NationStates Jolt Archive

In what is perhaps one of the most important finds in the galaxy, scientists are claiming to have discovered the most Earth like planet yet. Orbiting Gliese 581, a red dwarf in the Libra constellation, this planet is 5 times earth's size, and is much closer to its sun than we are to ours.

However, because red dwarf stars are significantly cooler, scientists believe something very important about this planet. It's the right distance from its sun to have a very very important quality. The average temperature of its surface, it is estimated, ranges between 0 and 40 degrees c. The right temperature for water to exist on its surface.k

This would be the first planet discovered where there is a good chance of water existing on the surface in liquid form. More astonishing is that Gliese 581 is only about 20 light years from earth, and is one of the 100 closest stars from our own system.

Not only is 20 light years extremely close in astronomical terms, and could be traveled to with a few technological advancements, but this speaks volumes about statistics. If one star of the 100 closest has a planet that can sustain liquid water then, based on pure statistics alone the amount of planets out there that can hold water is astronomical.

It's the just right planet. With any luck, we'll be able to answer some of those questions.

Whoa, neat! I hope we see some cool stuff come out of this in my lifetime. You've got about 75 years, people! Let's see some progress here. :cool:

In what is perhaps one of the most important finds in the galaxy, scientists are claiming to have discovered the most Earth like planet yet. Orbiting Gliese 581, a red dwarf in the Libra constellation, this planet is 5 times earth's size, and is much closer to its sun than we are to ours.

However, because red dwarf stars are significantly cooler, scientists believe something very important about this planet. It's the right distance from its sun to have a very very important quality. The average temperature of its surface, it is estimated, ranges between 0 and 40 degrees c. The right temperature for water to exist on its surface.k

This would be the first planet discovered where there is a good chance of water existing on the surface in liquid form. More astonishing is that Gliese 581 is only about 20 light years from earth, and is one of the 100 closest stars from our own system.

Not only is 20 light years extremely close in astronomical terms, and could be traveled to with a few technological advancements, but this speaks volumes about statistics. If one star of the 100 closest has a planet that can sustain liquid water then, based on pure statistics alone the amount of planets out there that can hold water is astronomical.

that's pretty cool! although wouldn't the gravity on somethng that size be too much to bear for human skeletons?

F-ing A!

Source?

link would be nice, but this is sweet! Or mabye not. who wants to bet that if that planet supports life that's less advanced than us, some a-hole starts hunting them and selling various body parts.

Sorry, source (http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/04/24/exoplanet.reut/index.html)

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070424_hab_exoplanet.html

^ Another source :)

This is good news. Eventually we will identify a Earth like planet positively. Then after we find enough we may actually identify one that has life. Later on down the road we may actually find a civilization to make contact with.

This is good news. Eventually we will identify a Earth like planet positively. Then after we find enough we may actually identify one that has life. Later on down the road we may actually find a civilization to make contact with.
And in turn introduce AIDS, crack and bio-chemical warfare. :D

In what is perhaps one of the most important finds in the galaxy, scientists are claiming to have discovered the most Earth like planet yet. Orbiting Gliese 581, a red dwarf in the Libra constellation, this planet is 5 times earth's size, and is much closer to its sun than we are to ours.

However, because red dwarf stars are significantly cooler, scientists believe something very important about this planet. It's the right distance from its sun to have a very very important quality. The average temperature of its surface, it is estimated, ranges between 0 and 40 degrees c. The right temperature for water to exist on its surface.k

This would be the first planet discovered where there is a good chance of water existing on the surface in liquid form. More astonishing is that Gliese 581 is only about 20 light years from earth, and is one of the 100 closest stars from our own system.

Not only is 20 light years extremely close in astronomical terms, and could be traveled to with a few technological advancements, but this speaks volumes about statistics. If one star of the 100 closest has a planet that can sustain liquid water then, based on pure statistics alone the amount of planets out there that can hold water is astronomical.

HA! You punster you :fluffle:

How long until someone trys to find Christianity or Islam there?

The problem of course is that it's probably still a dead world. . .IIRC, red dwarves are the remnants of stars that went red giant and then collapsed in on themselves once the core fused into iron. Given the proximity of that planetoid to the star, when it was a main-sequence or a giant that planet would have been cindered in much the same way Mercury is now. Ergo, no water vapor, and definately no life.

The problem of course is that it's probably still a dead world. . .IIRC, red dwarves are the remnants of stars that went red giant and then collapsed in on themselves once the core fused into iron. Given the proximity of that planetoid to the star, when it was a main-sequence or a giant that planet would have been cindered in much the same way Mercury is now. Ergo, no water vapor, and definately no life.

Wishful thinking on your part :p

It doesn't necessarily have to have ever been a red giant. That's the way lots of stars form.....they have lower mass and make a small red star.

Even if something wiped the planet clean....that could have been 15 billion years ago. Plenty of time for water to have been reintroduced and life to evolve.

And in turn introduce AIDS, crack and bio-chemical warfare. :D

You know it. Humans are going to either be a force of good in the universe or feared and or hunted to extinction. Maybe a mix of both. But I could see some sort of galactic conflict with humans involved.

link would be nice, but this is sweet! Or mabye not. who wants to bet that if that planet supports life that's less advanced than us, some a-hole starts hunting them and selling various body parts.

SPACE COLONIZATION!!!

or we could use it as real estate...in 1000 years who knows how much that land will be worth :p

It doesn't necessarily have to have ever been a red giant. That's the way lots of stars form.....they have lower mass and make a small red star.

Even if something wiped the planet clean....that could have been 15 billion years ago. Plenty of time for water to have been reintroduced and life to evolve.

I was under the impression that Super-Jupiters are classified as brown dwarfs if they never reached the size for critical mass. Red dwarves are former F, G, and K-type stars that went novae. . .hmm, must consult wikipedia. . .

I was under the impression that Super-Jupiters are classified as brown dwarfs if they never reached the size for critical mass. Red dwarves are former F, G, and K-type stars that went novae. . .hmm, must consult wikipedia. . .
Uh... no. Red dwarves are stars that started out small. You're thinking of white dwarves.

Uh... no. Red dwarves are stars that started out small. You're thinking of white dwarves.

Wow, good looking and knowledgeable about space. Fantastic! :D

Wow, good looking and knowledgeable about space. Fantastic! :D
Yeah, a bachelor's in astrophysics does tend to make one learn about stellar evolution... :p

You know what this means:

Soon as we develop the space-travel technology, we're gonna all be playing Alpha Centauri live.

Uh... no. Red dwarves are stars that started out small. You're thinking of white dwarves.

Yup. The really awesome thing about red dwarf stars is that they burn their hydrogen off at a significantly slower rate than sun-sized M sequence stars. In fact, the smaller the star the longer it lives. Which means that if you can find a small red dwarf with a planet that can sustain life, in our backyard (something we might even possibly be able to reach over the course of a lengthy, but still plausible, trip) then we have a candidate for where to go to in the event we're still alive in 5 billion years when our sun goes red giant.

Though given that the crash with Andromeda will happen before that, and probably throw everything out of whack, not like it matters much.

Yeah, a bachelor's in astrophysics does tend to make one learn about stellar evolution... :p

Nifty. Going to grad school? I'm a UG in Optics atm.

Yup. The really awesome thing about red dwarf stars is that they burn their hydrogen off at a significantly slower rate than sun-sized M sequence stars. In fact, the smaller the star the longer it lives. Which means that if you can find a small red dwarf with a planet that can sustain life, in our backyard (something we might even possibly be able to reach over the course of a lengthy, but still plausible, trip) then we have a candidate for where to go to in the event we're still alive in 5 billion years when our sun goes red giant.

Though given that the crash with Andromeda will happen before that, and probably throw everything out of whack, not like it matters much.Corret there in the next few billions years the galaxies will collide resulting in the rule of me as god.:cool:

Yet, in terms mortals understand the white dwarf is the star that forms small early, red dwarfs form after a star blows up, but not it has been hypotheized that life might acutally do better on smaller stars due to the fact they last FAR longer.

Acutally, the Discovery channel, a couple years ago, presented something about different stars and planets possible life habitality.

Corret there in the next few billions years the galaxies will collide resulting in the rule of me as god.:cool:

Yet, in terms mortals understand the white dwarf is the star that forms small early, red dwarfs form after a star blows up, but not it has been hypotheized that life might acutally do better on smaller stars due to the fact they last FAR longer.

Acutally, the Discovery channel, a couple years ago, presented something about different stars and planets possible life habitality.

You have that backwards. A red dwarf forms small, a white dwarf forms when a sun-sized star passes through the red giant stage.

Corret there in the next few billions years the galaxies will collide resulting in the rule of me as god.:cool:

Yet, in terms mortals understand the white dwarf is the star that forms small early, red dwarfs form after a star blows up, but not it has been hypotheized that life might acutally do better on smaller stars due to the fact they last FAR longer.

Acutally, the Discovery channel, a couple years ago, presented something about different stars and planets possible life habitality.

You've got it backwards. White dwarves are remnants of stars too small to form neutron stars or black holes. Sun-sized stars.

Red dwarf stars are the ones that form small and stay small. And their lifespan is inversely proportional to their size.

And in turn introduce AIDS, crack and bio-chemical warfare. :D
And again in turn adapt all their fucked up shit.

Really, though. I'm not holding my breath that intelligent life exists anywhere else in this galaxy.

And again in turn adapt all their fucked up shit.

Really, though. I'm not holding my breath that intelligent life exists an.ywhere else in this galaxy.

Eh, likely true. However, the Galaxy is probably teeming with life, just unlikely "civilization" level life. I wouldn't doubt completely that there isn't a handful of highly developed intelligence, just not the massive amounts that some seem to think.

You know what this means:

Soon as we develop the space-travel technology, we're gonna all be playing Alpha Centauri live.

I call University of Planet.

Neat! Let's go! :)

It's not that far, really.. 20 lightyears. According to the Internet, the Helios II probe achieved a velocity of 44 miles per second.. If the speed of light is 186,282 miles per second, that means we've already achieved 1/4233 the speed of light! So really, it'd only take us about 85,000 years to get there if we start now! Maybe even faster, if my math is off, which is likely.. Sweet. :)

I call University of Planet.

*shrug* I call Gaians. I'll take over all the mindworms and overrun you like I always do.

*shrug* I call Gaians. I'll take over all the mindworms and overrun you like I always do.

I'll just set my economy to green, make you like me, and tech rush my way to Transcendence.

Besides, we'll need to ally against those crazy-ass Believers anyways.

You have that backwards. A red dwarf forms small, a white dwarf forms when a sun-sized star passes through the red giant stage.Sorry, I am tired and was not thinking straight and thanks for correcting me,:)

Eh, likely true. However, the Galaxy is probably teeming with life, just unlikely "civilization" level life. I wouldn't doubt completely that there isn't a handful of highly developed intelligence, just not the massive amounts that some seem to think.
I agree.

Also, the likelihood that even these small pockets of civilization resemble humans enough to even effectively communicate is extremely low.

I mean, what if the aliens live on a planet where all other lifeforms are extremely dangerous and hostile, resulting in extreme anthropocentric behavior, and what if they don't communicate with sound, but instead with one of the other senses, for instance by secreting gases that turn out to be noxious to humans?
This example, while far fetched in and of itself, is, I believe, still infinitely more likely than finding life on other planets that even vaguely resemble human civilization.

I agree.

Also, the likelihood that even these small pockets of civilization resemble humans enough to even effectivly communicate.

I imagine they'd have to be carbon-based for us to even have a chance. Maybe silicon based, since it's so close to carbon and has some similar properties, but anything other than those two would likely be an impossible communicative barrier.

Well like that other guy said, what about the gravity thing? If the gravity's too low then it won't be good for the human body. But nontheless, if humans did ever reach that planet and it had oceans then I think it would be just grand to be the first person to take a poop in the ocean. :)

In what is perhaps one of the most important finds in the galaxy, scientists are claiming to have discovered the most Earth like planet yet. Orbiting Gliese 581, a red dwarf in the Libra constellation, this planet is 5 times earth's size, and is much closer to its sun than we are to ours.

However, because red dwarf stars are significantly cooler, scientists believe something very important about this planet. It's the right distance from its sun to have a very very important quality. The average temperature of its surface, it is estimated, ranges between 0 and 40 degrees c. The right temperature for water to exist on its surface.

This would be the first planet discovered where there is a good chance of water existing on the surface in liquid form. More astonishing is that Gliese 581 is only about 20 light years from earth, and is one of the 100 closest stars from our own system.

Not only is 20 light years extremely close in astronomical terms, and could be traveled to with a few technological advancements, but this speaks volumes about statistics. If one star of the 100 closest has a planet that can sustain liquid water then, based on pure statistics alone the amount of planets out there that can hold water is astronomical.
As many as 90 percent of the stars in this galaxy are small, dim objects called type-M dwarf stars with masses at most half of the Sun's. Because of their low masses, these M stars have incredibly long lives and thus, long periods of near-constant luminosity. Around M dwarfs, life would have hundreds of billions, even trillions of years to develop.

