Hi Everyone

I have been thinking about a Physics expert who believed there was life on the Sun and he was probably wrong. BUT I believe he may have been right judging by evidence that life needs a liquid to survive and I know the sun has no water or methane lakes But it does have Liquid Plasma on the Surface and that creates a possibility that small super extremeophiles
could exist. here is some evidence

1. They say all the stuff that makes you and me comes from the insides of a dying star this raises the question if they are made there it is a possibility they exist on smaller stars such as the Sun and Proxima Centurai.

2. We have never been really really close to the sun to disprove the theory It won't be big complex life my guess is it would be tiny even smaller than what we have here microbes.

3. The Sun is an active place and lots of stuff happens on it despite what some people think the sun does have sort of weather Solar Storms CME's Prominances they all come under the same catergory for weather it might not be on the surface it is outside it instead and that classes as weather in my view.

4. If the raw materials for life are made in dying stars than it is also a possibility that life originated on stars and maybe we will never know but it won't stop people (like me) thinking it is a real possibility.

There is no such thing as impossible if you can imagine it thats the beauty of science (apart from laughing at Bruce Forsythe's jokes that's impossible they are awful. And making me visit Disney land and Disney world also impossible I can't stand it people thinking Pluto named of Mickey Mouses Dog(what an insult for a god of the underworld)

Besides a few there is a real possibility life could exist there

Cheers

Karl

extremeophiles exist, superextramegaultraextremeophiles don't XD, if you tell me about life being able to survive space vacuum that I could start to believe in, to extreme, but I do believe in other not so extreme environments life could "live".

Life in a vacuum?  Why not?  I can't imagine it originating there, but assuming it had some way to get off a planet, or evolved on a world large enough to hold air and water for a few billion years but small enough  to eventually lose it, there's no reason it couldn't adapt to vacuum.  It would have to be able to find all of the essential elements, so would likely be in comets or in hydrated rocks, but simply being in a vacuum wouldn't be impossible.  An air-tight cockroach that could get get hydrogen and nitrogen from compounds in the soil would be quite believable.  We might already be breeding them...

Life on/in a star?  Possible, in some sense, but it wouldn't be "life as we know it", and we probably wouldn't recognize it, even if we met it.  Nor would it be likely to recognize us.  All we would see would be an unusually organized plasma cloud, and how we would tell that it was "alive" I have no idea.

N Kalanaga

Thanks for your comments and info

pogona I don't know whether life can exist on a star or not but I believe it is a possibility the only thing is I reckon it would be minute and we could see it as a living organism as such it may be a strange idea but life can be able to survive radiation from space one moon mission a astronaught sneezed on a bit of equipment (I assume before it got there) and it was all dried out of course but when they brought it back to earth and put it in a petri dish and added moisture it was like nothing had happened. The Planets Series on BBC confirmed it the episode was about the moon.

nkalanga did you know the dog Laika who was given the named mutnik was not the first organism in space apparently it was flesh flies and I believe they may have reproduced on the space craft but I am not sure
and I think a spider was sent up there and it spun its web backwards. I think also a few fish were born in space.

Well thank you both for you comments and info

Karl

True, there were a lot of organisms launched, but they were in pressurized containers.  Bacteria survived on the unmanned landers sent to the Moon, and samples were brought back by one Apollo mission, but they were dormant.  Encysted bacteria can survive almost anything here on Earth except physical destruction.

As far as I know we haven't found anything that can live and reproduce in a vacuum, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was out there somewhere.  There is at least one that can live very nicely in nuclear reactor cooling systems, and then there's this one:

http://www.physorg.com/news99109064.html

""Just as the pigment chlorophyll converts sunlight into chemical energy that allows green plants to live and grow, our research suggests that melanin can use a different portion of the electromagnetic spectrum—ionizing radiation—to benefit the fungi containing it," says Dr. Dadachova."

If it can use ionizing radiation for energy, it should also be able to protect itself, which is one of the requirements of living in space.

N Kalanaga

Thanks for the info nkalanaga

Do you think in 5 billion years when the sun starts to swell Bacteria will still be able to survive or do you think it may be too dangerous Although I still maintain my theory life on the sun is possible to a certain extent I am not sure about our type of extremeophiles. They could be the last life on Earth in years to come(I think people will have gone long before than) That is if we don't end up in the belly of milkomeda before hand(I think thats in 3 billion years although it doesn't make sense if it is travelling closer to us at light speed and its light takes 2 million years to reach us I would have thought it would be 2 million years maybe I have missed something.) I know of a tv show you might like to see called the big bang theory it has some stuff to do with space although the physists are a bit weird to say the least they can work out rocket trajectory but not how to keep a silly girl from using there wifi) its a comedy I don't think any of it is 100% accurate
but its a good laugh.

Thanks

Karl

The time varies, but most sources agree that within 500 million to 1.5 billion years the Sun will have brightened enough to trigger a runaway greenhouse effect  on Earth.  Within a geologically short time the oceans will have evaporated, carbonate rocks will decompose, and Earth will be in the same condition as Venus.

There are scientists that seriously believe Venus has microbial life in its upper clouds.  It couldn't have originated there, and if it is there today, it had to evolve on the surface during a more temperate period.  Earth has plenty of life, including photosynthetic sulfur-eating bacteria, so life in Earth's future clouds would be plausible.  Life as we know it on the surface, or under the surface, would likely be impossible under those conditions. 

Even so, Bacteria will likely be the last life on Earth, simply because they can be found almost everywhere, from miles underground to floating in the current clouds, and in temperatures from boiling water to frozen glaciers.

As for Milkomeda, 3 to 5 billion years is the current estimate, but the galaxies aren't moving at anywhere near the speed of light.  Also, they're actually in orbit around their mutual center of gravity, so the collision isn't head-on.

N Kalanaga

I did not know that and that explains why it would take longer to reach the milkyway. A Friend at work came up with a name for when Andromeda and the Milkyway merge he called it AndroMilkyBar
I assume because he like the chocolate. There could still be life in the Venusian Clouds but it will only live as long as they do the atmosphere will be gone entirely at some point because it has no magnetic field. I think scientist make a lot of mistakes when they talk about places like mars will be habitable for the distant future because mars has no internal heat source and that means no magnetic field and without it People animals trees even the soil would be deadly enough over long periods of time to kill advanced life. And I don't think Terraforming mars will make any difference in that department unless they try to make the core hot again and that may prove unwise. I personally hope such vandalism of a beautiful world like mars doesn't happen.

Thank you for the interesting info

Karl

The idea that life can hypothetically exist on stars is not a new one. In a 1973 article titled “Life on Neutron Stars,” astronomer Alla Drake—co-founder of Seti and the person who, with Carl Sagan, designed the —described a thought experiment about what life on a neutron star might be like. In a 1987 article for New Scientist, astronomer and sci-fi novelist Robert Forward  (which formed the basis for his own novel Dragon’s Egg) in more detail:

I'm sure WE will never live on a star, although building a shell around a red dwarf and living on the outside would be physically possible.  Even then, we would be living under more or less Earth-like conditions.

However, if one defines "life" as a self-reproducing system using energy and raw materials in its environment to maintain itself, life on a star should be possible.  It certainly wouldn't be "life as we know it", but it would be "life". 

How we would meet, communicate with, and come to understand it, I have no idea.  We would have no common references, probably no senses in common, and wouldn't be able to survive in each others environments.  We couldn't even build a life-support system for visits, as anything we have to build with would be destroyed on a star.