Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Galaxy has 'billions of Earths'

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 09:43 PM
Original message
Galaxy has 'billions of Earths'
Source: BBC

There could be one hundred billion Earth-like planets in our galaxy, a US conference has heard.

Dr Alan Boss of the Carnegie Institution of Science said many of these worlds could be inhabited by simple lifeforms. He was speaking at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago. So far, telescopes have been able to detect just over 300 planets outside our Solar System.

Very few of these would be capable of supporting life, however. Most are gas giants like our Jupiter; and many orbit so close to their parent stars that any microbes would have to survive roasting temperatures.
But, based on the limited numbers of planets found so far, Dr Boss has estimated that each Sun-like star has on average one "Earth-like" planet.

This simple calculation means there would be huge numbers capable of supporting life.
"Not only are they probably habitable but they probably are also going to be inhabited," Dr Boss told BBC News. "But I think that most likely the nearby 'Earths' are going to be inhabited with things which are perhaps more common to what Earth was like three or four billion years ago." That means bacterial lifeforms.

Dr Boss estimates that Nasa's Kepler mission, due for launch in March, should begin finding some of these Earth-like planets within the next few years. Recent work at Edinburgh University tried to quantify how many intelligent civilisations might be out there. The research suggested there could be thousands of them.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7891132.stm




"The number of stars points to
there being many rocky planets"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 09:46 PM
Response to Original message
1. On its own, that fact doesn't get you anywhere....
If you flip a coin *billions* of times, but your chances of getting heads are only 1/trillions, then that's all just a complicated way of saying "about zero".

Moral: You have to know TWO things (not just one) in order to make any non-fucking-stupid comment about a probability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. I just thought this story might generate an interesting debate n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #10
55. I love this story. Thank you. What an arrogant little dipshit people
Humans are to assume that out of 200 billion galaxies, 100's of billions of stars in each with their little planetary systems that we could have only happened once. The Known Universe is on National Geo and its awesome. Thanks for this little tie in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #10
132. K &R. Very interesting and I'm glad you posted it.
Ignore overly dismissive and mean-spirited comments, they say more about the commenter than they do about you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindMatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. 100 billion, 1 billion, 1/2 billion? What's the difference?
The point is that there have been significant findings in astronomy in recent years. 10 years ago, nobody could prove the existence of other planets, but that seemed likely. Now it is certain that there are planets out there -- and that is the normal state. But until recently, it was a matter of speculation that some of them would be Earth-like, in terms of size, composition and distance from their star.

That is becoming much less speculative now. The next question becomes how many of them could be hospitable to life as we know it. In the past 4 years, it has become certain that there is water on Mars -- and it now seems there was a lot at one time, and likely is still quite a lot of water under a layer of dust on the surface.

With each of these discoveries, we are moving farther and farther from the idea that we have the only life in the universe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. (facepalm)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindMatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. I'm not following you
Are you saying you don't believe there are billions of stars?

Or are you saying you don't believe there are billions of planets orbiting these stars?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trajan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 12:47 AM
Response to Reply #15
52. Bloo is saying what Bloo always says ....
Something mean-spirited, then (facepalm) ....

I was looking for a Sagan quote (which I have not yet found) regarding the number of 'earth-like' planets that could possibly exist .... It was not the 'billions and billions' quote, but something like it ....

I trust Sagan before I trust (facepalm) ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-18-09 02:59 AM
Response to Reply #52
174. Me too, Trajan. I follow the (alleged) Magellan Logic...
The Church says the earth is flat. But I know it is round, because I have seen its shadow on the moon. And I trust a shadow more than I trust the Church.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
byronius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 04:42 AM
Response to Reply #15
72. Fascinating sig line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindMatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #72
121. I guess I need to update it because Blackwater is changing their name. I wnder
I wonder what they called themselves on 9-11-01.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Agree.
We still don't know enough to guess the life forms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autonomy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
16. I can't make heads or tails of that comment
after reading it several times... in context or on its own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. It's ok.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autonomy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. whew
i thought there might be a quiz tomorrow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Twillig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #16
27. Moral:
douchebags are a certainty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #16
33. Me too. It gets de-railed somewhere around whatever "1/trillions" means.
1 in trillions?

And there are only 2 sides to a coin, so the odds are always the same. I don't think "life":"no life" represents the same probabilities as flipping a coin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jhrobbins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #16
107. See post #52.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
psychopomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #16
112. Imagine a coin that 'always' lands tails...
and that coin actually doesn't always land tails; in fact, it can land heads, but only one in one trillion times. That means that it really doesn't matter whether you flip the coin fifty or fifty billion times, the chance of it landing heads is still infinitesimally small.