However, M stars have long been suspect in terms of their suitability fotr biology. Not only are their habital zones narrow (about 1/10 the width of the Sun's), but these habitable zones are so close to the stars (1/4 Mercury's orbit, or 1/10 Earth's orbit) that any planets orbiting there would certainly be tidally locked. This means one side of a planet always faces its star. So, instead of getting an even roasting, one side of the planet would be a blazing noonday Sahara, while the other is a freezing midnight Siberia.

Initially, scientists thought such a situation would be unstable, and moisture in the planet's atmosphere would condense on the night side. This in itself would be bad for life, but what is potentially worse is M stars are famous for flares. All stars flare occasionally, including the Sun. But M-star flares can temporarily increase the star's luminosity by a factor of 100 or more (due to their usuall dimness, other stars can become brighter but because they're already much brighter than M stars it isn't nearly as high a factor), blasting out high-energy radiation and fast moving particles (cosmic rays) that would dismember any nearby DNA molecules. Combine these outbursts with the habitable zones close distance, and we're talking about putting a planet in an ultraviolet sterilizer.

So you see, this planet is actually about the worst place for life as it is known to form. You must all really hate me for always killing your dreams like this.

Well like that other guy said, what about the gravity thing? If the gravity's too low then it won't be good for the human body. But nontheless, if humans did ever reach that planet and it had oceans then I think it would be just grand to be the first person to take a poop in the ocean. :)

Humans exist perfectly fine in space if they stay in space. They have a hard time readjusting to earth's gravity. The same would be the case here. You'd be fine living on the planet with the planet's gravity, but if it was below a certain point, you'd have probably extreme difficulty getting back on earth without an extensive method of gravity training. One that would allow your body to adjust to steadily increasing levels of gravity.

Yeah, a bachelor's in astrophysics does tend to make one learn about stellar evolution... :p

then you can help me study for my Astronomy II final that is next Thursday :p
because I keep forgetting which variable type the small mass stars go through xD

I'll just set my economy to green, make you like me, and tech rush my way to Transcendence.

Besides, we'll need to ally against those crazy-ass Believers anyways.

Yes, except that I, as the Gaians, will likely get to Green first, despite your technological advantage. I already start out with +25% planet, and the addition of Green would put me up to 75%, dwarfing your feeble 50%.

I'd then break your will militarily, and leave you with one or two bases while I make a slow push for Transcendance.

Humans exist perfectly fine in space if they stay in space. They have a hard time readjusting to earth's gravity. The same would be the case here. You'd be fine living on the planet with the planet's gravity, but if it was below a certain point, you'd have probably extreme difficulty getting back on earth without an extensive method of gravity training. One that would allow your body to adjust to steadily increasing levels of gravity.

On a low gravity planet, though, wouldn't everyone get really fat and weak unless they constantly worked out as our astronauts do on space stations? I mean, our muscles (along with every other animals' on earth) are built to pretty consistently fight against gravity, and our metabolisms are designed to provide energy for that effort. On a low gravity planet, sedentary people truly would get zero exercise

Yes, except that I, as the Gaians, will likely get to Green first, despite your technological advantage. I already start out with +25% planet, and the addition of Green would put me up to 75%, dwarfing your feeble 50%.

I'd then break your will militarily, and leave you with one or two bases while I make a slow push for Transcendance.
I'll kick both your asses with the Spartans. Fuck fucking with drones.

I'd just like to point out that all this talk is about what humans think they know, it is probably quite likely that other lifeforems out there could stand heat or cold that is beyond the human survival point, or gravity, or even lack of water. For if we don't even know everything about our own planet, we really should'nt be saying that all other life would absolutely have to have the same conditions as us.

This is good news. Eventually we will identify a Earth like planet positively. Then after we find enough we may actually identify one that has life. Later on down the road we may actually find a civilization to make contact with.

Today in Biology whe speak of how hard it was for animals to move from water up on land. Imagine in a couple of thousands/million years when whe speak of how whe evolved from beeing earth based species to live in space.

And in turn introduce AIDS, crack and bio-chemical warfare. :D

Who's to say that they don't already have their own versions of these. You may not be underestimating our core values, but you're amost certainly overestimating theirs.

I'll kick both your asses with the Spartans. Fuck fucking with drones.

Yeah, but you guys usually get pwned by the Hive.

Eh, likely true. However, the Galaxy is probably teeming with life, just unlikely "civilization" level life. I wouldn't doubt completely that there isn't a handful of highly developed intelligence, just not the massive amounts that some seem to think.
regardless of the number of intelligent civilisations, we need to take into account the stage said civilisation is in.
Take us as an example. We've been around in our current physical state for several thousand years. Yet only in the last 100 or so have we had the means to send electronic signals to the stars and only in the last few decades the means and efforts to try to detect incoming signals.
100 years ago we might well have received a msg from the stars, but lacked the technology to receive it.

Let's, for the sake of simplicity, assume our progress from cave dwellers to space farers is typical.

An alien civilisation at Victorian era level or earlier - i.e. where we've been for >99% of our existance - is neither sending signals, nor able to receive them from outer space. Thus we might assume that >99% of alien civilisations out there can't receive our signals. And we have to assume that developing radio technology is a normal development in civilisation. Humans managed without for most of their existance. Maybe the most common civilisation out there is akin to Roman or Middle-Ages times. In which case they'll never know of us (of us of them).

Then there's the distance involved. Our radio signals have been broadcasting little more than 100 years. So we have only covered 100 light years. If the nearest civilisation capable of receiving and interpreting radio signals is 200 light years away, they won't know of us (of us, them) for another 100 years.

And if they did, what then? We receive a signal in 300 years from them saying 'hey there, how's things?'. We immediately send a signal off, 'Not bad. you?'. 400 years later we get a reply back - assuming either of us are still around then.

Nope. I believe there are other advanced civilisations out there (the chances are pretty high considering the number of stars in the galaxy), but I've no doubt we'll never get in contact with any of them. *sigh*

This is all obviously a desperate attempt by so-called scientists to disprove the existence of God. After all, how could the Bible be right if there were life on other planets? :mad:



;)

This is awesome. We should colonise some other planets. Or terraform Mars. Or start roaming space slowly in big self-sustaining ships like Battlestar Galactica.

basicly so far this is the smallest planet arround another sun our instruments and methods are as yet able to detect or infer the existence of. it's all good news to me though. waking up and realizing we have neighbors, or at least so far at this point the likelyhood and possibility that we do, i think this is potentialy a very good thing, if, as i hope it might prove likely to, people are encourages, cultures, especialy the dominant ones, to feel more inclined value and recognize the real advantages of living in ways that avoid creating markets for the causing of suffering.

something new, i mean newly discouvering something like this, generaly inspires more creatively interesting developments then the morass of aggressiveness that the doldrums of a too long lack of them have degenerated into.

its a bit premature at this point to be saying b5 here we come, but perhapse humanity will find something more interesting to do then being destructive.
which of course, if we don't, well what we've done to our natural environment is an example that in and of itself bodes otherwise ill of our collective future.

a future i none the less have a great deal of faith and hope in the very real possibility we possess for averting self inflicted disaster.

20 lights. yes a mission that takes 20 years of endless nothingness or more to get there is potentialy well within what we might be able to come up with a way of launching.

such a mission would have to somehow take with it, all of what we on our world take for granted our world as providing. not just a supply of food and oxygen, but a self sustaining totally 100% recycling and reusing environment, replicating sytheticly what nature does for us here, and without which, even here we could not and would not exist without.

nothing like space, where there is no source of these things there, to remind people how precious and valuable they are to existence itself.

=^^=
.../\...

And again in turn adapt all their fucked up shit.

Really, though. I'm not holding my breath that intelligent life exists anywhere else in this galaxy.

What do you mean anywhere else? I've yet to find intelligent life on this planet.

Just think any aliens that set up camp on that world could be watching ol' Raygun talk now.

Just think any aliens that set up camp on that world could be watching ol' Raygun talk now.

We could be in trouble in about 20 years...

Wait until they hear about Bush! :eek:

20 lights. yes a mission that takes 20 years of endless nothingness or more to get there is potentialy well within what we might be able to come up with a way of launching.

Well, more importantly to note, it wouldn't take 20 years, to the crew. Traveling close to the speed of light they would experience huge time contraction. It would take a handful of years, or even a few months, depending on how fast they could reasonably accellerate, decelerate, and reach a top speed of.

This is about the smallest planet we can detect with our current technology. When the European equivalent (although more modern) of Hubble goes up we might be able to find earthsized water containing planets even closer to home.

Water is something that forms pretty easily in any forming of a solar system, so it's not to hard to believe that most solar systems contain vast quantities of water.

But we might also be looking in the wrong direction, silica has the same properties as carbon. Therefore maybe the vast majority of life, unlike us, is silica based and might not need water but a totally different substance. We might have already found a planet containing life that is far closer to home while thinking life is impossible there.

We wouldnt be able to reach it in 20 years. Lightspeed is something so far away from our current technology that I dont see it hapening in 200 to 300 years. Maybe there is some other way, but not in our lifetime.

And I dont see we getting there quite soon too. Maybe if we got technology from another civilization... But that is so absurd to believe in right now that I dont see it hapening too.

Anyway, our technology is quite primitive right now, we cant be sure of anything yet.

We wouldnt be able to reach it in 20 years. Lightspeed is something so far away from our current technology that I dont see it hapening in 200 to 300 years. Maybe there is some other way, but not in our lifetime.

And I dont see we getting there quite soon too. Maybe if we got technology from another civilization... But that is so absurd to believe in right now that I dont see it hapening too.

Anyway, our technology is quite primitive right now, we cant be sure of anything yet.

But at lightspeed it would take 20 years, from our point of view.

But at lightspeed it would take 20 years, from our point of view.
What someone needs to do is invent a ship capable of faster-than-light speeds sometime in the future. Then they'll arrive there before they left Earth.
Do this a few times and they'll be turning up in this day and age before we know it!

What someone needs to do is invent a ship capable of faster-than-light speeds sometime in the future. Then they'll arrive there before they left Earth.
Do this a few times and they'll be turning up in this day and age before we know it!

see, the problem with this is....

Actually the great irony is that any FTL ships probably wouldn't "move" at all in the literal sense. Stuff would move around them.

see, the problem with this is....

Actually the great irony is that any FTL ships probably wouldn't "move" at all in the literal sense. Stuff would move around them.

That's how the planet express ship works :)

But at lightspeed it would take 20 years, from our point of view.

Yes, but I doubt we can reach lightspeed. I doubt we can reach half of it (which would be awesome nonetheless).

And I dont see it hapening in the next 300 years.

We could find a diferent way of propulsion, but that is so far from our reality...

Yes, but I doubt we can reach lightspeed. I doubt we can reach half of it (which would be awesome nonetheless).

And I dont see it hapening in the next 300 years.

We could find a diferent way of propulsion, but that is so far from our reality...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam-powered_propulsion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_propulsion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam-powered_propulsion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_propulsion

Sorry man, I dont think we can reach anything similar to light speed with that.

Light speed is 300.000 km/second.

Sorry man, I dont think we can reach anything similar to light speed with that.

Light speed is 300.000 km/second.

Indeed. Solar sails are SLOW. Very slow. Efficient? Yes. Slow, oh hell yes.

As for Laser propulsion, the problem being that although *theoretically* you can have a great deal of speed, in practice there are limitations.

Really, "normal" travel is unlikely to yield anything of much value. What we would need is something that can travel "outside" of normal travel(I.E. traveling from point A to Point B in a straight line type thing).

that's pretty cool! although wouldn't the gravity on somethng that size be too much to bear for human skeletons?
Yes, although it could have several moons.

that's pretty cool! although wouldn't the gravity on somethng that size be too much to bear for human skeletons?

Underwater life would be easier. Assuming there is in fact water, as is suggested...

Yes, although it could have several moons.

Gravity should only be a couple times Earth normal, humans could survive it, though it wouldn't exactly be a day at the beach.

It doesn't necessarily have to have ever been a red giant. That's the way lots of stars form.....they have lower mass and make a small red star.

Even if something wiped the planet clean....that could have been 15 billion years ago. Plenty of time for water to have been reintroduced and life to evolve.

But...the universe is 15 Billion years old. No way in hell any life in the history of ever would be any older than 11 Billion...

For all those that say the universe is too big for Earth to be alone in supporting life, I say to you, "Prove it." Bring me an example of a lifeform beyond this world.

For all those that say the universe is too big for Earth to be alone in supporting life, I say to you, "Prove it." Bring me an example of a lifeform beyond this world.

I'm not sure you've quite gotten the idea behind that statment...

Just think any aliens that set up camp on that world could be watching ol' Raygun talk now.

Not just that.. the whole bloody 80s! Man, these aliens must think we have no style, bad hair and an obssession with dreary electronica crap!

Light speed... It's really an approach that should be forgotten, we can't go faster, it would require infinite amounts of energy to move even an object the weight of a feather at anything faster then lighstpeed. The energy supply however is finite.

