It is the 183rd Birthday Anniversary of Jules Verne, and National Geographic is running a post detailing the 8 technologies Jules Verne mentioned in his work that have actually become a reality today.

Probably the least surprising of the list is the electric submarine and the rocket, because they’re so familiar to people who have read or heard of 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea and From The Earth To the Moon.

One that took me by surprise was the tazer, and how similar yet different his idea of how it would work was. He envisioned a type of glass electric bullet, whilst the real version that we have developed today involves firing a type of metal pin into someone, and administering a few thousand volts via a thin connecting cable. There is something equally visionary and quaint about the way Verne envisioned these technologies. It was much simpler age, and when you look at what he ‘thought of first’ you realise what a great mind the man really had.

You can look at all 8 by clicking HERE

You can also click HERE to download 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea from Project Gutenberg – a database of free ebooks for you to download, legally, and legitimately.


Someone I follow on @twitter, a very fine fellow called @SenorGeekus asked me a question relating to travelling through time. I thought my reasoning about time travel (whether I’m right or wrong) would make an interesting post. So here it is. Agree with me, disagree with me. I”ll be interested in reading your comments below.

I am going to describe two possible methods of backwards time travel and the problems they both pose to the time traveller.

The first is that you could travel backwards in time, but that your presence there would affect the timeline, and when you travelled to your ‘present’ time you would actually emerge into an alternate universe created by the changes your presence caused in the timeline.

To explain, you travel back in time to stop your Father from dying when you were 5. You prevent him from dying, but you drastically change the timeline in doing so. When you return to your normal time, you are in a seperate timeline. The change in the timeline would be quite obvious, your Father would be around, etc etc. What I mean is that you would know that you had emerged into a present that is different to the one you left originally.

What about a more subtle change?

You travel back in time to observe a historical event. You do not bump into anyone, talk to anyone, anything obvious. But say, perhaps, that your breathing affects the timeline because of the CO2 you have released into the atmosphere (think of the butterfly effect where a butterfly flapping its wings can cause a bigger event to happen on the other side of the world). What about where you have walked, objects you have come into contact with? When you return to your normal time, things may look very much the same, but you still would have altered the timeline ever so slightly, and would thus still emerge into an alternate timeline and universe even if you couldn’t tell it apart from the one you left.

The most well known film to deal with this kind of paradox is Back to the Future.

Marty McFly witnesses Doc Brown killed at the beginning of Back to the Future. He then travels to the past, and during the course of his adventure he leaves a note in Doc’s pocket telling him to wear a bullet-proof vest. When he travels back to the future, he witnesses Doc shot and supposedly killed again, but then all of a sudden Doc sits up and shows that he was wearing a bullet proof vest all along, and that he had the note Marty had put in his pocket 30 years before.

So… did Marty create an alternate timeline, one where Doc lives, leaving behind the original timeline where Doc dies? Well we know that Marty returns to find his parents different people, more successful and full of life, and that the antagonist Biff is a much more pleasant character after he has returned from the past, so we know he has changed the timeline.

So in Back to the Future, time travel does seem to lean more towards the quantum theory version of time travel – the multiple timeline and universe outlook. The actions of the time traveller going into the past change the timeline, even if he or she does so in only slight ways.

The other option for travelling back through time involves the predestination paradox. Let us say that you can travel back in time, but you have no influence on the timeline at all. You go back to stop your father dying when you were 5, but you cannot touch anything, you cannot interact with anything in the timeline.

Your actions in the past have no consequence. Reasoning would dictate that you are merely an observer then – but I think that the key lies with the fact that you cannot change the past in this version of backwards time travel.

Therefore, if you cannot change it, then to my reasoning you cannot visit it. If we are talking about sending a human being into the past, then really you cannot send somebody back in time if they have no reality in that timeline.
You cannot breathe in that timeline, you cannot stand on the ground in that timeline, etc etc, you are not allowed to exist in that timeline because time is locked and cannot be changed, it is all predestined to unfold as it has done, and so really its a double negative. We know that a human being, a living human being, cannot observe events in the fashion of Ebenezer Scrooge observing events from his past. It belongs in ghost stories. If we are going to travel back in time, we will have some effect on the timeline, and if we cannot have any effect on the timeline then surely the laws of nature will prevent us from being able to achieve backwards time travel.

So which one is correct?