There is not known about life to ascertain whether the process of life arising in the universe is one that is exceedingly rare or not; it could just as well be the case that life is the norm in the universe. The poster to whom you are referring came off a bit to convinced of his/her knowledge in that respect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trekbiker Donating Member (724 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #1
35. huh?? what is the "just one" thing?
seems to me there are at least three proven things, billions of stars like our own sun, the existance of planets outside our solar system and the existance of water on planets other than earth. And soon theres likely to be a proven 4rth thing, the existance of rocky planets orbiting distant stars. The "probability" of life outside of earth is a hell of a lot higher than anyone on DU understanding your post
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Schema Thing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
40. the people making these predictions know a hell of a lot more than just two things
did you not think of that fact?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheEuclideanOne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
63. Do you mean there are 100 Billion Dubyas out there?
Yikes!!! And there goes my plan of leaving the planet. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endarkenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #63
116. There actually is a quite serious theory in astrophysics and cosmology
that indeed yes the universe (actually the multiverse) is that vast. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quantess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #1
65. You are right about that. We're stuck here on this planet. For now, at least.
It really doesn't matter if it's true or not. In this case, no one gets anywhere by being closed-minded, either.

In any case, I'm happy for the possible other Earths out there, and, I hope the dominant species are doing a better job taking care of their planet(s) than we are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NinetySix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #1
99. I suppose you mean, "there's no way to know."
"We don't know" is a perfectly legitimate scientific position on any issue unresolved by evidence. It is at once a position of ignorance, and yet it is also the starting point of knowledge.

At one point in science history, there was a great deal of contention over the nature of light: is it a particle, or is it a wave? Great disputes over light's nature raged while the participants' ability to settle the question was inadequate to the task. Eventually, the dispute was settled by the accumulation of sufficient evidence through experimentation and observation.

Oxygen vs. phlogiston? Geocentricism vs. heliocentricism? The same. The important aspect of all of the great scientific disputes throughout history is that of human curiosity. As Aristotle famously asserted, "All men by nature desire to know."

I think your point is that we can assign all of the supposed probabilities and posit all of the speculations we like, but that at the moment, we simply don't know. This is true. Should we simply say "we can never know," then turn the page, forever leaving the issue unresolved?

With the advancements in technology and techniques that permit us to make subtler and more refined observations, the fact that extrasolar gas-giant planets exist has been established. I don't suppose you hold a position that the existence of rocky, Earthlike planets is an impossibility, but that your position is an agnostic one. Still, the preponderance of evidence points toward a) the probable existence of extrasolar planets which are rocky in nature, similar to the Earth, Mars, Mercury, Venus, and the various large moons of the gas giant planets in our solar system; b) the existence of complex organic materials in cometary bodies, which are known to sometimes collide with rocky planets; and c) the mechanism of inert organic chemical interaction is complex enough to produce the fundamental building blocks of life spontaneously.

We may never know the true significance of these things, either in our lifetimes, or in the entire remaining future of our species. But surely this justifies human speculation regarding the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe. We are not entitled to this knowledge. Nevertheless, "All men by nature desire to know."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbtries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #99
124. a lovely, learned response
and a pleasure to read. thank you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #99
142. Fantastic post!
NT!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Winterblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
128. Considering the "odds" the stupid thing to say would be "doubt it"
The universe is, in all likelyhood, teeming with life. Considering the odds there is a greater chance of a tomato going postal and eating a hundred human beings, than the only life in the universe being on planet Earth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #128
133. Actually "doubt it" would not be at all stupid.
This galaxy of ours is estimated at 2-400 billion stars. If even as many as 1/2 to 1/4 of those stars are of the same rating as our sun, which is not likely, that would indicate a 1 to 1 ratio of of Sol-like suns to Earth-like planets. That is unlikely.

But 20-50 billion Earths is conceivable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
129. Why would your analogy apply? The universe is made of the same essential material.
All beginning with the same starting point "The Big Bang," so at what point would a tiny micro speck out of the vast universe have totally exclusive materials, chemical reactions and dynamics?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
157. the idea that there are more earth size planets than this one pissed you off, huh?
Edited on Tue Feb-17-09 03:07 PM by fascisthunter
why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Runcible Spoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #157
164. probably fearing the possibility that there is another parallel version of self on one of them
and as such competition to see which can be the bigger bloviating asshole on an internet chat board would likely ensue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #1
158. thanks for posting this
I would have tried to make the point more clearly than you did, but the responses you got have been entertaining to read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
enki23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 09:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. now there's a tarted-up headline. i hate bad science reporting.
Edited on Sun Feb-15-09 09:48 PM by enki23
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lint Head Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 09:50 PM
Original message
Those earth like planets could possibly only be in the first stages of
evolution or the life on those planets could have died long ago.
In the time line of light years the probability of life existing at the same time we exist is not high.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindMatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 10:19 PM
Response to Original message
21. Time and space are equally vast
They are two sides of the same coin, after all.