The only way to get there faster then 20 years is by curving space time. Which by Einsteins theory of relativity is possible by the use of gravity. But the amount of energy required to do so cannot yet be produced by us humans due to the fact that we'd need an energy source that would make nuclear reactors look like nothing more then a pentlite battery.

The trick to bitchslapping relativity is artificial gravity and anti-gravity. Imagine reducing a vessel's mass to a few atoms, propelling it at insanely high speeds then becomes relative child's play.


Get cracking on that AG Generator!


Also has fun potential for weapons, imagine firing an artificial gravity generator at an enemy that would collapse their vessel/planet into a micro-black hole.

The trick to bitchslapping relativity is artificial gravity and anti-gravity. Imagine reducing a vessel's mass to a few atoms, propelling it at insanely high speeds then becomes relative child's play.


Get cracking on that AG Generator!


Also has fun potential for weapons, imagine firing an artificial gravity generator at an enemy that would collapse their vessel/planet into a micro-black hole.

...Wouldn't anti-gravity un-collapse things?

Earth Like Planet Discovered, In Our Own Back Yard
*Checks out back window*

Damn, I know I need to mow, but I had no idea it had gotten this bad...

In what is perhaps one of the most important finds in the galaxy, scientists are claiming to have discovered the most Earth like planet yet. Orbiting Gliese 581, a red dwarf in the Libra constellation, this planet is 5 times earth's size, and is much closer to its sun than we are to ours.
If it's 5x the earth's size, the gravity must be 'heavy'.

*Checks out back window*

Damn, I know I need to mow, but I had no idea it had gotten this bad...

Your name makes the commentary all the more amusing.

If it's 5x the earth's size, the gravity must be 'heavy'.

Nothing a bit of bouyancy can't deal with.

For all those that say the universe is too big for Earth to be alone in supporting life, I say to you, "Prove it." Bring me an example of a lifeform beyond this world.

Your ignorance amuses me.

You cant even begin to imagine what a million means. Now, try to imagine billions of star systems out there, each containing quite a few planets.

You cant, right? You probabily believe in god ;)

At the very least, all these discoveries increase interest in space research again, which in turn provides more funds and thus leads to more discoveries, faster. Which is much needed, considering how hard a time we have to even get someone to Mars.

Alien life or no alien life ? For now both are mere theories. One or the other will one day be proven. Personally I believe in alien life, lots of it. And I consider it not so unlikely that some alien civilisation will find us first. Life on earth is 4,5 billion years old. The universe is about 13-15 billion years old (theories on that still vary). A planet with just a mere 1 billion years earlier start of life would be so much more advanced, if the development time took more or less the same time as it did here.

For all those that say the universe is too big for Earth to be alone in supporting life, I say to you, "Prove it." Bring me an example of a lifeform beyond this world.

It cannot yet be proven but astronomist are doing their best, they're not exploring the universe only for fun you know. Anyway, it's this thing called "probability" and by looking at how enourmous the universe is, we make the assumption that there are other life forms in it.

If it's 5x the earth's size, the gravity must be 'heavy'.

Well, depends on the exact density of the planet, and what it's make up is. It likely has a bit more gravity then we do, but if the metals aren't as "heavy" as what we have, or somehow less dense, it could possibly be fairly close to ours.

Of course, it could go the other way, as well.

Your ignorance amuses me.

You cant even begin to imagine what a million means. Now, try to imagine billions of star systems out there, each containing quite a few planets.

You cant, right? You probabily believe in god ;)

Er...

You're not thinking large enough.

Nowhere near large enough.

Er...

You're not thinking large enough.

Nowhere near large enough.

Perhaps a spectroscopic analysis of a fruitcake would help.

At the very least, all these discoveries increase interest in space research again, which in turn provides more funds and thus leads to more discoveries, faster. Which is much needed, considering how hard a time we have to even get someone to Mars.

Alien life or no alien life ? For now both are mere theories. One or the other will one day be proven. Personally I believe in alien life, lots of it. And I consider it not so unlikely that some alien civilisation will find us first. Life on earth is 4,5 billion years old. The universe is about 13-15 billion years old (theories on that still vary). A planet with just a mere 1 billion years earlier start of life would be so much more advanced, if the development time took more or less the same time as it did here.

Correct, besides proving that life doesn't exist. You can always prove life exists beyond earth: If you find it PROVEN. But you can't find non-existing life the universe is bigger then what we can even see due to the speed of light. So we'll never ever be able to prove that we're alone to an absolute certainty. Now if we find every single planet in the galaxy and find no life... Then it's probable that we're alone but not proven.

Relativistic generation ships FTW!
The problem of course is that it's probably still a dead world. . .IIRC, red dwarves are the remnants of stars that went red giant and then collapsed in on themselves once the core fused into iron. Given the proximity of that planetoid to the star, when it was a main-sequence or a giant that planet would have been cindered in much the same way Mercury is now. Ergo, no water vapor, and definately no life.
That would be white dwarf stars. Red dwarves are just small, stable, and long-lived stars (generally hundreds of billions of years).

If it's 5x the earth's size, the gravity must be 'heavy'.

Actually, 5x size would make it easier to live near the edge, as the gravity would be smaller.

What would really kill is 5x mass.

Also, I call UN for Alpha Centauri and suggest to the University and Gaians that we form an alliance.

Perhaps a spectroscopic analysis of a fruitcake would help.

Wasn't it fairy cake?

If one star of the 100 closest has a planet that can sustain liquid water then, based on pure statistics alone the amount of planets out there that can hold water is astronomical.No, it doesn't mean anything statistically, since "the 100 closest" is not a random sample.

Your ignorance amuses me.

You cant even begin to imagine what a million means. Now, try to imagine billions of star systems out there, each containing quite a few planets.

You cant, right? You probabily believe in god ;)
I can actually. A thousand thousands. And a billion is a thousand millions. I know that it's big place. It's actually that volume and the distance between objects in space that will likely keep such discoveries from being made. I already showed how 90 percent of the countless stars are incapable of supporting life because they're too cool and small. Those that are too big will have eaten up too much matter for habitable planets to form which means everything from type Ia to type IV will be out, including most class O's and B's and giant M's. When you get down to it, most will either be too cool but flare and sterilize tidally locked worlds or scorch them to ash and gobble them up when they're still forming.

And while I'm tearing your dreams and views apart I think I'll dispell your misconceptions of alien life? Having evolved on an alien world it will look absolutely nothing like the familiar entities of Earth. It'll likely be so alien it may not even be recognized as alive. If something is so different that you don't even see it as alive then it may as well not count.

It cannot yet be proven but astronomist are doing their best, they're not exploring the universe only for fun you know. Anyway, it's this thing called "probability" and by looking at how enourmous the universe is, we make the assumption that there are other life forms in it.
Probability is worth jack shit. Especially when it doesn't really exist. I need proof of something before I believe it. Show me a specimen or the remnants of one and I'll proudly declare that I was wrong to have assumed aliens don't exist. Can't do it? Then you fail. Horribly.

You see, when you believe something without evidence of it, it's called faith.

Er...

You're not thinking large enough.

Nowhere near large enough.

I know.

But I doubt you can too.

The human mind just havent been design to comprehend how big the universe really is.

No, it doesn't mean anything statistically, since "the 100 closest" is not a random sample.

True enough, but the possibility of red dwarfs(which is the most common star there is) being able to potentially support a planet with liquid water when it was previously believed they couldn't, DOES mean something statistically, as it drastically increases the pool of potential candidate. *nod*

I can actually. A thousand thousands. And a billion is a thousand millions. I know that it's big place. It's actually that volume and the distance between objects in space that will likely keep such discoveries from being made. I already showed how 90 percent of the countless stars are incapable of supporting life because they're too cool and small. Those that are too big will have eaten up too much matter for habitable planets to form which means everything from type Ia to type IV will be out, including most class O's and B's and giant M's. When you get down to it, most will either be too cool but flare and sterilize tidally locked worlds or scorch them to ash and gobble them up when they're still forming.

And while I'm tearing your dreams and views apart I think I'll dispell your misconceptions of alien life? Having evolved on an alien world it will look absolutely nothing like the familiar entities of Earth. It'll likely be so alien it may not even be recognized as alive. If something is so different that you don't even see it as alive then it may as well not count.



Of course probability means much. Even if there is only a 0,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of chance of another planet that ressembles earth in any way, its still possible, considering the ammount of planets out there.

Also, I dont believe we humans have been created by god, or that we are special in any way. That means that there can be another species in the other side of the universe just like us, as long as all the variables that happened here on earth happened there too.

About alien life that is just so diferent from us that we cant recognize it: wrong. The entire universe, at least as far as I know, follow the same rules and patterns. That means that Carbon in the other side of the universe still need 4 connections to become total. That means that water evaporates at 100°c and 1 atm in the entire universe.

The laws of physics, chemistry and biology that we learn in our lives could and can be aplied to the entire universe. At least, as far as we know.

"Pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space / 'Cause there's bugger all down here on earth!" - Monty Python's The Meaning of Life

True enough, but the possibility of red dwarfs(which is the most common star there is) being able to potentially support a planet with liquid water when it was previously believed they couldn't, DOES mean something statistically, as it drastically increases the pool of potential candidate. *nod*Don't get me wrong, I find this very exciting. But statistically, even if it demonstrates that it is possible for a habitable planet to orbit a red dwarf, it does not tell us ANYTHING about how likely that is--for all we know, this is the only one.

Granted I suspect that's not the case, and considering the large numbers involved it seems unlikely that this is, literally, the only one--or even that the number is extremely low. But any actual conception of how many there are is essentially a guess and has very, very little to do with the science of statistics.

No, it doesn't mean anything statistically, since "the 100 closest" is not a random sample.

Most certainly it is.

Is there anything about being reasonably close to earth that affects how likely it will be to have a planet, or that planet is capable of sustaining life?

Is there anything about being close to earth that affects what form of stars they are?

Does proximity to earth matter, AT ALL?

No, of course not. So it is pretty safe to assume that the 100 closest stars to earth are fairly common sample, as nothing about BEING close to earth will alter that sample in such a way as to be non representative.

As it is, the "100 closest stars" is absolutly a random sample. It's a sample of 100 stars, which happen to be the closest stars to earth.

And in looking at a random sample of 100 stars, we've found at least one with a reasonably earth like temperature.

How in the world is it NOT a valid sample?

Don't get me wrong, I find this very exciting. But statistically, even if it demonstrates that it is possible for a habitable planet to orbit a red dwarf, it does not tell us ANYTHING about how likely that is--for all we know, this is the only one.

Granted I suspect that's not the case, and considering the large numbers involved it seems unlikely that this is, literally, the only one--or even that the number is extremely low. But any actual conception of how many there are is essentially a guess and has very, very little to do with the science of statistics.

Oh, I never said anything about habitable. I said it could have water. Which is the first step to habitable, but a far ways from it.

What we can say is that at least one star in one hundred has a planet on it that could have liquid water on it

Yes, although it could have several moons.

Underwater life would be easier. Assuming there is in fact water, as is suggested...

ah right. and thanks for responding :) thought i'd made an invisible post.

Probability is worth jack shit. Especially when it doesn't really exist. I need proof of something before I believe it. Show me a specimen or the remnants of one and I'll proudly declare that I was wrong to have assumed aliens don't exist. Can't do it? Then you fail. Horribly.

You see, when you believe something without evidence of it, it's called faith.

Your position is untenable. You have no more evidence that the universe is unihabitable than you do that it is inhabitable.

Your belief that there is not is no less a matter of faith than anyone's belief that there is.

Don't get me wrong, I find this very exciting. But statistically, even if it demonstrates that it is possible for a habitable planet to orbit a red dwarf, it does not tell us ANYTHING about how likely that is--for all we know, this is the only one.

Granted I suspect that's not the case, and considering the large numbers involved it seems unlikely that this is, literally, the only one--or even that the number is extremely low. But any actual conception of how many there are is essentially a guess and has very, very little to do with the science of statistics.

Oh, I agree. Statistics implies a large sample pool, and we simpy haven't had the ability to decect extrasolar planets at all long enough to say anything with reasonable confidence as far as number of planets and the likelihood of them supporting life. I think it's interesting, however that this is the first 'candidate' we've found and it happens to be orbiting a red dwarf of all things. I think people need to reprioritize their searches at the very least. Maybe the fact that we're orbiting such a relatively bright star makes us the oddball in the region. Maybe they aren't looking for life here. :p

Of course probability means much. Even if there is only a 0,00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of chance of another planet that ressembles earth in any way, its still possible, considering the ammount of planets out there.

Also, I dont believe we humans have been created by god, or that we are special in any way. That means that there can be another species in the other side of the universe just like us, as long as all the variables that happened here on earth happened there too.

About alien life that is just so diferent from us that we cant recognize it: wrong. The entire universe, at least as far as I know, follow the same rules and patterns. That means that Carbon in the other side of the universe still need 4 connections to become total. That means that water evaporates at 100°c and 1 atm in the entire universe.

