Transcribe
Translate
Spaceways, v. 4, issue 5, whole no. 28, June 1942
Page 16
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
16 SPACEWAYS EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL LIFE by JOHN L. GERGEN The thesis of life on other planets has been discussed almost completely thoroughly. Nevertheless, a topic of this sort is always interesting, to me, at least, and I trust it will be to you. I intend letting my imagination wander, a completely unscientific mode of thinking. One could hardly term me a scientist. A scientist is a coldly thinking, clear, concise person. It is his "duty" to break a puzzle down into its separate composite parts. Some are thinkers, but they do not allow their imaginations to carry them beyond the limits of the already constructed knowledge. They build on it, but they do not change it. You might point to Einstein, and use him and his wonderfully accurate Theory of Relativity as a free example of thinking--but I'm afraid you would be radically wrong! Einstein is a great genius, no one can deny that, but the popular fallacy that no one is able to understand him is definitely quite mistaken. They do not understand him. His abstract theories are so utterly revolutionary, that his knowledge and genius are sometimes somewhat exaggerated. But I don't intend to talk about Einstein; I am merely using him as an excellent example of a scientist's attitude toward things. His marvelous Theory was brought about by clear, concise, accurate thinking. Not imagination, but the building of one fact upon another by analyzing the faults of one hypothesis and constantly building another. His thought, and consequently, his hypothesis, have led him to believe there is such a think as a fourth dimension. He probably is right--everything he has advanced so far has been found correct within a certain percentage of error. Perhaps you might wonder what all this has to do with extra-terrestrial life. Simply this: I wanted to demonstrate the fact that a scientist cannot use his imagination, which is where he loses a good deal of speculative theses. He can pile this known factor on this realized fact, but he can go no farther, and we know so little... John W. Campbell, Jr., has had a series of extremely interesting articles in fairly old Astoundings. I refer you especially to Nov., 1936, where he describes in careful detail Mars' inhabitability. I cannot say I disagree with him in any points he brings up. To do that would be almost ridiculous! I suppose JWC is a more-or-less scientist, but if he isn't, still, his articles tend to give that impression. To him, then, Mars is just another planet, and he considers the life-forms as they would be if they were just created. Which is wrong. Consider earth a few millenia in the future. It, too, will probably be run-down and almost dead. A scientist on, say, Venus, would think there was nothing but lizards here, but mightn't man have survived the aging?--in fact, mightn't he have aged with the planet; grown wiser and perhaps have evolved with the planet? I think so. Mars, as according to the article, contains much ozone, which is unable to support life because it is far too harsh, attacking even silver, which oxygen does not do. Therefore, he contends, life is impossible on Mars because of the atmosphere. Why can't the Martians breathe ozone? Take the case of the chlorine-breather: to him, oxygen is a most deadly gas. To us, chlorine is a most deadly gas, but to each-others' self, it's their natural atmosphere, and they breathe it. So, the same thing holds true of oxygen and ozone. Then again, JWC says Mars is far too cold to support life. Let us take the
Saving...
prev
next
16 SPACEWAYS EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL LIFE by JOHN L. GERGEN The thesis of life on other planets has been discussed almost completely thoroughly. Nevertheless, a topic of this sort is always interesting, to me, at least, and I trust it will be to you. I intend letting my imagination wander, a completely unscientific mode of thinking. One could hardly term me a scientist. A scientist is a coldly thinking, clear, concise person. It is his "duty" to break a puzzle down into its separate composite parts. Some are thinkers, but they do not allow their imaginations to carry them beyond the limits of the already constructed knowledge. They build on it, but they do not change it. You might point to Einstein, and use him and his wonderfully accurate Theory of Relativity as a free example of thinking--but I'm afraid you would be radically wrong! Einstein is a great genius, no one can deny that, but the popular fallacy that no one is able to understand him is definitely quite mistaken. They do not understand him. His abstract theories are so utterly revolutionary, that his knowledge and genius are sometimes somewhat exaggerated. But I don't intend to talk about Einstein; I am merely using him as an excellent example of a scientist's attitude toward things. His marvelous Theory was brought about by clear, concise, accurate thinking. Not imagination, but the building of one fact upon another by analyzing the faults of one hypothesis and constantly building another. His thought, and consequently, his hypothesis, have led him to believe there is such a think as a fourth dimension. He probably is right--everything he has advanced so far has been found correct within a certain percentage of error. Perhaps you might wonder what all this has to do with extra-terrestrial life. Simply this: I wanted to demonstrate the fact that a scientist cannot use his imagination, which is where he loses a good deal of speculative theses. He can pile this known factor on this realized fact, but he can go no farther, and we know so little... John W. Campbell, Jr., has had a series of extremely interesting articles in fairly old Astoundings. I refer you especially to Nov., 1936, where he describes in careful detail Mars' inhabitability. I cannot say I disagree with him in any points he brings up. To do that would be almost ridiculous! I suppose JWC is a more-or-less scientist, but if he isn't, still, his articles tend to give that impression. To him, then, Mars is just another planet, and he considers the life-forms as they would be if they were just created. Which is wrong. Consider earth a few millenia in the future. It, too, will probably be run-down and almost dead. A scientist on, say, Venus, would think there was nothing but lizards here, but mightn't man have survived the aging?--in fact, mightn't he have aged with the planet; grown wiser and perhaps have evolved with the planet? I think so. Mars, as according to the article, contains much ozone, which is unable to support life because it is far too harsh, attacking even silver, which oxygen does not do. Therefore, he contends, life is impossible on Mars because of the atmosphere. Why can't the Martians breathe ozone? Take the case of the chlorine-breather: to him, oxygen is a most deadly gas. To us, chlorine is a most deadly gas, but to each-others' self, it's their natural atmosphere, and they breathe it. So, the same thing holds true of oxygen and ozone. Then again, JWC says Mars is far too cold to support life. Let us take the
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