In the time that light arrives from the closest exoplanet very similar to Earth, life on Earth could have been extinct for millions of years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
get the red out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #21
32. Or the bacteria
we find could have already evolved to be looking back to see our bacterial ancestors too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Voice for Peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 12:59 AM
Response to Original message
53. why?
why not at the same stage as ours,
evolutionarily speaking?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trekbiker Donating Member (724 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 03:03 AM
Response to Original message
68. not so sure. I think, given the sheer
magnitude, with trillions of planets in the universe, that the probability of life existing outside of earth at the same time as us is a near certainty. "Intelligent" life may be another thing entirely and the chance might be very small that two intelligent technological lifeforms exist at the same point in the timeline of billions of years. CETI might be a futile endeavor because of this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #68
104. The problem is one of space, as well as time.
There could be, theoretically speaking, an evolved species complete with a civilization exactly at the same "stage" as ours, but it is too far away for us to know. By the time we would be able to communicate (at best, at the speed of light), we both would have ceased to exist long ago.

What a fitting little dilemma for our hubristic little species.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lint Head Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
3. Those earth like planets could possibly only be in the first stages of
evolution or the life on those planets could have died long ago.
In the time line of light years the probability of life existing at the same time we exist is not high.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Some of them could also be exact duplicates of each other.
I swear I have no idea what put that notion in my head.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #3
28. The earth, and our solar system, being around...
4 billion years old, the galaxy about 11-13 billion years old, and the rest of the universe maybe 15 billion, finding another "Class M" planet approximately at our state of civilization in the last, and future, 200 years or so would be pretty slim.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojambo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 09:53 PM
Response to Original message
4. Great. That means there could be billions of Carson Daly's! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #4
49. and the possibilities to relocate Republicans to places that really could love them!
This is just wonderful news :party:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #49
91. And the sooner we find those places the better.
It would be just a matter of spinning it right so the Republicans leave.

Like... They could be the dominant life form of the planet. Especially if all that exists are micro-organisms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbtries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #91
125. i'm quite certain
that they already view themselves as the dominant life form of this planet. you'll have to do better than that. :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #125
130. Okay let me clarify... dominant life form without competition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #49
138. WAY too much trouble!
Just set them anywhere outside the atmosphere and let them pick their next move.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
5. Didn't Carl Sagan give us this hypothesis in the 1970s? (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Sagan popularized something like that
but I don't think he originated it.

Totally off the topic, but did you know Sagan was a big-time pothead?

I don't say that to knock Sagan--maybe to advocate for pot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Piewhacket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #7
19. Drake Equation (1961) - but it had been discussed for 40 years prior.
The problem is getting the relevant data to compute an answer.
Every time new data comes in though, it looks more and more like...
while we may be remote, but we ain't likely to be alone.

http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/SETI/drake_equation.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #19
37. I would imagine that if the answers to the Drake equation were plotted
across the time when they were made, the estimated number of planets with intelligent life would keep going up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DUlover2909 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 04:18 AM
Response to Reply #37
71. My astronomy prof. at Caltech George Djorgovsky told me:
"Human beings are as unlikely to have formed during evolution as galaxies having formed from the big bang." He told me that both were unpredictable outcomes given the original conditions. That really made me think. One is a phenomenon of physical science, while the other is the product of biological natural selection. Human existence is so outrageously improbable that I could never bring myself to agree with him, but that may be because he knows more about cosmology than I do. I tend to believe that human beings are the pinnacle of biological achievement in the domain of intellectual advancement. It's just my belief. I can't prove it. I just think our comprehension is so astonishing and so far and above that of the other animals that it just might be the best the universe has.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harmonicon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 07:14 AM
Response to Reply #71
80. that's just because you're a person
You're biased. Humans aren't really all that - just another animal, and less remarkable than any other animal in as many ways as we're more remarkable. How long can you hold your breath for? How high can you jump? What temperature extremes can you withstand? Once you start judging humans based on a human-centric outlook, of course you're going to decide that humans are the best.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shardik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #80
113. Well said.
There's an argument as to how flawed we are as a species as well. Without the societies we have built, we would wither and die. A dog or a cockroach is better equipped to survive in nature than a human.

There are vast possibilities as to alternative life forms (many of which we have not yet even imagined) that may be eons ahead of where humans are or eons behind. There's no way of telling at this point.

Life is not much more than energy focused in a particular area as in a single entity. We are energy and cannot be destroyed according to the laws of thermodynamics. Just transfered.

As to consciousness of energy or the individual? That's way over my pay grade. But I'd like to hope that down the road we do find at least some sort of remedial consciousness of energy as it seems to follow the same laws over and over.

Damn. Now I have a headache. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #7
144. Yep, and he wasn't "lazy" or "stupid". I think he also had his balls his whole life.
: )

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Probably.
But unlike in the 70s, we now have a list of hundreds of known extrasolar planets, and we're getting to the point where we can characterize their atmospheres. So conjectures about the likelihood of life have a lot more evidence to contend with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindMatter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Exactly. The preponderance of evidence has flipped
When Sagan was around, he made a good argument for life in other places based only on the vast numbers of stars in the universe. But I don't think any planets had actually been proven before he died.

We now know that our circumstances aren't unusual at all. Based on observations we already have, it seems likely that there are billions of planets very comparable to earth in terms of side, distance from their star, and the existence of water. We may not be able to prove the existence of life until we shoot down a space ship or two, but it is getting harder and harder to believe that Earth is the only place that could evolve life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cato the Younger Donating Member (45 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
8. And right now Dick Cheney ....
is planning an assult on those planets to exploit them for oil and other wealth.