The laws of physics, chemistry and biology that we learn in our lives could and can be aplied to the entire universe. At least, as far as we know.
I don't think I ever said that the laws of physics and chemistry would be different in different locations throughout the universe, but just because you've got a planet with liquid water doesn't mean that life will exist on it. I'm not saying that God created people, I'm just saying that you can have a dead rock covered in water circling a perfect star. Just because life can form doesn't mean it will and just having a large pool of potential candidates (which isn't as large as you might think) doesn't mean that one will be a winner. And even if there were another it would be impossible to prove and even more impossible to get from here to there. There are no little green men. SETI is a religion.

Nifty. Going to grad school? I'm a UG in Optics atm.
Yeah, I got accepted into Western's astro programme, though I still haven't heard back from two schools so I don't know if I'm going there or what yet... but I'm definitely going to grad school at least.

And in turn introduce AIDS, crack and bio-chemical warfare. :D

Or we find Descolada and are doomed.

If it's 5x the earth's size, the gravity must be 'heavy'.

1.6 times the Earth's gravity, I believe.

"I don't think I ever said that the laws of physics and chemistry would be different in different locations throughout the universe, but just because you've got a planet with liquid water doesn't mean that life will exist on it. I'm not saying that God created people, I'm just saying that you can have a dead rock covered in water circling a perfect star. Just because life can form doesn't mean it will and just having a large pool of potential candidates (which isn't as large as you might think) doesn't mean that one will be a winner. And even if there were another it would be impossible to prove and even more impossible to get from here to there. There are no little green men. SETI is a religion."---Dosuun

"Probability is worth jack shit. Especially when it doesn't really exist. I need proof of something before I believe it. Show me a specimen or the remnants of one and I'll proudly declare that I was wrong to have assumed aliens don't exist. Can't do it? Then you fail. Horribly.

You see, when you believe something without evidence of it, it's called faith."---Dosuun


The pool isn't "as large as you might think"??? So billions upon billions upon billions is not enough? Sheeeesh, makes me wonder how many the other person was thinking of. Why would it be impossible to prove? You won't believe in other life unless they speak english and have their own starships to visit Earth? Impossible to get there? Please provide evidence that it is impossible to get there.....i'm very interested since you have only faith to guide your position, yet you seem to think that faith is a bad reason to do things. You want evidence of life in this universe? Take a look in the mirror. It might not be very capable of logical reasoning, but it IS life.

Okay people...

Red Dwarfs are poor canidates for life because their "goldilocks" zone is so close to the parent star the planet is highly likely to be tidally locked. This means one side is in perpetual light while the other side is in perpetual darkness. Further meaning one side will be roasting while the other is freezing. Please look around at www.skytonight.com it has several articles about this new planet.

What IS amazing about this planet is that it is the smallest exo-planet found to date.:cool:

The pool isn't "as large as you might think"??? So billions upon billions upon billions is not enough? Sheeeesh, makes me wonder how many the other person was thinking of. Why would it be impossible to prove? You won't believe in other life unless they speak english and have their own starships to visit Earth? Impossible to get there? Please provide evidence that it is impossible to get there.....i'm very interested since you have only faith to guide your position, yet you seem to think that faith is a bad reason to do things. You want evidence of life in this universe? Take a look in the mirror. It might not be very capable of logical reasoning, but it IS life.
I already explained why more than 90 percent are incapable of supporting any life. M dwarf stars do not make habitable systems and make up over 90 percent of all stars in this galaxay and most others observed. Then those too big, which usually have an annoying tendancy to die quick; and those that are the right size but vary in their brightness, make up a significant portion of what's left. That drops you down to around 5 percent or so of habitable stars. Now not all stars have habitable planets, in fact the vast majority of extrasolar planets are Jovians (gas giants) which are simply too turbulent for life to form. Most extrasolars (solid or not) pass in and out of habvitable zones. That drops things down even more. Now that still leaves a fairly large number of worlds but just because you've got a soggy rock doesn't mean it'll be covered in fungus.

As for getting there to prove it, I've got some reading for you to do:
Slower Than Light (http://projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3aj.html)
Faster Than Light (http://projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3v.html)
In short, FTL propulsion is not possible unless you've got a magic machine capable of bending space and time and enough power (near infinite) to run the damn thing. I love space and especially sci-fi but I'd like to avoid the fantastic and the impossible because if you constantly shoot for that then you will constantly be disapointed.

Europa is much closer.

In short, FTL propulsion is not possible unless you've got a magic machine capable of bending space and time and enough power (near infinite) to run the damn thing. I love space and especially sci-fi but I'd like to avoid the fantastic and the impossible because if you constantly shoot for that then you will constantly be disapointed.
It's theoretically possible if you have a negative energy density. That's what it would take for warp drive to work anyways.

It would require a lot of energy though.

"I already explained why more than 90 percent are incapable of supporting any life. M dwarf stars do not make habitable systems and make up over 90 percent of all stars in this galaxay and most others observed. Then those too big, which usually have an annoying tendancy to die quick; and those that are the right size but vary in their brightness, make up a significant portion of what's left. That drops you down to around 5 percent or so of habitable stars. Now not all stars have habitable planets, in fact the vast majority of extrasolar planets are Jovians (gas giants) which are simply too turbulent for life to form. Most extrasolars (solid or not) pass in and out of habvitable zones. That drops things down even more. Now that still leaves a fairly large number of worlds but just because you've got a soggy rock doesn't mean it'll be covered in fungus.

As for getting there to prove it, I've got some reading for you to do:
Slower Than Light
Faster Than Light
In short, FTL propulsion is not possible unless you've got a magic machine capable of bending space and time and enough power (near infinite) to run the damn thing. I love space and especially sci-fi but I'd like to avoid the fantastic and the impossible because if you constantly shoot for that then you will constantly be disapointed."---Dosuun


There is no reason why a planet around a red dwarf cannot support life. Making up 'facts' does little for your argument. Hmmmm, the vast majority of extrasolar planets are Jovians???? My knowledge must be out of date....I was led to believe that our detection ability was so far only able to find a very few planets. I'm sure the billions that you are using to form your theory are a nice representative sample, though. Not to mention the fact that there is no reason to believe that Jovians are in any way incapable of harboring life. Also, the fact that they are perfectly capable of having numerous moons that are capable of supporting life.

Impossible? We've only had metal for a very short time and you are already defining what is possible and impossible?

The only obvious fact that we can learn from your posts is that you claim vastly more knowledge about the universe than the entire rest of mankind actually possesses. Only two possibilities.....you have either developed a vastly superior technology than the rest of mankind and used it to delve into the secrets of the universe, or you are being close-minded and rather dishonest about your level of knowledge.

You may not hold much stock in probability.....but for those who do, it is obvious which of those is most probably true

Most certainly it is.

Is there anything about being reasonably close to earth that affects how likely it will be to have a planet, or that planet is capable of sustaining life?

Is there anything about being close to earth that affects what form of stars they are?

Does proximity to earth matter, AT ALL?

No, of course not. So it is pretty safe to assume that the 100 closest stars to earth are fairly common sample, as nothing about BEING close to earth will alter that sample in such a way as to be non representative.

As it is, the "100 closest stars" is absolutly a random sample. It's a sample of 100 stars, which happen to be the closest stars to earth.

And in looking at a random sample of 100 stars, we've found at least one with a reasonably earth like temperature.

How in the world is it NOT a valid sample?


While "proximity to earth" is not a variable that impacts how likely it is for a planet to develop life, the current position of earth relative to the larger galaxy is, and earth in that variable is quite aberrant. Most stars form in the midst of star clusters, clusters with fairly violent and tempestuous existences. The earth seems to have been long since thrown clear of any cluster, and in such a way that didn't strip off planets.

But nevertheless, the point is clear: most stars exist in much closer proximity to a number of features that would make our existence highly unlikely, such as a binary partner, a nearby supergiant that goes supernova, a pulsar that emits huge amounts of radiation, a passing star that throws the gravity out of whack and steals a planet or two, close proximity to the center of the galaxy, etc. Any one of those things at any point in stellar evolution can tear planets apart, send them spinning into the void, or render them uninhabitable. In the sense that Sol seems to be in a position that it does not have to worry about any of them, it (and by extension we) are incredibly lucky. Most other planetoids, however, probably are not.

There is no reason why a planet around a red dwarf cannot support life.
As many as 90 percent of the stars in this galaxy are small, dim objects called type-M dwarf stars with masses at most half of the Sun's. Because of their low masses, these M stars have incredibly long lives and thus, long periods of near-constant luminosity. Around M dwarfs, life would have hundreds of billions, even trillions of years to develop.

However, M stars have long been suspect in terms of their suitability fotr biology. Not only are their habital zones narrow (about 1/10 the width of the Sun's), but these habitable zones are so close to the stars (1/4 Mercury's orbit, or 1/10 Earth's orbit) that any planets orbiting there would certainly be tidally locked. This means one side of a planet always faces its star. So, instead of getting an even roasting, one side of the planet would be a blazing noonday Sahara, while the other is a freezing midnight Siberia.

Initially, scientists thought such a situation would be unstable, and moisture in the planet's atmosphere would condense on the night side. This in itself would be bad for life, but what is potentially worse is M stars are famous for flares. All stars flare occasionally, including the Sun. But M-star flares can temporarily increase the star's luminosity by a factor of 100 or more (due to their usuall dimness, other stars can become brighter but because they're already much brighter than M stars it isn't nearly as high a factor), blasting out high-energy radiation and fast moving particles (cosmic rays) that would dismember any nearby DNA molecules. Combine these outbursts with the habitable zones close distance, and we're talking about putting a planet in an ultraviolet sterilizer.
Do not make me repeat myself again.

Making up 'facts' does little for your argument.
I didn't make them up. Astronomers and astrobiologists did.

Hmmmm, the vast majority of extrasolar planets are Jovians???? My knowledge must be out of date....I was led to believe that our detection ability was so far only able to find a very few planets.
And the vast majority of those have been large gas giants or Jovians. You have to go on what information you have, not what you believe might be out there but you haven't seen yet. Observing nature (space counts) is the first step in science and the Scientific Method. Making stuff up to fit your preconceived notions is pseudo-science and the first step in what is often called the Actual Method because it is what is usually used to grab headlines and gobs of cash.

I'm sure the billions that you are using to form your theory are a nice representative sample, though.
Let's say your right and there is alien life elsewhere. For all you know it could be on the other side of the galaxy. Or the universe. How the fuck do you propose travel to that location to gather specimens for study to provide proof of your argument? In case you didn't read Nyrath's Guide to Space for Dumbies, FTL is not possible as it would require infinite energy to accelerate an object with positive rest mass to even c and space is really fucking huge.

Not to mention the fact that there is no reason to believe that Jovians are in any way incapable of harboring life.
Except that they actually emit gobs of radiation that would destroy anything even resembling genes and they're made of gasses that are moving around too much for complex molecules needed for living things to form. But let's just ignore those and assume that little green men are flying around on Jupiter.

Also, the fact that they are perfectly capable of having numerous moons that are capable of supporting life.
And the facts that those moons can spend days or even weeks in the shadow of their parent planet freezing, that they are constantly bombarded with doses of radiation more than 10 times the instant coma and rapid death dose of the most radiation resistant creatures known to exist on Earth, and the massive tidal forces that actually deform said moons and cause much volcanic activity (see Io) won't hinder the formation or survival of life in the least. No it'll be just fine.

Impossible? We've only had metal for a very short time and you are already defining what is possible and impossible?
We've only had metal for a very short time? I hope the FSP you're talking about music. Because all of the elements that are present in this system have been here since that previous star that occupied the Sun's current spot went kablewy.

The only obvious fact that we can learn from your posts is that you claim vastly more knowledge about the universe than the entire rest of mankind actually possesses. Only two possibilities.....you have either developed a vastly superior technology than the rest of mankind and used it to delve into the secrets of the universe, or you are being close-minded and rather dishonest about your level of knowledge.
Actually I've been using recent scientific journals on the subject to formulate my arguments and just because my knowledge of this and related subjects vastly exceeds your own does not mean that it exceeds that of all mankind. All I have demanded from true believers such as yourself is proof of your claims that the universe is teeming with life and I have yet to be provided with a single shred of evidence in support of this.

You may be content to worship at the altar of some UFO cult but I'm going to continue to demand evidence before I believe it. Until you can show me something besides speculation we're done here.

You may not hold much stock in probability.....but for those who do, it is obvious which of those is most probably true[/QUOTE]

Dosuun, give me a moment to indulge in speculation here.

Okay, let's say there's approximately 600 trillion galaxies, with quadicilions of stars.(Numbers out of nowhere, but with basis in reality as anyone who takes a look at Hubble pictures can tell.) Now, let's say that only 10% of those stars could support a planet that might develop life. That's still trillions and trillions of stars, with potentially billions and billions of life supporting planets. Hell, probability dictates that not only are there many planets with life on them, there are planets with intelligent life and possibly even a planet much like our own with a species very similiar to our own. Is it all that likely? No. But is it possible? Yes. Is there a large enough sample to make that possibility a reality? I would have to say yes.