1. You can go back, but in doing so you will create alternate timelines, and can never return to the original timeline


2. You cannot travel back in time, because events are predetermined to happen or are locked in place, by the predestination paradox, and therefore makes travel backwards in time a mute point

I believe the answer to be 2. If you invoke the rule of Ockhams Rule, which dictates that the simplest of two answers to a problem is usually the correct one, then you have to choose 2 as it provides the simplest answer to the problem = and that answer is No.

To me, you can only go back in time if you can exist in the past, and if you cannot exist in the past then you cannot travel to it. To travel to a time where you have no free will would surely be impossible; although the prospect of travelling into the past is an exciting one for free-thinkers.

However, whilst I do not believe that you can travel back in time… I think you could travel forward.

Again, I think there are two options. One involves travelling with great speed away from gravity, and the other involves folding the fabric of space-time itself.

1. You travel at high speed away from Earth, away from gravity, for four years but 100 years pass on Earth. Therefore you have travelled 100 years into the future, yet have only lived four years yourself. From your perspective you have travelled forward in time, though from the other side of the differential Earth has been monitoring your passage through space for a century. The other method is to travel around a black hole, at the point where the black holes gravity begins to distort space-time, creating a differential between the time around the black hole and the time whilst you travel within its orbit.

2. You travel through a wormhole, using it to pull together (or fold) the fabric of space itself to allow you to travel from one point of the galaxy to another almost instantly. However you now use the wormhole to travel between the present and the future instead, since the wormhole exists between space and time and can theoretically be used to travel to both.

It does make your head hurt when you think about time, and the many options that come with it. With my limited knowledge and outlook, I can barely understand the concepts of time travel and it would take a far better intellect than mine to fully consider all of the options.

But to answer the question posed to me by @SenorGeekus on @twitter, I do not think that time travel would affect creation, because I do not think you can travel back in time, and therefore you can only go forward into what is to come. You cannot undo what is done.

Going into tomorrow you would see what is coming, but I don’t know what good it would do you since you wouldn’t be able to travel back to the present with the knowledge you had gained.

And of course there is always the argument that there is actually no such thing as time, and that what we call time is merely a measurement of something, the wait between one moment and another.

I don’t think you can go back but I do think you can go forward.

But why would you want to?


I want to bring to your attention a fantastic article at written by M. Joseph Young, that I read a little while back concerning time travel in Flight of the Navigator.

Everyone thinks of Back to the Future when they think about time travel in movies, but I have always considered Flight of the Navigator to be a prime example of time travel. For a Disney film it actually has quite a complex time travel element. I’m not saying that Back to the Future doesn’t have well-thought-out time travel theories and concepts, and that it doesn’t open your mind to how time travel works, but I think Flight of the Navigator is example of time travel in film that you don’t hear cited often.

The main character, David is taken from his own time, and left in the future when the ship is on crashes into power cables. There he reconnects with his family, who have been without him for eight years, although no time has passed for David.

Through a course of events he finds himself at NASA, and manages to get on-board the crashed craft and navigate it away from the authorities. He is then taken back in time, presumably to the point just after he was initially abducted, with one of the small creatures from the spaceship in his pocket.

What might appear to be a simple, straight-forward time travel story becomes much more complex when you start to dissect it. I won’t do so here, because when you look at the site I am pointing you to, you will see why. It is a LONG article, and complex in its dissection. But it makes for fascinating reading, and highlights the thought that went behind one of my favourite childhood movies.

You can read the whole article by clicking HERE and I hope you really enjoy it. I did.

You can also check out this trailer for Flight of the Navigator. If you grew up watching it on VHS, this is pure nostalgia.


(Please note this is an article I published previously on as ‘Building A Tower To The Stars’ which you can read by clicking HERE)

In his 1979 novel ‘The Fountains of Paradise’ Science Fiction author Arthur C Clarke imagined a not-too-distant future where technology would have progressed so far as to allow us to engineer a material strong enough to be used as a cable connecting an orbiting satellite with the ground – a concept commonly referred to as ‘The Space Elevator’ or ‘Tether’.

It involves having a satellite in near-Earth orbit, with one tether stretched out into space, attached to a heavy object acting as a counter weight, against a line that is dropped to Earth from the satellite and secured to the ground. The satellite remains fixed in synchronous orbit, and the counter weight would keep the line held taut. A vehicle would be used to go up and down this line, much like an elevator, moving with relative ease to and from Earth orbit. As Clarke notes in his book, perhaps it is easier to think of the Space Elevator as being something stretching not upward toward the stars, but outward… that is, 35,000 kilometers outward.