For the sake of Universal Peace (litterally, I mean peace in this quadrant of space) I hope we are the first to make contact 'cause if it's the other way around we'll shoot at them first and ask questions later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #8
117. You'll know it's true when the Republics put forth a bill to fund education.
Hell, if we simply convince them that our own solar system is full of asteroids that are worth trillions, they might "get it". Granted, their motives would be as corrupt as ever and based solely on greed, but think of the advances we could make before THEY got smart enough to realize that you just can't lasso and asteroid and tow it home with your space faring pick-up truck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HopeHoops Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 10:16 PM
Response to Original message
17. BREAKING NEWS: Intergalactic poll shows George W. Bush is the worst president in the universe!
(IGN) George W. Bush of Earth Rated Worst: The Inter-Galactic News Agency is reporting that a universe wide survey has rated George W. Bush of planet Earth to be the worst president ever. At a distant second, G-frop D'Splortskrotken of planet Spehthe was disappointed. Sources close to G-frop, who can not be named under threat of being eaten, quote G-frop as saying "Spero sow sdrof ikesis", which roughly translates into "Hey, I've killed more people than he has and drink way more vodka." Representatives of the former president of Earth could not be reached for comment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. That one made me laugh out loud

So long, and thanks for all the laughs...


:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tclambert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #17
34. Ming the Merciless demanded a recount.
But as he's an emperor, not a president, he was not included in the poll. "Well, OK then," Ming said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #17
42. YOU are very Funny!! I wish I had a heart to give to you, but I'm broke.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #17
59. DUzy Material!!!
OMG! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 04:48 AM
Response to Reply #17
73. I'd give you a heart if I wan't totally out of money. You rock!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #17
169. good one, lol
:rofl: :beer:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
18. call me when we're invited to join the united federation of planets...
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Colors Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #18
36. Has anyone traveled at warp speed yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Diclotican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #36
48.  Autumn Colors
Autumn Colors

Hm, are it not untill the year 2063 the first Warp One drive Ship was been shoot out from Earth and the warp signature showing from the Vulkans who just happend to pass by, a insificgant Shark class Planet (what we woul call M class Planet)Now we are in 2008, so it is more than 50 year in the future still.... And still it was more than 100 year before the first Warp 5 ship finaly was leaving the Solar system to make havoc most places it came into... But in the end it happend also to be the birth of what become the United Federation of Planets..

I hope I am alive and kicking when the first Warp drive ships is flying... I would have LOVED it...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
and-justice-for-all Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #36
79. I did last week and puked...nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rurallib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
24. So much for the religious freaks and their
"earth is the only place God favored with life --- blah, blah, blah."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #24
41. Wouldn't you like to ask them "When/Where- ever that other Life is/was/will-be, what do you suppose
their sexual orientation is/was/will-be?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #24
60. Finding inteligent life on other worlds would kill the Abrahamic religions dead.
Judeo-Christian theology is based on human-centric Neo-Platonist balderdash.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 10:34 PM
Response to Original message
25. I find it humorous that Dr. Boss would make such a dumbass comment about there
being inhabited by bacterial lifeforms. Now how the fuck would he know something like that? Seeing as we are just barely getting a looksee at the nearest planets in our solar system, it seems a bit presumptuous to start making blanket comments about what's going to be on the other BILLION planets similar to ours.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Psephos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. There are a couple of books you could read, and then Dr. Boss won't sound like a dumbass
and neither will you ;-)

These are all excellent:

Rare Earth, by Ward and Brownlee

Life Everywhere, by David Darling

Life on a Young Planet, by Andrew Knoll

Oxygen: The Molecule that Made the World, by Nick Lane
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #29
45. Of course, there are always books one can read to enlighten oneself about things that
we humans theorize about. There is an entire industry or two or three that thrive on such speculation.

My point is that we are talking BILLIONS of planets in an infinite universe of infinite possibilities, yet some of us are stuck in the mode of attributing OUR experience to the rest of the universe.

It's our arrogance that allows us to define life in the anthropomorphic terms many of our scientists use. Yet we have just barely become capable of making machines that can penetrate beyond our own planetary boundaries.

To my mind, we are babies who are just learning to crawl. Yet we have already developed theories of what the other billions of solar systems are going to be like and what life is going to be in a galaxy a million light years from our own.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trekbiker Donating Member (724 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 03:16 AM
Response to Reply #45
69. speculating on the existence of bacteria on other planets
is anthropomorphizing???? would you extend that to the existence of self replicating molecules? amino acids?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #69
90. I think he's trying to say that life on other planets won't necessarily resemble Earthly life.
Something I'll quibble with. Call me a Carbon-and-Water Chauvinist, but I think most life will be based on carbon with water as a solvent, simply because water and organic compounds are so common throughout the universe and are such odd and versatile substances.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jhrobbins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #69
108. You beat me to it- I was gonna say nobody said it was anthropomorphic 'bacteria or amino acids'
Duh!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #69
136. No. I'm saying that we infer from our planetary experience what might be happening
on the other side of the universe. It may be right, but then again, it could be utterly wrong.