But we can't know for certain until we get out there and examine it all. I know you love to praise the http://www.projectrho.com stuff about space travel, but it is possible. Nothing is impossible, really. Consider how just 200 years ago most of our technology would almost appear to be magic. Even 50 years ago the Internet would not have been conceivable, yet here we are typing away at each other.

Our understanding of the universe is extremely limited. To state the way you have been that our planet must be one of the only ones--if the only one--to support life in the entire universe--a universe that has existed for at least 13.6 BILLION years and covers at least that much space in terms of lightyears--is arrogant, egotistical, and downright foolish, especially for a skeptical scientist who ought to know enough to understand what probability means.

Probability is worth jack shit. Especially when it doesn't really exist. I need proof of something before I believe it. Show me a specimen or the remnants of one and I'll proudly declare that I was wrong to have assumed aliens don't exist. Can't do it? Then you fail. Horribly.

You see, when you believe something without evidence of it, it's called faith.

I don't care what it's called but when looking at the universe and knowing how huge it is, I cannot in my mind imagine that we are the only ones living in it. Why do you think we're so special? We're not, we're only a useless dot in space. If you need proof to believe it then you must support astronomic research so they'll be able to show you proof in the future.

I do support astronomical research and technological advancement! What I don't support is UFO cultism. Saying something is probably true is not proof. A specimen is proof. If you think that life exists and the stars are within your grasp then build a starship, go out, and find a specimen. Do that and I will immediately recant all that I have said here and join the next colony crew bound for the fringe worlds. Get this through your thick skulls: probability is not proof, SETI has never heard a peep, and no known extrasolar planet is capable of supporting life as it is known.

That being said, I will repeat, life need not be as it is known on Earth. It may not need water, just any old liquid might do. But that life might not be recognized as being alive. There are also some places that simply will not be good candidates because they're environments are either too turbulent (gasses and too much radiation) or too stable (solids or too little radiation) or some other factor I either don't know or don't feel like mentioning. Also, keep in mind that just because you have the right environment, it doesn't mean that there is going to be life there. Life can only exist where it's hospitible but won't alsways exist just because an environment is habitable.

I'm an engineer. It's my job to know what is and is not possible and to push the possible as far as I can. That doesn't mean I can do the impossible unless I multiply my repair estimates by a factor of 4. Are there ways to sidestep certain physical laws that prohibit FTL? In theory. But there is no machine capable of actually doing it.

I do support astronomical research and technological advancement! What I don't support is UFO cultism. Saying something is probably true is not proof. A specimen is proof. If you think that life exists and the stars are within your grasp then build a starship, go out, and find a specimen. Do that and I will immediately recant all that I have said here and join the next colony crew bound for the fringe worlds. Get this through your thick skulls: probability is not proof, SETI has never heard a peep, and no known extrasolar planet is capable of supporting life as it is known.

Please quit assuming that we're all UFO cultists eagerly following SETI as if it was our life. We merely hold more hope than you do that some form of sentient life exists.

That being said, I will repeat, life need not be as it is known on Earth. It may not need water, just any old liquid might do. But that life might not be recognized as being alive.
And I agree, absolutely. I find this far more likely than life like we have on our planet.
There are also some places that simply will not be good candidates because they're environments are either too turbulent (gasses and too much radiation) or too stable (solids or too little radiation) or some other factor I either don't know or don't feel like mentioning. Also, keep in mind that just because you have the right environment, it doesn't mean that there is going to be life there. Life can only exist where it's hospitible but won't alsways exist just because an environment is habitable.
Also definitely true. We have no idea what causes abiogenisis as of yet.


I'm an engineer. It's my job to know what is and is not possible and to push the possible as far as I can. That doesn't mean I can do the impossible unless I multiply my repair estimates by a factor of 4. Are there ways to sidestep certain physical laws that prohibit FTL? In theory. But there is no machine capable of actually doing it.
Ahah...an insight into how your mind works. Now I understand. You see things in absolutes and specifics rather than abstractly...a good point of view for an engineer. Most suitably, in fact.

You're right. We don't have a machine that can provide FTL travel...yet. Surely, though, as an engineer, you most of all can understand how swiftly technology can develop and knowledge can be gained.

Forgive me for my earlier confrontational posting...I was reacting from what I perceived to be similiar confrontational posting.

colonise!

*snip*

No, we probably won't ever get to, hell, we probably won't ever see a planet with alien life. That has little to do with the likelyhood that there is intelligent life.

Which, really, is what most of this topic has been about. Yes, there are a few posts on theorectical ways of going faster than light, whatever.

'Oh, well 90% of stars are uninhabitable.'

Fancy that. As though 10% of all stars wasn't still an incomprehensibly large number or somehting. Hell, you've been making comments on how we moight not even recognize life, who says it needs a star? Maybe it lives off of asteroids! Or dark matter! No one has said "This planet must have human-like life!" Hell, I don't think anyone has insisted it have life at all. For that matter, No one's said every red dwarf will have life around it, we've not even said they'll have planets. We aren't telling you every habitible planet will have life. We aren't telling you we will communicate with them. We aren't saying we will find them. So far, all that's been given as 'this is so' is that, the size of the universe considered, 'there's probably life, somewhere'.

It's one of those "a million monkeys on a million typewriters" things. Except you replace 'million' with Graham's number.

Okay people...

Red Dwarfs are poor canidates for life because their "goldilocks" zone is so close to the parent star the planet is highly likely to be tidally locked. This means one side is in perpetual light while the other side is in perpetual darkness. Further meaning one side will be roasting while the other is freezing. Please look around at www.skytonight.com it has several articles about this new planet.

What IS amazing about this planet is that it is the smallest exo-planet found to date.:cool:
Of course, there's also the fact that being cool enough overall to maintain an atmosphere can lead to a relatively constant climate, ala Venus.

Right now it's mostly rampant speculation as to whether or not red dwarfs are good candidates for life, and AFAIK an open debate with two sides to it.

Personally, I like the idea of red dwarf stars being life-friendly - then the potentials are wide open, seeing as how most stars are red dwarf.

No, we probably won't ever get to, hell, we probably won't ever see a planet with alien life. That has little to do with the likelyhood that there is intelligent life.

Which, really, is what most of this topic has been about. Yes, there are a few posts on theorectical ways of going faster than light, whatever.

'Oh, well 90% of stars are uninhabitable.'

Fancy that. As though 10% of all stars wasn't still an incomprehensibly large number or somehting.

In fact, if memory serves, 10% of all stars would still be enough stars to fill five or so billion milky way galaxies.

In short, FTL propulsion is not possible unless you've got a magic machine capable of bending space and time and enough power (near infinite) to run the damn thing. I love space and especially sci-fi but I'd like to avoid the fantastic and the impossible because if you constantly shoot for that then you will constantly be disapointed.

http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg18925331.200-take-a-leap-into-hyperspace.html

I think this may intrigue you...

http://www.ccastronomy.org/photo_tour_HST_DeepField2.jpg

That picture was taken by the Hubble telescope. It's called the Deep Field and it's the farthest we've ever seen in the universe. Every single dot in that picture is a galaxy. How can anyone look at it and say that life outside earth doesn't exist?

http://www.ccastronomy.org/photo_tour_HST_DeepField2.jpg

That picture was taken by the Hubble telescope. It's called the Deep Field and it's the farthest we've ever seen in the universe. Every single dot in that picture is a galaxy. How can anyone look at it and say that life outside earth doesn't exist?How? By being Christian.

http://www.ccastronomy.org/photo_tour_HST_DeepField2.jpg

That picture was taken by the Hubble telescope. It's called the Deep Field and it's the farthest we've ever seen in the universe. Every single dot in that picture is a galaxy. How can anyone look at it and say that life outside earth doesn't exist?

And that's like a tenth of the entire picture. Which isn't even an inch long when viewed from our own eyes.

Of course, there's also the fact that being cool enough overall to maintain an atmosphere can lead to a relatively constant climate, ala Venus.

Right now it's mostly rampant speculation as to whether or not red dwarfs are good candidates for life, and AFAIK an open debate with two sides to it.

Personally, I like the idea of red dwarf stars being life-friendly - then the potentials are wide open, seeing as how most stars are red dwarf.

More reasons I fugure underwater life would be easier/more likely. Even on Earth, go down deep enough and it's effectively very cold constant darkness...Assuming flares don't, in fact, roast off all the water...

It's not even close to a tenth, it's probably a millionth or a billionth. And that was how it looked like X billions years ago to since the light takes its time to come here.

Well, a tenth of the total picture that's viewable on the internet. :p

And yeah, though it probably doesn't look much different at the present time.

How? By being Christian.

You would have to be more than that.

And that's like a tenth of the entire picture. Which isn't even an inch long when viewed from our own eyes.

It's not even close to a tenth, it's probably a millionth or a billionth. And that was how it looked like X billions years ago to since the light takes its time to come here.

It's not even close to a tenth, it's probably a millionth or a billionth. And that was how it looked like X billions years ago to since the light takes its time to come here.

No, that's not what he meant I think.

The actual image (actually, the whole picture is a series of smaller images put together) is larger than this picture. This picture is a smaller faction of the actual larger image (which was put together from smaller images).

The larger image (of which that picture is a fraction of) takes up about a square inch of the night sky.

So imagine that picture 10 times larger, then imagine that 10 times larger picture is a glimpse of the sky, roughly the size of a postage stamp.

Well, a tenth of the total picture that's viewable on the internet. :p

And yeah, though it probably doesn't look much different at the present time.

Would be nice if they wrote in which scale it was;)

I wonder how far we could actually see with our own eyes without any help from a telescope by just looking at the night sky.

Would be nice if they wrote in which scale it was;)

I wonder how far we could actually see with our own eyes without any help from a telescope by just looking at the night sky.

The problem with the idea of "how far we can see" is that we could, in theory, see forever. What i mean is, what normally limits vision is inapplicable in space. You can see something at any distance in space with your naked eye, as long as it's big enough and bright enough to be seen from that view.

There is no limit to how far you can see into space because there is no atmosphere to cloud the vision. Anything can be seen at any distance provided it is big enough and bright enough. We can, for instance, see with our naked eye stars deep within the galaxy, but we can not see pluto, in our own solar system.

You would have to be more than that.like what?
I would say Jews, Christians and maybe Muslims are in that list.

The problem with the idea of "how far we can see" is that we could, in theory, see forever. What i mean is, what normally limits vision is inapplicable in space. You can see something at any distance in space with your naked eye, as long as it's big enough and bright enough to be seen from that view.

There is no limit to how far you can see into space because there is no atmosphere to cloud the vision. Anything can be seen at any distance provided it is big enough and bright enough. We can, for instance, see with our naked eye stars deep within the galaxy, but we can not see pluto, in our own solar system.

True, but how far away is the subject that's big and bright enough for us to see with our eyes? That may be impossible to measure but it would be interesting to know.

True, but how far away is the subject that's big and bright enough for us to see with our eyes? That may be impossible to measure but it would be interesting to know.

...I suppose we just figure out the amount of energy in the universe (convert the mass, too), and turn it all into light, then see how far it would radiate out before becoming indetectable with our eyes.

like what?
I would say Jews, Christians and maybe Muslims are in that list.

You would have to be an extreme fundamentalist without any possibility to think for yourself and come to own conclusions based on probability. So yes, Christians, Jews and Christians may be on that list but extremelly stupid ones.

What we can say is that at least one star in one hundred has a planet on it that could have liquid water on itNo, what we can say is that at least one star in this (nearest) one hundred has a planet that could have liquid water on it.

Again, not a random sample, so we need to be extremely cautious about generalizing from this case. Plus, when you have one positive result in one hundred, "zero" is well within the margin of error.

In other words, could be a fluke.

Think of it this way. You go to the Amazon looking for a particular flowering vine that may or may not be very rare. Within the first 100 trees that you look at, you happen to find the vine--aha! and better yet, it is growing on one of the most common types of tree in the Amazon. You conclude, erroneously, that the flower is very plentiful, since it can grow on a common tree and it appeared within the first 100 you decided to look at.

I think you can see that on a further search, it is entirely possible that you will discover that the flower is not very common at all. You just happened to get lucky.

You would have been more justified in your conclusion had you taken a random sample, of course.

So yes, Christians, Jews and Christians may be on that list but extremelly stupid ones.I think its more about: how much do you trust your Bible.
..and how much do you trust the "Holy men" (Rabbis, priests, Reverends, Pastors, Imans etc) of your faith.

Is there anything about being reasonably close to earth that affects how likely it will be to have a planet, or that planet is capable of sustaining life?I don't know. There's still a lot we don't know about the universe. Perhaps some quirk of gravity in our little region of the universe makes it more likely that planets will develop with an appropriate mass, at an appropriate distance from their stars. Perhaps there are other factors involved that we don't understand yet.

That's why we need to be extremely careful about interpreting "statistics" from a non-random sample.

As it is, the "100 closest stars" is absolutly a random sample. It's a sample of 100 stars, which happen to be the closest stars to earth.No, it's not a random sample. Anyone who knows the first thing about statistics can tell you that. What you are trying to argue is that although it is not a random sample, we are justified in generalizing conclusions from it because we have little reason to believe that the selection criteria influences the results.