The idea is not originally Clarke’s however, although he certainly brought it to widespread attention in 1979 with the publication of his novel; the Space Elevator it has its roots more in science fact than science fiction.

The key idea behind it dates back to 1895, when a Soviet Rocket Scientist named Konstantin Tsiolkovsky – inspired by the Eiffel Tower – proposed an idea for building a solid free-standing tower from Earth’s surface, reaching up 35,000 kilometers into space. He proposed that from the top of this tower, objects could be launched into space with relative ease into orbit. However the lack of a material strong enough to support its own weight at such a height proved the concept beyond human capability. Still, the underlying idea of simply connecting ground and sky, as opposed to travelling from ground to sky, stuck.

Later, in 1959, leading Soviet Engineer called Yuri Artsustanov followed on from Tsiolkovsky’s work when he conceived of the Space Elevator as we think of it today. It is worth mentioning that Artsustanov drew on not just one but two concepts of Tsiolkovsky’s – the huge tower reaching up into space, and the geostationary satellite, theorized by Tsiolkovsky in his 1903 work ‘The Exploration of Cosmic Space by Means of Reaction Devices’.

This concept was further developed by Clarke himself in 1945, as an idea for communication satellites in geostationary orbits. This led to the obvious: the Satellite Television, GPS, etc, that we all take for granted today. The extent of the impact Tsiolkovsky’s work had on the early thinkers of the twentieth century is obvious – the most famous example of his influence might well have been the successful launching of Sputnik into space; showing that a geostationary orbit could be sustained by a man-made object. This allowed Artsustanov to base his concept of a Space Elevator in known truth – making it a more viable idea.

The attraction of the Space Elevator concept is not only how environmentally friendly it would be, but also how cheap it would be compared with current rocket technologies with the cost of sending anything up into space at roughly $20,000 per lb. Using the Space Elevator technology would be many times less than that.
Another factor is the level of public interest. People need something new to get excited about. Since the heydays of the Space Race in the 50’s and 60’s, public interest in leaving our planet has waned severely. Perhaps that is partly due to the fact that we stopped heading to the moon and seemed more content remaining within Earth’s orbit. It could be because of the amount of time it takes to plan, and implement each separate mission; losing public interest in the waiting. And surely the reality of how much each mission into space currently costs is a factor also. With the Space Elevator, we could travel from a point on Earth’s surface into space, without the need for rockets, and at a dramatically lower cost. It would also be safer; removing the danger involved in riding an over-sized firework.

We could ferry supplies to an orbiting Space Station such as the ISS with ease. Even the ability to launch Satellites and Space Probes without the need of a rocket would be money well saved. Indeed the uses of the Space Elevator concept, and the opportunities that it opens to us, are immense. The technology would have a profound effect on not only the way that we reach space, but on what we do next.

Imagine a Space Elevator not only on Earth, but on the Moon as well, helping us to establish and maintain a Moon Base on the lunar surface. Perhaps even ferrying processed lunar ore to awaiting transports to bring back to Earth. And what of Mars? The problem with a manned mission to Mars is the difficulty of establishing a base on Mars, and the logistics of getting back off of the surface. With a Space Elevator on Mars, a single ship could be sent to Mars and left in orbit whilst the surface is explored. The astronauts could then return to the ship via the Elevator, and head back to Earth.

The other proposed use of the Space Elevator concept, is in using the tethers to slingshot objects away from Earth into space. With the counter weight at one end of the tether, and for example a space probe at the other, the tether would transfer momentum to the probe, throwing it away from Earth at great speed. This would not only negate the need for a probe to circle the Earth continuously until it had picked up enough speed to break away from Earth’s gravity, but it might also mean that a probe’s journey into deep space might be that much quicker, given the kick start.

There are several drawbacks to building a Space Elevator, the biggest of which is the production of a material that is suitable to be stretched tight over tens of thousands of kilometers, and endure great weights and strains from various forces. The other is the immense cost of actually getting such a ‘construction’ built. However, there has recently been a resurgence of interest in the concept, and amongst several ongoing projects to build a Space Elevator is a recent announcement by Shuichi Ono, Chairman of the Japan Space Elevator Association, of their intent to build a Space Elevator with a trillion yen price tag.