We hear so much about the "immutable laws of the universe" as if our teeny, tiny corner of our galaxy is the template for the rest of the universe.

I don't dispute that our immutable laws hear on Terra and perhaps in our solar system and nearby ones may have been accurately ascertained by our scientists. But, based on scientific proclamations throughout history, I think we should be a bit skeptical about what might be out there beyond our short grasp.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Runcible Spoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #136
165. No, we just take data available and make the best educated guesses
I guess it's a question of how much information we think we need to make any grand speculations. I'm not an expert in this particular field and I know there are big grants on the line, but I tend to appreciate bold theories over just giving up and saying "fuck it, we can't know for certain so there's no point in even guessing". I'm sure most astrophysicists are aware of the history of scientific enquiry and the limitations to how much can be ascertained in regards to this "big questions" with any certainty. That should NEVER stop them from pushing the boundaries of human discovery...if you can't imagine something as possible, it severely inhibits your ability to find it when it IS there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #29
171. If you want Dr Boss to sound like less of a dumbass...
then rare earth is not the book to read.

There aren't as many earths as there are stars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Squatch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #25
86. I agree with you
If there are billions of planets out there with the capability to support life, then for the most part they've had the same length of time to incubate and then evolve life.

As we know only of one planet that supports life and that life is intelligent, it seems that the prudent thing to do would be to draw the conclusion, given the observable facts, that of the earth-like planets out there capable of supporting life, most of them would be inhabited with complex, if not intelligent, life forms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #25
150. More than likely, it was a throwaway remark
Alan Boss has done a lot of highly respected work on simulations of planet formation. This article seems to be about a plenary talk he gave at the AAAS meeting. In such a talk, there's not anything unusual about engaging in a little speculation. You wouldn't say in a refereed journal article that "there must be bacterial life," but you might speculate about it in a talk designed to express your excitement about recent developments in extrasolar planet research.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 10:35 PM
Response to Original message
26. I wish Sagan were still with us. He died, what, a year before the first exoplanet was found?
"Billions and billions..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. The most important image ever taken...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #30
50. WOW! That was AMAZING!! Thanks for the share. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #30
56. I have the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field as my desktop.
It's one of my favorite astronomical images! I definitely puts everything into perspective, it's why I can never believe in some personal creator god that performs miracles and has a special divine plan for some big-brained apes living on a little rocky worldlet orbiting a typical star in a typical barred spiral galaxy in a little "hick-town" of a galaxy cluster. What arrogance to believe that we are the center of creation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
and-justice-for-all Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 06:56 AM
Response to Reply #56
78. Why is that when I look at things like that....
I get the strangest feeling that comes over me, like a mega wow feeling.. Something about pictures of space moves me...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #78
89. Cuz it puts us in our proper place.
Such pictures help eliminate myopic and anthropocentric beliefs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #26
39. Talking of exoplanets...
Telescope sees smallest exoplanet

Tuesday, 3 February 2009

By Paul Rincon Science reporter, BBC News

The smallest planet yet found outside the Solar System has been detected by a French space telescope.
The rocky world is less than twice the size of Earth. Only a handful of planets have so far been found with a mass comparable to Earth, Venus, Mars or Mercury.

The discovery was made by Corot, an orbiting observatory with a 27cm-diameter telescope to search for planets orbiting other stars. About 330 of these "exoplanets" have been discovered so far. But most of them have been gas giants similar to Jupiter or Neptune.

"For the first time, we have unambiguously detected a planet that is 'rocky' in the same sense as our own Earth," said Malcolm Fridlund, Corot project scientist from the European Space Agency (Esa).
"We now have to understand this object further to put it into context, and continue our search for smaller, more Earth-like objects with Corot," he added.

The new find, Corot-Exo-7b, orbits its Sun-like star once every 20 hours. Because the planet is so close to its parent star, its temperature is between 1,000 and 1,500C - far too hot to support life.

Continues: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7868100.stm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #39
57. WOW!!!
It's been only 14 years since we found the fist exoplanet, 51 Pegasi. We only started finding "super-earths" in the past couple years. Now we are finding Earth-sized worlds. Wow. Just, just wow!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Bacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #57
83. We found "Super-Earths"?????
Oh no, does that mean we found...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #83
87. LOL, ok, hot Neptunes stripped of their gas would be more accurate, maybe, LOL!!! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #39
96. In case anyone hasn't noticed,
the Europeans are doing the things the US would have done in the past, before the era of so-called small government. It doesn't particularly bother me, but more patriotic types might not be too proud of this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #26
94. close
The first extrasolar planets were announced in 1992: two planets in orbit around a pulsar. A third was found in this system in 1994.

The first extrasolar planet orbiting a main-sequence star was announced in 1995, and one more was announced in 1996, before Sagan died.