But, given how much we still don't understand about our own universe, we should have a healthy suspicion of using any non-random sample to draw conclusions. I'm not saying this is meaningless--again, I find this very exciting myself--but it's not the sort of evidence that allows us to start jumping to wild conclusions about the prevalence of a certain kind of planet in the universe.

Especially since, including a margin of error, 1/100 is not a very significant measurement at all. We might find that this 1/100 is also 1/1000 and 1/10000, or more. It could be a fluke. (100, of course, is a rather small N for statistical purposes. Speaking of which, of those 100 how many have we actually examined closely enough to conclude what kind of planets--if any--they have? What's our real sample size here?)

Especially since, including a margin of error, 1/100 is not a very significant measurement at all. We might find that this 1/100 is also 1/1000 and 1/10000, or more. It could be a fluke. (100, of course, is a rather small N for statistical purposes. Speaking of which, of those 100 how many have we actually examined closely enough to conclude what kind of planets--if any--they have? What's our real sample size here?)

True. The problem with finding Earthlike planets isn't necessarily that few exist-it's that they are bloody difficult to observe. With Jovians and Gas Giants, it is relatively easy to see: They have a very large effect on the "wobble" of their star. With Earthlike planets, which tend to have far less mass, the problem is that the wobble can be as low as a few hundred meters, or even a few meters. It is incredibly difficult to see the effect of Earthlike(In terms of planetary make up and size) on stars, simply because comparatively they are so small. What's more, it is almost impossible to see them directly(As in pointing a telescope and snapping a picture, so to speak), as they reflect so little light(Comparatively). Thus, our only option to find them is to see their effect on stars... which is minute.

The problem isn't necessarily that there are few Earthlike planets(Which may or may not be true), it's that it's incredibly difficult to find them, even when they do exist. Thus is why most planets we have found are Gas Giants: They are far easier to see the effect.

True. The problem with finding Earthlike planets isn't necessarily that few exist-it's that they are bloody difficult to observe. With Jovians and Gas Giants, it is relatively easy to see: They have a very large effect on the "wobble" of their star. With Earthlike planets, which tend to have far less mass, the problem is that the wobble can be as low as a few hundred meters, or even a few meters. It is incredibly difficult to see the effect of Earthlike(In terms of planetary make up and size) on stars, simply because comparatively they are so small. What's more, it is almost impossible to see them directly(As in pointing a telescope and snapping a picture, so to speak), as they reflect so little light(Comparatively). Thus, our only option to find them is to see their effect on stars... which is minute.

The problem isn't necessarily that there are few Earthlike planets(Which may or may not be true), it's that it's incredibly difficult to find them, even when they do exist. Thus is why most planets we have found are Gas Giants: They are far easier to see the effect.


It's also a function of the measurement tools we have on hand: the best way to determine wobble in a star is to photograph it at two different times from two different vantage points and see how much the star has shifted. The problem is that with the distances involved, you need two vantage points very far apart. . .like the distance from the Earth to the sun and back kind of far apart. So what we typically do is take pictures of a star with the Hubble in June, and then again in December, to determine wobble. With greater distances, we could make more fine-grained distinctions, but it would also mean, in effect, putting telescopes in orbit around Mars, Jupiter, or beyond. Until we can do that, we're going to have a devil of a time finding the Class-M's (borrowing from Star Trek terminology) in any system; as yet, most of the planets we've found are Jupiter's in close orbit with fairly small stars, because they have the greatest wobble.

I'll kick both your asses with the Spartans. Fuck fucking with drones.

How can I sneak in a Space Empires reference.... whoops.

How? By being Christian.
I am NOT Christian, you fucktards! I demand conclusive proof of something before I believe in it. The reason I doubt is because I have studied space a hell of a lot more than any of you and I know how unfriendly and unforgiving it is. In space there is always something to kill you. If it isn't huge amounts of radiation (between 5 and 100 Sieverts which is enough to go from a probable death in under 3 weeks to instant coma and death within hours) it'll be something else equally horrible. And then there are the space rocks that can pretty much wipe out all life depending on what life is present. The list just keeps going on and on. Assuming life exists without proof of it is like assuming God exists for the same reason. Learn "MOAR" about space and you will see that the universe is likely much more dead than alive. Life is not the norm, it is a random fluke.

How? By being Christian.

Being Christian doesn't mean a belief that there is NO life out there.

Gravity should only be a couple times Earth normal, humans could survive it, though it wouldn't exactly be a day at the beach.

Nope. We couldn't survive "a couple of times Earth normal". It's common for untrained individuals to black out after being exposed to a vertical force of 4g for only several minutes. An extended exposure of even 2g would put great pressure on all of the organs of the body, and especially the heart. Next time you're in a car accelerating rapidly from a full stop or perhaps on a rollercoaster, imagine that same force pushing down upon your head. For a month.

I am NOT Christian, you fucktards! I demand conclusive proof of something before I believe in it. The reason I doubt is because I have studied space a hell of a lot more than any of you and I know how unfriendly and unforgiving it is. In space there is always something to kill you. If it isn't huge amounts of radiation (between 5 and 100 Sieverts which is enough to go from a probable death in under 3 weeks to instant coma and death within hours) it'll be something else equally horrible. And then there are the space rocks that can pretty much wipe out all life depending on what life is present. The list just keeps going on and on. Assuming life exists without proof of it is like assuming God exists for the same reason. Learn "MOAR" about space and you will see that the universe is likely much more dead than alive. Life is not the norm, it is a random fluke.

Well no shit most of the universe doesn't have life. Ignoring that it's mostly (apparently) empty space, most areas probably never had life at any point in time, nor will they, ever. So, yes, the universe is, most likely, more without life than with. No one has suggested life is the norm.

At the same time, life in the universe is clearly not impossible. I'd consider getting 100 heads in a row a fluke, but when we start using numbers on par with the scope of the universe, it becomes trivial. What we'd normally call a fluke is, on a universal scale, commonplace.

Nope. We couldn't survive "a couple of times Earth normal". It's common for untrained individuals to black out after being exposed to a vertical force of 4g for only several minutes. An extended exposure of even 2g would put great pressure on all of the organs of the body, and especially the heart. Next time you're in a car accelerating rapidly from a full stop or perhaps on a rollercoaster, imagine that same force pushing down upon your head. For a month.

We wouldn't be able to survive but if there's life on planets with greater gravity than ours, the species there have probably adapted to the gravity there.

We wouldn't be able to survive but if there's life on planets with greater gravity than ours, the species there have probably adapted to the gravity there.

Indeed, and it's certainly possible, since we need only look at how life can survive in the deepest ocean trenches on Earth.

Indeed, and it's certainly possible, since we need only look at how life can survive in the deepest ocean trenches on Earth.

*totally my idea*

Indeed, and it's certainly possible, since we need only look at how life can survive in the deepest ocean trenches on Earth.

That's the beauty of evolution...:)

Nope. We couldn't survive "a couple of times Earth normal". It's common for untrained individuals to black out after being exposed to a vertical force of 4g for only several minutes. An extended exposure of even 2g would put great pressure on all of the organs of the body, and especially the heart. Next time you're in a car accelerating rapidly from a full stop or perhaps on a rollercoaster, imagine that same force pushing down upon your head. For a month.
we (as a species) could survive... we couldn't do much I'll grant you, but we could survive.

but our offsprings (those that do survive) would be better adapted, and their offsping and so forth...

You would have been more justified in your conclusion had you taken a random sample, of course.

Nonsense. Whether we look at 100 stars TOTALLY at random, or we look at the 100 closest stars to earth, they are equally valid statistically, provided that there is not some quality about the 100 closest starts that is particularly non representatie.

However the general theory, supported by pretty much all evidence is that there isn't anything special about our neck of the universe. Therefore, the 100 closest stars is as valid a representative sample as 100 stars pulled purely at random.

To do that you will have to demonstrate either:

1) proximity to earth skews the sample
2) the area in which earth, and the planets are in, is not representative.

Now, sure, if you want to argue that maybe there is something that skews the sample sure. Feel free to point one out to me. Until then you really have nothing to back up the assertion that somehow the 100 closest stars are any less representative.

Now, if you want to argue that 100 stars may be far too insignificant to make a general conclusion, then sure. 100 stars is very very small sample given the larger cosmology.

This however in no way indicates that the 100 closest stars are in ANY way less representative than any OTHER 100 stars. Unless of course, you can show me how they are not.

Nonsense. Whether we look at 100 stars TOTALLY at random, or we look at the 100 closest stars to earth, they are equally valid statistically, provided that there is not some quality about the 100 closest starts that is particularly non representatie.

However the general theory, supported by pretty much all evidence is that there isn't anything special about our neck of the universe. Therefore, the 100 closest stars is as valid a representative sample as 100 stars pulled purely at random.

To do that you will have to demonstrate either:

1) proximity to earth skews the sample
2) the area in which earth, and the planets are in, is not representative.

Now, sure, if you want to argue that maybe there is something that skews the sample sure. Feel free to point one out to me. Until then you really have nothing to back up the assertion that somehow the 100 closest stars are any less representative.

Now, if you want to argue that 100 stars may be far too insignificant to make a general conclusion, then sure. 100 stars is very very small sample given the larger cosmology.

This however in no way indicates that the 100 closest stars are in ANY way less representative than any OTHER 100 stars. Unless of course, you can show me how they are not.

There's allegedly a 'habitible zone' for galaxies.

“Do not make me repeat myself again.”---Dosuun

I never made you repeat yourself. YOU were the one that for some reason thinks that repeating yourself is a useful replacement for offering actual useful information.

“And the vast majority of those have been large gas giants or Jovians. You have to go on what information you have, not what you believe might be out there but you haven't seen yet. Observing nature (space counts) is the first step in science and the Scientific Method. Making stuff up to fit your preconceived notions is pseudo-science and the first step in what is often called the Actual Method because it is what is usually used to grab headlines and gobs of cash.”---Dosuun

That is the same thing as looking at all the whales in the ocean and determining that there are vastly more whales than tuna, because your technology up until now has only been able to detect whales. There is absolutely no reason to attempt to make any conclusion before you have any useful amount of information. Comparing two things when you only have information about one has nothing to do with the Scientific Method.

“Let's say your right and there is alien life elsewhere. For all you know it could be on the other side of the galaxy. Or the universe. How the fuck do you propose travel to that location to gather specimens for study to provide proof of your argument? In case you didn't read Nyrath's Guide to Space for Dumbies, FTL is not possible as it would require infinite energy to accelerate an object with positive rest mass to even c and space is really fucking huge.”---Dosuun

You obviously didn’t even read my post. I never argued that there is life elsewhere. I never said FTL was possible. But we have no reason to believe that plodding along at sub-light speeds is the only way to travel. I keep an open mind, because I am honest enough not to try and draw conclusions based on the tiniest fraction of knowledge on the subject, which is all anybody has.

“Except that they actually emit gobs of radiation that would destroy anything even resembling genes and they're made of gasses that are moving around too much for complex molecules needed for living things to form. But let's just ignore those and assume that little green men are flying around on Jupiter.”---Dosuun

What exactly says that life has to be just like life on Earth? I never did, and there is certainly no evidence for that.

“We've only had metal for a very short time? I hope the FSP you're talking about music. Because all of the elements that are present in this system have been here since that previous star that occupied the Sun's current spot went kablewy.”---Dosuun

I’m not talking about metal ore, I’m talking about worked metal. We have only had it for a very short time.

“Actually I've been using recent scientific journals on the subject to formulate my arguments and just because my knowledge of this and related subjects vastly exceeds your own does not mean that it exceeds that of all mankind. All I have demanded from true believers such as yourself is proof of your claims that the universe is teeming with life and I have yet to be provided with a single shred of evidence in support of this.”---Dosuun

HAHA. YOU are the one that claimed more knowledge than the rest of mankind has. I do not. I know a fair bit about the subject. Your knowledge is impossible to judge, as you prefer to make blatantly false claims about how much you know instead of actually demonstrating any knowledge.

like what?
I would say Jews, Christians and maybe Muslims are in that list.

Not nessecarly, if God made other races he revealed himself to them too.

FTL is not possible as it would require infinite energy to accelerate an object with positive rest mass to even c and space is really fucking huge.”---Dosuun

http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg18925331.200-take-a-leap-into-hyperspace.html

Not nessecarly

There's allegedly a 'habitible zone' for galaxies.

I'd heard that as well - something about lethally-high levels of radiation nearer the galactic core making the odds against life significantly higher, iirc.

ahhh, see ok, now THIS would make it non representative. What makes this zone more "habitable" supposedly?

I think it's to do with there being a much higher density of stars present the closer to the galactic core you are. Too much radiation would make it more difficult for life to get a toehold. At least, that's what I'd heard.

There's allegedly a 'habitible zone' for galaxies.

ahhh, see ok, now THIS would make it non representative. What makes this zone more "habitable" supposedly?