Only the future will tell if such grand plans come to see fruition.

It is very clear that if we want to go back into space, and send people like you and I there, then we need to make travelling to space as cheap and as easy as possible. We cannot continue to rely on rocket technology, which is hundreds of years old, and far too expensive (the average cost sending the Space Shuttle into space is around about $450 Million).
We need to use technologies that can get Mankind to and from Space cheaply, quickly, and regularly. The development of new, strong materials that will allow us to build things like the Space Elevator will be a major factor in allowing us to do that. Surely the key to getting Mankind back into space is to make space a tourist attraction and allow companies to make money by taking them there.

In much the same way that airlines and jets offer to us the prospect of travelling anywhere on the globe, in the future they must be able to offer trips into space, the moon, and perhaps other planets. And they will not do this by using rockets. A rich elite may be able to afford such trips in rocket-powered craft, but not the everyday men and women who have spent their lives looking up at the night sky and wishing they could reach out and touch it. To open space to the masses, travel to it must be cheap and safe, and we must be able to send one trip after another. Links from the surface to the stars, and the advances in Science and Engineering that will make them possible, will help make going into space a realistic dream that will not be confined to only the super rich.

In the near future, perhaps within our own lifetimes, such trips might be as simple as riding a train… they might even be just as cheap.

This article is dedicated in my own little way as a tribute to the memory of ARTHUR C CLARKE (1917-2008) who was a visionary and a Grand Master of Science Fiction


In May 1995 a 17 minute black and white film of an autopsy of alien bodies, found in supposed crash in the desert outside Roswell, New Mexico in June/July 1947 was presented by a man called Ray Santilli.

From the Wiki for the incident in Roswell, which provides a quick over-view of what happened:

On July 8, 1947, Roswell Army Air Field public information office in Roswell, New Mexico, issued a press release stating that personnel from the field’s 509th Bomb Group had recovered a crashed “flying disc” from a ranch near Roswell, sparking intense media interest.

The following day, the press reported that Commanding General of the Eighth Air Force stated that, in fact, a radar-tracking balloon had been recovered by the RAAF personnel, not a “flying disc.”

A subsequent press conference was called, featuring debris from the crashed object, which seemed to confirm the weather balloon description. This case was quickly forgotten and almost completely ignored, even by UFO researchers, for more than 30 years.
Then, in 1978, physicist and ufologist Stanton T. Friedman interviewed Major Jesse Marcel who was involved with the original recovery of the debris in 1947. Marcel expressed his belief that the military had covered up the recovery of an alien spacecraft. His story spread through UFO circles, being featured in some UFO documentaries at the time. In February 1980, The National Enquirer ran its own interview with Marcel, garnering national and worldwide attention for the Roswell incident.

Additional witnesses added significant new details, including claims of a huge military operation dedicated to recovering alien craft and aliens themselves, at as many as 11 crash sites, and alleged witness intimidation.

In 1989, former mortician Glenn Dennis put forth a detailed personal account, wherein he claimed that alien autopsies were carried out at the Roswell base.

Glenn Dennis’s account:

“In July 1947, I was a mortician, working for the Ballard Funeral Home in Roswell, which had a contract to provide mortuary services for the Roswell Army Air Field. One afternoon, around 1:15 or 1:30, I received a call from the base mortuary officer who asked what was the smallest size hermetically sealed casket that we had in stock. He said, ‘We need to know this in case something comes up in the future.’ He asked how long it would take to get one, and I assured him I could get one for him the following day. He said he would call back if they needed one.

“About 45 minutes to an hour later, he called back and asked me to describe the preparation for bodies that had been lying out on the desert for a period of time. Before I could answer, he said he specifically wanted to know what effect the preparation procedures would have on the body’s chemical compounds, blood and tissues… I offered to come out to the base to assist with any problem he might have, but he reiterated that the information was for future use…
“Approximately an hour or an hour and 15 minutes later, I got a call to transport a serviceman who had a laceration on his head and perhaps a fractured nose. I gave him first aid and drove him out to the base. I got there around 5:00 PM.

“Although I was a civilian, I usually had free access on the base because they knew me. I drove the ambulance around to the back of the base infirmary and parked it next to another ambulance. The door was open and inside I saw some wreckage. There were several pieces which looked like the bottom of a canoe, about three feet in length. It resembled stainless steel with a purple hue, as if it had been exposed to high temperature. There was some strange-looking writing on the material resembling Egyptian hieroglyphics. Also there were two MPs present.