Still, it's sort of poetic, how Sagan's era of bold predictions about extraterrestrial life transitioned neatly into an era of actual data about extrasolar planets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
31. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undeterred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
38. So how much longer is our planet going to be supporting life?
Something tells me we don't have enough time to relocate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 11:07 PM
Response to Original message
43. "billions of earths?"
george bush thought bubble: you mean i could have destroyed more than one? fine time to be telling me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tclambert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
44. To clarify, he means "Earth-sized" planets.
And they can't yet confirm that. It is only a very, very good probability. The big news will really come when one of the future telescopes now in the planning stages can see an extrasolar planet with sufficient resolution to detect oxygen in the atmosphere. Oxygen is not natural to atmospheres. It is a byproduct of living organisms. Tatooine, Hoth, and Arrakis wouldn't actually work (not without massive atmospheric generators). For a planet to have a significant amount of oxygen in the atmosphere requires a watery world with large quantities of algae expirating O2.

Even then, the likelihood of complex lifeforms is surprisingly small. Life started here within a billion years of the planet's formation. Animals have only existed on this planet for maybe 600 million years, humans for a few million. For about 3 billion years, single celled microbes were all the life this planet had. Chances are high we will find many planets populated only by microbes, and very few with any more complicated forms of life. The odds are extremely small, but not zero, we will find any creatures with radios.

And, of course, any truly advanced species would have written us off as hopelessly stupid because we let George W. Bush be President for two terms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmahaGTP Donating Member (20 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #44
51. Agreed
All good points. But suppose that somewhere, in the infinite reaches of space, a civilization got started ~1 million years before we did. In terms of the universe's age, that is an extremely short period. But considering how far we've come along in the last 100 years, imagine if a society had 1 million years on us.

Just saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #51
61. My hypothesis is that all civilizations we find will be so advanced that they are God-like.
IMO that's why we haven't discovered any yet, we are simply too primitive to see what they are doing, or even see what and where they are. The chance that we will find a civilization similar to us technology-wise is a near impossibility statistically. I wonder if the very first civilization in the galaxy developed into a great god-like super-mind encompassing the entire galaxy, and subsequent civilizations simply merged with that galactic mind when they became advanced enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #61
95. They have an invisibility shield surrounding their planet to avoid detection.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jayfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #95
115. Not As Outlandish As Your Rolling Eyes Would Make It Seem.
http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/scientists-come-closer-to-cloaking-technology-20090120/

Months ago, researchers at Duke University came up with a type of cloaking metamaterial. What this basically is according to Discovery News is:

“A metamaterial is a material with unique properties that derive from its physical structure, not its chemical make up. To manipulate light, the microscopic surface of a material must be much smaller than that of the wave length of light being used.”


A planet could be hidden visually with this type of cloak but until very recently we didn't use visual means to find exoplanets. They probably would not be able to hide the effect of a planet on it's parent star or energy emanating from it.

Jay
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endarkenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #61
127. There is another explanation that is much more dismal
Technological civilization is rare and brief. Very rare, and very brief.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
comrade snarky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #127
140. Rare? Sure
Rare I agree with based on the lack extra-solar radio picked up and the dearth of other peoples stuff we see in the solar system given the time frames we're talking about.
After all the moon landing sites will look substantially the same for the next couple of million years.

But brief?
That's your own preconceived notions and pessimistic outlook. With a statistical sample of one world and one (some would say less) intelligent species you're making quite the intellectual leap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endarkenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #140
156. Rare and brief resolves the Fermi paradox.
It is the simplest explanation for why there are no aliens among us. Occam's razor, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
comrade snarky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #156
159. No, it's not
Not when you have a statistical sampling of 1 intelligent species on 1 world with life.

Rare would cover it, the universe is vast enough that if a high tech civilization appeared 90,000 years ago on the other side of our galaxy we still would have no way of knowing. We may well be the only intelligent, technological species in this galactic neighborhood, sure, but that still leaves a lot of space out there.

You have added an unjustified secondary postulate when you say technological civilizations must be brief. I'm afraid it tells me a lot about how you view humanity though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endarkenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #159
162. So if tech civs are long lived
enough of them would move out into the universe around them - if that is possible - and over time, a long time as they are long lived, they would not be quite so far away. We would detect these long lived tech civs. But we don't. Fermi's Paradox. So either these rare tech civs are a flash in the pan or it is not possible to move out beyond one's own solar system. If it is not possible to move out beyond one's own solar system and tech civs are rare, it matters not at all how many of them are out there, we are all isolated from one another and will remain so.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
comrade snarky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #162
163. It's not so easy to detect a civilization
Edited on Tue Feb-17-09 05:57 PM by comrade snarky
In another galaxy. SETI is good for the local folks but not so great at higher distances last I looked.

I think we may be dealing with a misunderstanding of the scale I'm talking about. When I say rare, I mean we may be the only intelligent, technological species in this galaxy or even galactic cluster. It's possible we don't see anyone else because they are (and may always be) too far away.