It was brought up only once, which shocks me.

For life to live, it has to have something EXTREMELY CLOSE to earth's gravity. If the earth was 1% bigger or 1% smaller, life could not have started.

Also, if we were to populate this planet, where would we go? It's 5x bigger than the earth. Humans would be crushed under the heavy gravity. If you are, let's say 125 lbs, you'd weigh about 625 lbs. Your skeleton would not be used to it and you would die. Unless we can make a habitat a couple miles off the surface of the planet..?

So Arthais? Anybody? Would the conditions nearer the galactic core make it less likely for life to evolve there?

It was brought up only once, which shocks me.

For life to live, it has to have something EXTREMELY CLOSE to earth's gravity. If the earth was 1% bigger or 1% smaller, life could not have started.

.....what?

That's um...not really true. See underwater

At the same time another planet would be just great to go to , but think of the over haul of this planet. We can't just relocate everyone.

.....what?

That's um...not really true. See underwater

I don't think that counts as Gravity, but pressure.

and while it's underwater, it's still Earth's gravity. ;)

.....what?

That's um...not really true. See underwater

Read: See my post.

I don't think that counts as Gravity, but pressure.

and while it's underwater, it's still Earth's gravity. ;)

The pressure is only there because of gravity, no? And not only that, I believe buoyancy is a factor as well.

So Arthais? Anybody? Would the conditions nearer the galactic core make it less likely for life to evolve there?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitable_zone#The_galactic_habitable_zone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitable_zone#The_galactic_habitable_zone

Thank you - hadn't thought to look it up on Wikipedia. So I might have got it partially correct, anyway.

Functionally there is no difference. Force is force.

Well, gravity is a directional force. Pressure is force over a given area. But yes, force is force.

I don't think that counts as Gravity, but pressure.

Functionally there is no difference. Force is force.

Functionally there is no difference. Force is force.then how does your point about underwater life run counter to
Macaronis's comment?
It was brought up only once, which shocks me.

For life to live, it has to have something EXTREMELY CLOSE to earth's gravity. If the earth was 1% bigger or 1% smaller, life could not have started.
since the underwater environment you bring up is located on Earth and would still fall within the parameters of Earth's Gravity.

then how does your point about underwater life run counter to
Macaronis's comment?

since the underwater environment you bring up is located on Earth and would still fall within the parameters of Earth's Gravity.

Because the pressure is in addition to Earth's gravity. Presumeably on another planet with gravity that would result in the same amount of force directed towards the bodies of these ocean life forms, they would be fine just as if they were underwater on Earth. Force is force is force, regardless of source.

then how does your point about underwater life run counter to
Macaronis's comment?

since the underwater environment you bring up is located on Earth and would still fall within the parameters of Earth's Gravity.

Because his comment betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what "gravity" is.

In simplist terms, gravity is a force. The force is exerted upon you. That's all, it is a force exerted upon the body.

His comment:

For life to live, it has to have something EXTREMELY CLOSE to earth's gravity. If the earth was 1% bigger or 1% smaller, life could not have started.

Effectively means that if the force exerted on the body were to change slightly, that life would be impossible. Life could not live if the forces exerted upon it were greater or smaller.

Except life in very deep oceans is under CONSIDERABLY more force than us up on the land.

Is the GRAVITATIONAL force of something underwater less or more than it is on land? No, not much.

But is the overall force different? yes, considerably. Something underwater lives with considerably more force applied to its body than someone on land. And if life can evolve and live in an enviornment with such significant forces on it, then it can evolve and live in an enviornment with higher gravity.

Gravity is just a force, nothing more. And if life can exist with the force exerted by extreme pressure, it can exist with the force exerted by high gravity.

Before I begin I'd like to point out to you the quote button at the bottom-right corner of all posts made on this forum and many others. There's also a quote button above the textbox on the post page. Use them to get the neat little quote boxes around quoted text. It makes distiguishing text within your posts much easier.

I never made you repeat yourself. YOU were the one that for some reason thinks that repeating yourself is a useful replacement for offering actual useful information.
I'm only saying this once because your stupidity is really wearing thin: too much radiation is bad for you. Ask any doctor. Any biologist. Anyone with a real education. They'll all tell you that too much radiation is bad for you. It's useful information to the topic because this planet sits too close to its star and M dwarfs are notorious for radiation bursts. Complex molecules needed for any kind of life get ripped apart by too much radiation. If life could exist with only the simplest of molecules then you'd see a few more salt monsters running around then you do. Which is none. Because they don't exist.

That is the same thing as looking at all the whales in the ocean and determining that there are vastly more whales than tuna, because your technology up until now has only been able to detect whales. There is absolutely no reason to attempt to make any conclusion before you have any useful amount of information. Comparing two things when you only have information about one has nothing to do with the Scientific Method.
Actually, it's more like using all available data to reach a tentative conclusion and not making shit up (falsifying data) or editing what's been collected (falsifying data) to support your preconceived ideas. You can't assume anything other than what's been observed. What's been observed so far is a lot of Jovians, a few terrestrials, and tons of deadly radiation.

You obviously didn’t even read my post. I never argued that there is life elsewhere. I never said FTL was possible. But we have no reason to believe that plodding along at sub-light speeds is the only way to travel. I keep an open mind, because I am honest enough not to try and draw conclusions based on the tiniest fraction of knowledge on the subject, which is all anybody has.
That's what you've been arguing this whole time. That just because large numbers are involved there must be aliens. All I've been saying is that I won't believe in anything until provided with proof. If you want to prove the existance of life beyond Terra then you'll need an example of it.

If you believe FTL is possible then built said drive and use it. No one has to date and there is considerable doubt with regard to its possibility due to the monumental energy cost involved in any such system. This is not me talking, it's every engineer and scientist who has taken a serious look at the issue. Doing something on paper is a lot different from making it happen for real.

What exactly says that life has to be just like life on Earth? I never did, and there is certainly no evidence for that.
See above about how too much radiation and how its bad for living things.

HAHA. YOU are the one that claimed more knowledge than the rest of mankind has. I do not. I know a fair bit about the subject. Your knowledge is impossible to judge, as you prefer to make blatantly false claims about how much you know instead of actually demonstrating any knowledge.
I did no such thing. I claimed more knowledge of astronomy and related fields than you. I have demonstrated that. You are a fucktard if you can't tell the difference.

Here's a nice illustration of what I've been talking about:
Say you get about six billion people together and decide to kill off whoever doesn't get 50 heads in a row. How many do you think are likely to survive? Now let's up the number of people to a hundred trillion and the number of heads in a row to 1000. How many do you think would be alive? Probably still none because by flip 50 your odds are somewhere in the ballpark of 562,949,953,421,312 to 1. There are much more than 50 factors that make Earth just right for life. That's what I mean by Earth being a random fluke.

Because his comment betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what "gravity" is.

In simplist terms, gravity is a force. The force is exerted upon you. That's all, it is a force exerted upon the body.

His comment:



Effectively means that if the force exerted on the body were to change slightly, that life would be impossible. Life could not live if the forces exerted upon it were greater or smaller.

Except life in very deep oceans is under CONSIDERABLY more force than us up on the land.

Is the GRAVITATIONAL force of something underwater less or more than it is on land? No, not much.

But is the overall force different? yes, considerably. Something underwater lives with considerably more force applied to its body than someone on land. And if life can evolve and live in an enviornment with such significant forces on it, then it can evolve and live in an enviornment with higher gravity.

Gravity is just a force, nothing more. And if life can exist with the force exerted by extreme pressure, it can exist with the force exerted by high gravity.
Ah.. ok.

Not saying you're wrong, but just asking for clarification. :cool:

See above about how too much radiation and how its bad for living things.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinococcus_radiodurans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinococcus_radiodurans

I have heard of this before. It is an amazing organism in it's own right. This shows that life can evolve in extremely harsh conditions. I would also argue that this will be a key in helping humans live longer in the future as the article suggests.

I'm only saying this once because your stupidity is really wearing thin: too much radiation is bad for you.

Too much of anything is bad for someone, yet it would not be inconceivable for organisms to be able to develop on some of those planets

Ask any doctor. Any biologist. Anyone with a real education. They'll all tell you that too much radiation is bad for you. It's useful information to the topic because this planet sits too close to its star and M dwarfs are notorious for radiation bursts.

Yet simple (or even complex, though much less likely) could survive under the crust, it could even be a habit of an organism to stay inert for most of the time and only grow when a solar flare flashes to the planet.

Complex molecules needed for any kind of life get ripped apart by too much radiation. If life could exist with only the simplest of molecules then you'd see a few more salt monsters running around then you do. Which is none. Because they don't exist.

Why salt monsters? It would be more likely to be silicon based or methane based life forms. Salt is too tightly bonded so it would rarely be used.

Actually, it's more like using all available data to reach a tentative conclusion and not making shit up (falsifying data) or editing what's been collected (falsifying data) to support your preconceived ideas. You can't assume anything other than what's been observed. What's been observed so far is a lot of Jovians, a few terrestrials, and tons of deadly radiation.

Radiation that could either be resisted or be used like standard light (we are talking ultraviolet and gamma radiation, right?). Or they could be entirely deep aquatic and by doing that only a small percentage of the light emitted by the planet would reach them.

We have observed organisms on Earth that can resist massive amounts of radiation and pressure.

That's what you've been arguing this whole time. That just because large numbers are involved there must be aliens. All I've been saying is that I won't believe in anything until provided with proof. If you want to prove the existance of life beyond Terra then you'll need an example of it.

Yet you can make probabilities of there being other life forms in the universe.

If you believe FTL is possible then built said drive and use it. No one has to date and there is considerable doubt with regard to its possibility due to the monumental energy cost involved in any such system. This is not me talking, it's every engineer and scientist who has taken a serious look at the issue. Doing something on paper is a lot different from making it happen for real.

There is nothing to say that pseudo-FTL (moving in condensed space time for example) cannot be achieved. Whilst the energy costs would be huge (if it could be figured out how to do it) they would more than likely cost less than using standard ion drives (and the huge amount of time)

See above about how too much radiation and how its bad for living things.

Deinococcus radiodurans can survive in massive amounts of radiation. The real question is how much is too much.

Here's a nice illustration of what I've been talking about: Say you get about six billion people together and decide to kill off whoever doesn't get 50 heads in a row. How many do you think are likely to survive? Now let's up the number of people to a hundred trillion and the number of heads in a row to 1000. How many do you think would be alive? Probably still none because by flip 50 your odds are somewhere in the ballpark of 562,949,953,421,312 to 1. There are much more than 50 factors that make Earth just right for life. That's what I mean by Earth being a random fluke.

Whilst there are many, many, many factors in the production of life they are not simple yes/no factors. There is a lot more leeway in how even Earth organisms live. Don't forget that the first organisms on Earth actually lived in an environment that is exceedingly toxic by todays standards (in fact that is what probably led to the development of the early lifeforms.

Here's a nice illustration of what I've been talking about:
Say you get about six billion people together and decide to kill off whoever doesn't get 50 heads in a row. How many do you think are likely to survive? Now let's up the number of people to a hundred trillion and the number of heads in a row to 1000. How many do you think would be alive? Probably still none because by flip 50 your odds are somewhere in the ballpark of 562,949,953,421,312 to 1. There are much more than 50 factors that make Earth just right for life. That's what I mean by Earth being a random fluke.

Now make it six billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion people.

How many are still alive?

Being a red dwarf, Gliese 581 (Lybrae) should be fairly stable - a red dwarf could go on slowly burning its hydrogen for billions of years before going white dwarf (or simply becoming a cloud of helium, maybe).
I am puzzled, though, by the density of that xenoplanet. Mass about 5 Earth masses but radius only 1,5 Earth radii. This means... uuhh (5/(1,5)^3)... about 1,5 times more dense than Earth. That is, iirc, more dense than any terrestrial planet of the solar system. Could that be the effect of a great abundance of heavier elements, hence high natural radioactivity?

Anyway, I WANT TO GO THERE!

Effectively means that if the force exerted on the body were to change slightly, that life would be impossible. Life could not live if the forces exerted upon it were greater or smaller.
Except life in very deep oceans is under CONSIDERABLY more force than us up on the land.
But is the overall force different? yes, considerably. Something underwater lives with considerably more force applied to its body than someone on land. And if life can evolve and live in an enviornment with such significant forces on it, then it can evolve and live in an enviornment with higher gravity.


Ok, life can evolve in a high g environment; but your example is somewhat faulty.
Let's take a unicellular being. It is basically a bag full of water. Now imagine this forming and living at the bottom of the ocean. It forms in high-pressure water: the lypides forming its "skin" close upon the ocean water. Now, there is high-pressure water both on the inside and on the outside of the "bag". Water at the same pressure inside and outside means that the force per surface unit is equal in the two directions, hence the total force on the "bag" is zero.
The problem is the difference of pressure with a rigid confinement: a Coke can has an internal pressure of... dunno, somewhat higher than 1 atm anyway. If you plunge the Coke can into the Challenger deep, the internal pressure will stay the same, until the force given by the difference between external and internal pressure rises above the maximum stress that a thin aluminium sheet can sustain, and the can collapses and implodes. But, if you take an non-rigid helium balloon, attach weights to it and plunge it into the Challenger deep, the balloon will just shrink, becoming smaller as the external pressure rises. If you were to measure the pressure of the helium inside the balloon, you'll find that it is equal to the external water pressure.

