life out there." Well how you going to convince that to people, well sure there's those people out there that believe everything they see and hear, but what about the majority? You can't just go up and say that to scientists it's a good way to make sure you don't get that space exploration seat you were ever so hoping for. And you see this is all coming from an 8th grader, who obviously has more common sense then you do.

God is as real and as proven as the Almight Lasagna Monster. The evolutionary theory (A theory being a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is developed and perfected over time and backed by many facts and observations) at least points towards abiogenesis in the sense that life becomes less and less complex as you go back in time.

The concept of "Life" is very hard to decipher now that i think about it. What makes "life" considered, well, "Life"? any thoughts?

These little arguements on here are extremely entertaining. Just out of curiousity, how old are you guys? im 19.. if i had to guess, the bagpipes100 guy is either a 50 year old man trying to subtley convince himself that what he was raised around is still correct, or an 18 year old angry church kid.

@Oakspar77777 please read my above post. and BTW I think it is very arogant TO NOT belive life is out there. I will give a quick quote from previous post. (please scroll all the way to the right when reading it. It does end.
we have only explored about .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the universe. And that is a low ball figure. The little bit we have explored is just pictures or measurements of energy. very little of our resources is spent looking for life compared to other forms of solar exploration. Life would be increadly difficult to detect.
I think its pretty silly to think the universe isnt teaming with life.

why even bring up god. I see no reason WHATSOEVER.
STATISTICALLY its is absolutely positively INSANE to not believe there is life out there. INSANE! I really dont see why god matters all. Why would god only create life on earth. why would he only give humans the abilty and reason to understand that something called god exists. If god put animals on this world, then why NOT put them on otheres. its just arrogant to think this is gods only project in the whole universe. what is the rest of it for? for us to simply take pictures of????? did god put animals on this earth only for us to eat. no. there are 10,000,000 species of bugs and sea life we have never cataloged, and billions more that are now extisnst since the begging of time. why. why why why would god ONLY put life on this planet. that doesn't even make sense. I see NO point in bringing God into this at ALL. From my religious point of few, using GOD as my argument THERE MUST be other life out there. MY god, your god, GOD, wants us to explore the universe to meet other races and learn all about gods other wonderful creations all over the universe. Wow. see how I just used god, to defeat god. i type god all I want or you want, it isnt a reason. and can be bent any way you want.

IN YOUR argument, abot this topic you are using GOD as a DEUS EX MACHINA. simply a convenient tool to magically prove your point. why you even have that point is beyond. having doubt is one thing. we all have a little doubt but 100% believing there is no life out there makes me hope your genes are not added to the gene pool.

you know what this argument reminds me of? The heliocentric theory.

In mans arrogance they thought god put the earth at the center of the solar system. SURPRISE SURPRISE. Humans turned out to not be the center of the solar system. the sun is.

You are being JUST as arrogant saying that humans are at the "center of the universe" (so to speak).

I can not WAIT for the day that stem cells make a man walk again. I can not WAIT for the day the prove life is out there. I can not WAIT for the day that they cure all diseases using GM crops. I can not wait for the day that they legalize weed! ;p