The problem is we don't know how common intelligent life is. If it's everywhere you may be right. I tend to think it's a lot more rare.
My thought's go like this, if intelligent life is common then out of all the billions of planets in our galaxy let's say 100 million have intelligent life (a number pulled out of the air). Out of that 100 million not 1 or 5 or 10 in all the variations possible to evolution and thought will survive having a technology? Nothing in that all diversity could make it? That doesn't make sense to me. That's why I doubt intelligent technological life is common. If 5 species in our galaxy made it we'd probably know, or find out soon.

The longer we go without a sign the less likely we have neighbors but that doesn't mean that by it's nature a technological species will have a brief existence.


<edited clarity for>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endarkenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #163
167. OK you are completely missing the point.
Please google Drakes Equation - they have worked out reasonable numbers for all of these variables. As I said, the problem remains that if tech civs were long lived then Fermi's Paradox applies - we would be able to detect them because at least one of these long lived tech civs would have expanded far enough to be close enough for us to detect. But they haven't. So either expansion is impossible or tech civs don't last long enough.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
comrade snarky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #167
168. No, I know of Drakes Equation
Edited on Tue Feb-17-09 09:42 PM by comrade snarky
And I disagree that anything near reasonable deductions can be made in the face of no good evidence. It's a classic case of garbage in garbage out. A statistical sample of 1. Be it our solar system or our galaxy.

I think you completely misunderstand the scale of what I'm talking about. Why should there be a tech civilization near enough for us to see with what we have now? It could be in another freaklin galactic cluster 2 two clusters to the leftish of our own. There could be another over to the right and another couple of dozen past that.

There's no way we could detect them. The Hubble deep field mentioned above in this thread shows how gigantic the universe actually is. We only see what's nearby and the fact we haven't found anything only means there's nothing nearby, not that there cant be anything further out.

That's why I say intelligent tool using life would have to be rare.

I don't know, maybe we're both not understanding what the other is saying and speaking right past each other. Still, it's fun to find someone else who thinks about stuff like this isn't it?

:toast:

Edited to add: You mention below a 1000 light year sphere around us with no intelligent life. I agree with that, I'm just saying that's too small a sample to decide anything conclusive.

Edited again to add: Sorry, that wasn't you below... Trying to do too many things at once.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DUlover2909 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 04:09 AM
Response to Reply #44
70. I think I recall seeing an article somewhere that said free oxygen...
could be created with ultraviolet radiation and water vapor. The hydrogen might then escape to outer space. With no life on the planet, there would not be anything remaining that could combust with the oxygen, since all the minerals would already by oxidized, and lightning strikes or volcanoes would not ignite the oxysgen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
exboyfil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 06:06 AM
Response to Reply #44
74. Consider the unknowns in Drake's equation
We already know, from one example, that it takes 4 B years to go from planet formation to technological life. We also know from the history on our planet that we had several keyhole events (probably all or nearly all asteroid impacts) that nearly wiped out all life. We also had at least one keyhole event in human history in which our population nearly zeroed out, and we would have had to evolve another species.

We also know we live in a pretty nice part of the galaxy. Its good to not be close to nasty neighbors that spew out gamma rays etc.

We have also seen, from one example, that holding onto a technological society is a precarious prospect. What would be the estimate that we would maintain our technology for the next 100 years (50/50??)

To develop rocky planets, metals, etc you need a second generation neighborhood (a first generation star needs to have gone supernova). That reduces the available history for developing technological civilizations by 3-5 billion years.

The biggest problem is that it probably does not matter. The only conceivable ways we can think of to violate Einstein's speed limit involves tremendous (think more than a Dyson sphere levels of energy). Now we are maybe not smart enough to pick up on better technologies, but we seem to know a whole lot about physics right now.

Assuming that the speed of light is a fixed quantity and communication/travel can occur at only that speed, it means our area of influence will always be very small. I am willing to bet, given the above conditions, that we have no technological civilizations within 1000 light years of us (a million stars give or take). Little chance exists that we can detect a technological signal beyond that point unless it is a beacon or other conscious attempt to communicate (I guess some non repeatable events such as truly advanced propulsion systems would also be detectable).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #74
111. I don't doubt what you say, exboyfil.
But I am disappointed to hear we have little chance of getting results from the SETI program.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
46. Oh, what a relief--!!1 We can destroy planet after planet and just move on to the next one --!!!
PLUS, we seem to be earthbound --

We haven't been back to the moon .... hmmmm.... in 40 years . . . .

Who are we kidding? We're aggressive, warlike -- the moon is the highest hill-!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 11:34 PM
Response to Original message
47. dupe
Edited on Sun Feb-15-09 11:36 PM by defendandprotect
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lethe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 01:02 AM
Response to Original message
54. didn't Sagan comment on this on one of his books?
i remember he stated something like 100,000 planets capable of supporting intelligent life in the entire universe.

estimated, of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oak2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #54
58. Galaxy, more likely n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #54
98. that would be much less than one per galaxy
But since Sagan died, we've been finding planets around almost every main-sequence star we take a peek at. None of them seem obviously capable of supporting life, but it's unclear whether that's a selection effect or real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 01:42 AM
Response to Original message
62. Billions of Sarah Palins! Eeks! Can they all see us from their porches?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #62
97. Nahhh.... look how long it took for earth to produce a Sarah Palin
Even then she will burn out very soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 01:53 AM
Response to Original message
64. Do they have any gold? Calling Christopher Columbus!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aviation Pro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 02:40 AM
Response to Original message
66. A couple of reasons why Earth became Earth....
1. We are far enough away from the Sun so that were neither too hot (Venus) or too cold (Mars).
2. We are in one of the spiral arms of the galaxy and not subjected to the forces of the center (which may or may not be a gigantic black hole).