“I checked the airman in and went to the staff lounge to have a Coke. I intended to look for a nurse, a 2nd Lieutenant, who had been commissioned about three months earlier right out of college. She was 23 years of age at the time (I was 22). I saw her coming out of one of the examining rooms with a cloth over her mouth. She said, ‘My gosh, get out of here or you’re going to be in a lot of trouble.’ She went into another door where a Captain stood. He asked me who I was and what I was doing here. I told him, and he instructed me to stay there. I said, ‘It looks like you’ve got a crash; would you like me to get ready?’ He told me to stay right there. Then two MPs came up and began to escort me out of the infirmary. They said they had orders to follow me out to the funeral home.

“We got about 10 or 15 feet when I heard a voice say, ‘We’re not through with that SOB. Bring him back.’ There was another Captain, a redhead with the meanest-looking eyes I had ever seen, who said, ‘You did not see anything, there was no crash here, and if you say anything you could get into a lot of trouble.’ I said, ‘Hey look mister, I’m a civilian and you can’t do a damn thing to me.’ He said, ‘Yes we can; somebody will be picking your bones out of the sand.’ There was a black Sergeant with a pad in his hand who said, ‘He would make good dog food for our dogs.’ The Captain said, ‘Get the SOB out.’ The MPs followed me back to the funeral home.
“The next day, I tried to call the nurse to see what was going on. About 11:00 AM, she called the funeral home and said, ‘I need to talk to you.’ We agreed to meet at the officers club. She was very upset. She said, ‘Before I talk to you, you have to give me a sacred oath that you will never mention my name, because I could get into a lot of trouble.’ I agreed.

“She said she had gone to get supplies in a room where two doctors were performing a preliminarily autopsy. The doctors said they needed her to take notes during the procedure. She said she had never smelled anything so horrible in her life, and the sight was the most gruesome she had ever seen. She said, ‘This was something no one has ever seen.’ As she spoke, I was concerned that she might go into shock.

“She drew me a diagram of the bodies, including an arm with a hand that had only four fingers; the doctors noted that on the end of the fingers were little pads resembling suction cups. She said the head was disproportionately large for the body; the eyes were deeply set; the skulls were flexible; the nose was concave with only two orifices; the mouth was a fine slit, and the doctors said there was heavy cartilage instead of teeth. The ears were only small orifices with flaps. They had no hair, and the skin was black—perhaps due to exposure in the sun. She gave me the drawings.

“There were three bodies; two were very mangled and dismembered, as if destroyed by predators; one was fairly intact. They were three-and-a-half to four feet tall. She told me the doctors said: ‘This isn’t anything we’ve ever see before; there’s nothing in the medical textbooks like this.’ She said she and the doctors became ill. They had to turn off the air conditioning and were afraid the smell would go through the hospital. They had to move the operation to an airplane hangar.

“I drove her back to the officers’ barracks. The next day I called the hospital to see how she was, and they said she wasn’t available. I tried to get her for several days, and finally got one of the nurses who said the Lieutenant had been transferred out with some other personnel. About 10 days to two weeks later, I got a letter from her with an APO number. She indicated we could discuss the incident by letter in the future. I wrote back to her and about two weeks later the letter came back marked ‘Return to Sender—DECEASED.’ Later, one of the nurses at the base said the rumor was that she and five other nurses had been on a training mission and had been killed in a plane crash.

“Sheriff George Wilcox and my father were very close friends. The Sheriff went to my folks’ house the morning after the events at the base and said to my father, ‘I don’t know what kind of trouble Glenn’s in, but you tell your son that he doesn’t know anything and hasn’t seen anything at the base.’ He added, ‘They want you and your wife’s name, and they want your and your children’s addresses.’ My father immediately drove to the funeral home and asked me what kind of trouble I was in. He related the conversation with Sheriff Wilcox, and so I told him about the events of the previous day. He is the only person to whom I have told this story until recently.

“I had filed away the sketches the nurse gave me that day. Recently, at the request of a researcher, I tried to locate my personal files at the funeral home, but they had all been destroyed.”

Continue reading


I had some feedback about my previous post regarding Michio Kaku and the UFO phenomenon, so here is something more for you to mull over.