Being a red dwarf, Gliese 581 (Lybrae) should be fairly stable - a red dwarf could go on slowly burning its hydrogen for billions of years before going white dwarf (or simply becoming a cloud of helium, maybe).
I am puzzled, though, by the density of that xenoplanet. Mass about 5 Earth masses but radius only 1,5 Earth radii. This means... uuhh (5/(1,5)^3)... about 1,5 times more dense than Earth. That is, iirc, more dense than any terrestrial planet of the solar system. Could that be the effect of a great abundance of heavier elements, hence high natural radioactivity?

Anyway, I WANT TO GO THERE!

If its mass is five times bigger and its radius 1,5 times bigger the gravity would be 2.22...222 times bigger than Earth's(5/1.5^2).

If its mass is five times bigger and its radius 1,5 times bigger the gravity would be 2.22...222 times bigger than Earth's(5/1.5^2).

Holy shit, it's Krypton.

Life has existed for three billion years. The planet has gained more than 1% mass in that time I guarantee you. So the argument that only perfectly Earth normal gravity can support life is invalid. Not to mention blindingly stupid.

Also the level of gravity's effect varies based upon distance from the core. It's different ontop of a mountain than it is in the bottom of the ocean.

Life has existed for three billion years. The planet has gained more than 1% mass in that time I guarantee you. So the argument that only perfectly Earth normal gravity can support life is invalid. Not to mention blindingly stupid.

Also the level of gravity's effect varies based upon distance from the core. It's different ontop of a mountain than it is in the bottom of the ocean.

...Gained mass? In like, meteors and stuff?

I'm only saying this once because your stupidity is really wearing thin: too much radiation is bad for you. Ask any doctor. Any biologist. Anyone with a real education. They'll all tell you that too much radiation is bad for you. It's useful information to the topic because this planet sits too close to its star and M dwarfs are notorious for radiation bursts. Complex molecules needed for any kind of life get ripped apart by too much radiation. If life could exist with only the simplest of molecules then you'd see a few more salt monsters running around then you do. Which is none. Because they don't exist.

This is true for us, humans, radiation is a bad thing, but then our definition of life is limited by our experiences. We see all life and having to be carbon-based sacks of water, because all life on Earth meets that excessively general description.

But, if you think outside the box, what we consider to be the habitable area could be deadly to an intelligent species that based on Silicon, or Copper, or any other element for that matter.

Anyway, my point is, that yes, life as we know it cannot exist, but that does not prohibit life from existing on this planet.

I'm Actually, it's more like using all available data to reach a tentative conclusion and not making shit up (falsifying data) or editing what's been collected (falsifying data) to support your preconceived ideas. You can't assume anything other than what's been observed. What's been observed so far is a lot of Jovians, a few terrestrials, and tons of deadly radiation.

And since the knowledge of the human race is so extremely limited, we can’t assume that we know everything there is to know. Therefore, we can’t assume that our observations cover 100% of everything that is possible. Which means we need to consider the possibility that life can exist in a form that might find the types of radiation harmless, or even necessary.

That's what you've been arguing this whole time. That just because large numbers are involved there must be aliens. All I've been saying is that I won't believe in anything until provided with proof. If you want to prove the existence of life beyond Terra then you'll need an example of it.

If you believe FTL is possible then built said drive and use it. No one has to date and there is considerable doubt with regard to its possibility due to the monumental energy cost involved in any such system. This is not me talking, it's every engineer and scientist who has taken a serious look at the issue. Doing something on paper is a lot different from making it happen for real.

I hate to point this out, but you closed your mind to possibilities. Astronomers once believed that the universe revolved around the Earth, because all observations proved it. It only took one, thinking outside of the box, to develop the line of thought we have today, and we are fairly certain we are correct now, because our technology has advanced to the point that proves it.

Just take a step back, and consider that what you can observe might not be the end of all things possible. Consider that our limited ability to see things could hide much greater knowledge that we will eventually discover.

If is wasn’t for people thinking that their might be possibilities then we never would have advanced as far as we have today. If everyone believed that it can’t exist if I can’t observe it, then we never would have reached the technological heights we have.

I have no doubt, that eventually, we will gain a much greater understanding of the universe and the forces that affect it, and be capable of traveling faster than light. It is all a matter of time. We don’t have the technological know how to build and FTL drive now, but in 50, 100, 250 years we probably will.

There are much more than 50 factors that make Earth just right for life. That's what I mean by Earth being a random fluke.

Yes, there are many, many factors that make Earth just right for carbon-based water sacks like us, but we have a very limited knowledge of what life is. We can’t says with 100% certainty that life can’t consist in another type of environment because we haven’t observed the universe in its entirety.

...Gained mass? In like, meteors and stuff?

You'd be amazed at how much crap floats into our atmosphere. We're like a vacuum. Of course, most of it is tiny dust particles, but there is a lot of it.

Now, over the course of year, the amount is small. Over the course of a few billion? Well, it will get quite large, I imagine.

Being a red dwarf, Gliese 581 (Lybrae) should be fairly stable - a red dwarf could go on slowly burning its hydrogen for billions of years before going white dwarf (or simply becoming a cloud of helium, maybe).
I am puzzled, though, by the density of that xenoplanet. Mass about 5 Earth masses but radius only 1,5 Earth radii. This means... uuhh (5/(1,5)^3)... about 1,5 times more dense than Earth. That is, iirc, more dense than any terrestrial planet of the solar system. Could that be the effect of a great abundance of heavier elements, hence high natural radioactivity?

Anyway, I WANT TO GO THERE!

And suddenly, NUKES4U abandons its attempts to harvest the uranium deposit under that rainforest and sets out to tackle the true source of uranium: the planet with a uranium core...

...Gained mass? In like, meteors and stuff?

Meteors, space dust stuff like that. Rains down by the ton every day. Some 40,000 metric tons a year. Figure for the sake of simplicity that it's been constant for the last three billion years (though it most likely was much higher in past) and you're looking at a whole lotta zeros.

http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000C478F-7A76-1C72-9EB7809EC588F2D7&catID=3&topicID=2

20,000 to 100,000 tons a year. Looks like my earlier number of 40,000 was either a conservative estimate or an average.

60,000,000,000,000 tons of debris since life began.

Total planetary weight currently is5,972,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons (http://www.ecology.com/earth-at-a-glance/earth-at-a-glance-feature/)

Hm, actually the gain from debris only comprises roughly 1/2 of one percent of the total mass of the planet. Though I'm using the absolute lowest numbers. On the high end it'd be 2.5%

Meteors, space dust stuff like that. Rains down by the ton every day. Some 40,000 metric tons a year. Figure for the sake of simplicity that it's been constant for the last three billion years (though it most likely was much higher in past) and you're looking at a whole lotta zeros.

This is the first I've ever heard someone suggesting that falling meteors will cause a gain in mass...wouldn't it equalize from ejecta thrown off the planet due to the impacts?

This is the first I've ever heard someone suggesting that falling meteors will cause a gain in mass...wouldn't it equalize from ejecta thrown off the planet due to the impacts?

It takes a massive impact for ejecta to reach escape velocity. Yeah we'd lose some that way, but very little compared to the total incoming material.

Hm, actually the gain from debris only comprises roughly 1/2 of one percent of the total mass of the planet. Though I'm using the absolute lowest numbers. On the high end it'd be 2.5%


You are forgetting one thing however.

That big hunk of rock we call our moon? Used to be part of the planet if I'm not mistaken. That's significant mass lost.

You are forgetting one thing however.

That big hunk of rock we call our moon? Used to be part of the planet if I'm not mistaken. That's significant mass lost.

No, I didn't forget that. That occurred more than three billion years ago, before life began while our planet was still cooling. It's irrelevant to this conversation.

I see.

Still, we're not talking as much as you might think...even over billions of years we're talking what, an additional 4% to Earth's mass at most? The real impacts that would add the kind of necessary mass to make a difference in the gravity of Earth are the same ones that throw off ejecta into escape velocities, so we end up with minimal additions at best. I'm not seeing the kind of massive changes you're speaking of.

Oh it's not a massive change I mean to imply, just that it's greater than a 1% difference which was earlier stated to be fatal to life.

Uh... greetings all...

Just something about the whole "you can't fly faster then light"argument thingy:

I am a student Aerospace Engineering (only 2nd year yet) and I happened to have a talk about this with some friends of mine... now one of them mentioned something VERY interesting... Keep in mind that I am just telling what I heard from him... I myself am no expert in this area, but so far he has never told anything that was untrue about stuff like this.

He said that Einstein, with his theory's, NEVER proved that one cannot fly faster then light... he ONLY said that it would require infinite energy when flying AT the speed of light... no mention whatsoever about flying faster.

Ok, so one cannot fly AT the speed of light without some neat trick to cirvumvent this whole infinite energy barrier thingy... so how will you ever be able to "break" this barrier and fly faster?

Well, please remember that altough the speed of light is a constant, it's a constant depending on the medium it passes through. For example, there are materials (and this part I know for sure since I read some articles about this a little more then a year ago) in wich light travels slower then through vacuum... Scientists have developed materials capable of reducing the speed of light within to 70-80 kilometres per second. Not just that, they even succeeded in letting another particle travel through that same material, faster then the local speed of light!! thereby thus letting a particle travel faster then light!
the trick seems to be, very simply said, to accelerate the particle fast enough... if done within 0.01 second or something like that, they got it to fly that fast...

My friend also theorized, (altough we both are not sure this is 100% true (that's why it's just a theory after all! :p)) that, considering that light leaving hte material again immediately resumes it's "normal" speed in air or vacuum or whatever other condition exists outside that material, an object traveling at, say, 1.5 times the speed of light inside the material could possibly still fly at 1.5 times the speed of light when leaving that material! (once again, just a theory from a couple of students wasting some college time :p)

Sure, it's only 1 particle, and it's only in a very special material, but it does show that there are possible ways around this, and who knows what we will be able to do with the knowledge and technologies we might have 300, 500, 2000 or more years from now! after all... never say never, and anything is possible...

People once thought that the sound barrier also was an inpenetrable barrier, and that flying faster was simply physically impossible and only stuff of fantasy and fiction. (maybe not a completely correct analgoy, but you get my drift...)

No, I didn't forget that. That occurred more than three billion years ago, before life began while our planet was still cooling. It's irrelevant to this conversation.

meh, I thought we simply dismissed that whole claim as groundless and started discussing how much mass the earth has gained/lost in general.

It takes a massive impact for ejecta to reach escape velocity. Yeah we'd lose some that way, but very little compared to the total incoming material.

I see.

Still, we're not talking as much as you might think...even over billions of years we're talking what, an additional 4% to Earth's mass at most? The real impacts that would add the kind of necessary mass to make a difference in the gravity of Earth are the same ones that throw off ejecta into escape velocities, so we end up with minimal additions at best. I'm not seeing the kind of massive changes you're speaking of.

I'm so confused. These crazy people have been telling me that the earth is only 6000 years old. Did God have a time machine?

Possibly, I think he borrows Jolt's.

No, I didn't forget that. That occurred more than three billion years ago, before life began while our planet was still cooling. It's irrelevant to this conversation.

I'm so confused. These crazy people have been telling me that the earth is only 6000 years old. Did God have a time machine?

meh, I thought we simply dismissed that whole claim as groundless and started discussing how much mass the earth has gained/lost in general.

Let no idiocy be dismissed as groundless without proof! And of course inane debate.

Possibly, I think he borrows Jolt's.

That's some powerful mojo.

Dosuun,

I will quote you however I like. Anybody reading my entire post can easily distinguish the quotes. I don’t really care if people skimming the post instead of actually reading it have problems or not….that’s THEIR call.


“That's what you've been arguing this whole time. That just because large numbers are involved there must be aliens.”---Dosuun


So tell me, are you incapable of basic reading comprehension, or are you just a flat-out liar? I have never once claimed or argued that there must be life somewhere else. I am saying there is absolutely no evidence that there is not, so I am unwilling to toss out the idea.


“I did no such thing. I claimed more knowledge of astronomy and related fields than you. I have demonstrated that. You are a fucktard if you can't tell the difference.”---Dosuun


Too many coincidences….if it were just a reading comprehension problem, then theoretically you’d at least know what YOU have said.

You have certainly not demonstrated any knowledge of the subject. You have posted links, which anybody can do…..and then came to conclusions that have nothing to do with any known information.

Come back if you ever actually LEARN something useful, instead of just posting links that you do not understand. For heaven’s sake, at least get someone to read them to you and help you understand what they mean. It must be embarrassing for you.

You know it. Humans are going to either be a force of good in the universe or feared and or hunted to extinction. Maybe a mix of both.

Or we could never come in contact with any other form of life... Yeah...