I am going to point you to several articles, the first concerning Michio Kaku’s views on UFO’s. The first is at

An excerpt:

The probability is very high that not only do a few alien civilizations exist, but many. Kaku in his book Hyperspace compares humans as fish in a pond, only aware of the environment around them, not realizing there is a huge world outside the pond. In an article at his website Kaku had this to say in regards to Carl Sagan, another believer in alien civilizations: The late Carl Sagan once asked this question, “What does it mean for a civilization to be a million years old? We have had radio telescopes and spaceships for a few decades; our technical civilization is a few hundred years old… an advanced civilization millions of years old is as much beyond us as we are beyond a bush baby or a macaque.”

This answers the question that many debunkers have raised for years. For years they have asked why aliens don’t just announce their presence, or land in Times Square.

The reason that they will not do this is because if you are dealing with beings that are tens of thousands of years ahead of us, even millions, they would not be interested in us. Are you interested in an ant while you walk down the street?

The second is regarding a book by Leslie Kean, called UFO’s: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On The Record which can be found at

An excerpt:

In combination with her own insightful research, Kean has brought together over a dozen highly credible aviation witnesses and official investigators – including five generals and a former U.S. governor – who reveal the facts about UFOs in riveting, personal accounts written exclusively for this book. John Podesta, White House Chief of Staff to President Clinton and co-chair of President Obama’s transition team, provides a foreword. Kean offers a practical and achievable plan for US Government involvement in a step-by-step process to uncover what these unidentified objects are – and ultimately, what they may mean for all of us.

The book by Leslie Kean seems to be required reading, and Kaku seems to think so too. The video’s below are in fact radio interviews but are well worth listening to.

Michio Kaku interviews Leslie Kean re UFO’s Part 1

Michio Kaku interviews Leslie Kean re UFO’s Part 2

Michio Kaku interviews Leslie Kean re UFO’s Part 3


Wired is running an article detailing the 5 planets/moons in our solar system most likely to harbour alien life forms. That doesn’t mean they’re predicting ET’s home planet (we know where that is!) but they are saying which planetoids are most likely to contain things like microbes or even plankton like creatures.

Personally I have always believed that the most likely place to find life in our galaxy is Europa. I don’t think we’re going to find anything on Mars that equates to more than a few dry old fossils. Whether they’ll be fossils of large creatures or fossils of very small organisms is anyones guess. I just don’t think there’s anything there anymore – that it is truly a dead planet.

I do think there is a very strong possibility of life locked beneath the ice of Europa however. It has long been thought that Europa hides an ocean beneath an icy crust, though we still await confirmation as to just how thick the ice is. When we know that, we can send a probe or a manned mission to drill down through the ice and try to access the ocean beneath.

How would life exist in a freezing cold ocean that lies below a crust of ice? Well, we do know that the pull of Jupiter’s gravity is constantly flexing Europa as it orbits, meaning that vital heat is generated in the movement of the crust. Jupiter is also suspected of creating tidal energy on Europa.

From the wiki for Europa:

In late 2008, it was suggested Jupiter may keep Europa’s oceans warm by generating large planetary tidal waves on the moon because of its small but non-zero obliquity. This previously unconsidered kind of tidal force generates so-called Rossby waves that travel quite slowly, at just a few kilometers per day, but can generate significant kinetic energy.

Europa could also have volcanic activity providing heat, energy and nutrients to the water. In our own oceans we have found visual evidence of life thriving around thermal vents, at depths we thought life would never exist at.

It has also been theorised that the ice covering Europa could act as an oxidizer to the ocean beneath. The fact of the matter is, these hostile environments are only hostile until you begin to consider the multitude of ways in which life could find a stronghold on them. The prospect of them being liveable habitats is unbelievable until conventional thinking is side-stepped to consider much more remote possibilities. It is a truly alien idea to us humans that life could exist without air, and with sunlight… and yet as we have seen in our ocean… this does happen. Life happens in these environs.

Life will always finds a way to overcome obstacles and survive, and if we think beyond the boundaries of our own planet, and the limitations of our world, then life could take any form and survive… and even thrive in conditions we would consider toxic and hostile.

There are arguments for all of the worlds listed in the Wired piece, and they’re all fair arguments. My bet is on Europa though. And if there is life there, you can also bet that it will be far more alien and unreal to us than anything we could have imagined.

You can read the article at Wired HERE

And you can read the wiki for Europa, HERE