In any case, life, any life is rare enough so the search for life on other planets - although not eternal - will take a long time.

(The coolest planets in the universe, IMHO, are those that orbit pulsars, which must have formed after the supernova blew everything else away).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jayfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #66
100. Actually...
The distance from a parent star is becoming less important as a variable in the creation of life. More important is the ability of a planet to support liquid water. Geothermic and tidal forces are just as important as starlight in keeping water in a liquid state. It's been established to near certainty that the Sag. A* (The object at the center of the milky way) is indeed a black hole.

Planets that orbit pulsars are crazy. They shouldn't be there, yet there they are. I like "hot Jupiter" type planets too.
It's amazing to me that they don't ignite and burn away or have their gassy atmospheres blown into the outer system by the
stellar winds of their parent stars. The universe is an amazing and wondrous place and what we don't know about it dwarfs what we do.

Jay

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #66
170. A couple more
3) the sun is large enough that our orbit is outside the range at which the planet would be tide-locked like the moon and mercury.
4) the sun is small enough that it has a sufficient lifespan to allow life to evolve.
5) our moon is huge, big enough to create tides and currents which keep the planet mostly thawed
6) the sun is not so far away from the galactic center where metalicity declines (no rocky stuff)

It is believed that no more than 10% of the stars in our galaxy are within the galactic habitable zone.

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

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DesertDiamond Donating Member (838 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 02:53 AM
Response to Original message
67. Josei Toda said that the more science discovered, the more Buddhism would be validated
Sorry, that was my very first thought when I read this headline. Shakyamuni spoke of "other worlds much like ours." How can he have known this? I'm guessing that eventually it will be proven that our life posseses all the knowledge of the universe, and that said knowledge can be accessed.

I'm often accused of being nuts, but then the things I've talked about come to pass. This may not happen in our lifetime, but it will happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Bacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #67
145. The minute we make first contact, Religion is FINISHED
No religion will survive when first contact with aliens occurs. All of them will have been proven fairy tales no matter what denomination. As for Mr Toda and his Soka Gakkai, they're just the Buddhist version of Paul Crouch's Christian Prosperity gospel. The same fraud with different window dressing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 06:28 AM
Response to Original message
75. The Fermi Paradox relates directly to this
Fermi paradox

The Fermi paradox is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations and the lack of evidence for, or contact with, such civilizations.

The extreme age of the universe and its vast number of stars suggest that if the Earth is typical, extraterrestrial life should be common.<1> In an informal discussion in 1950, the physicist Enrico Fermi questioned why, if a multitude of advanced extraterrestrial civilizations exist in the Milky Way galaxy, evidence such as spacecraft or probes are not seen. A more detailed examination of the implications of the topic began with a paper by Michael H. Hart in 1975, and it is sometimes referred to as the Fermi-Hart paradox.<2> Another closely related question is the Great Silence<3>—even if travel is hard, if life is common, why don't we detect their radio transmissions?

There have been attempts to resolve the Fermi Paradox by locating evidence of extraterrestrial civilizations, along with proposals that such life could exist without human knowledge. Counterarguments suggest that intelligent extraterrestrial life does not exist or occurs so rarely that humans will never make contact with it.

GliderGuider: The explanation I favour is the following:

Technological civilizations may usually or invariably destroy themselves before or shortly after developing radio or space flight technology. Possible means of annihilation include nuclear war, biological warfare or accidental contamination, nanotechnological catastrophe, ill-advised physics experiments,<29>, a badly-programmed super-intelligence, or a Malthusian catastrophe after the deterioration of a planet's ecosphere. This general theme is explored both in fiction and in mainstream scientific theorizing.<30> Indeed, there are probabilistic arguments which suggest that humanity's end may occur sooner rather than later. In 1966 Sagan and Shklovskii suggested that technological civilizations will either tend to destroy themselves within a century of developing interstellar communicative capability or master their self-destructive tendencies and survive for billion-year timescales.<31> Self-annihilation may also be viewed in terms of thermodynamics: insofar as life is an ordered system that can sustain itself against the tendency to disorder, the "external transmission" or interstellar communicative phase may be the point at which the system becomes unstable and self-destructs.<32>

From a Darwinian perspective, self-destruction would be a paradoxical outcome of evolutionary success. The evolutionary psychology that developed during the competition for scarce resources over the course of human evolution has left the species subject to aggressive, instinctual drives. These compel humanity to consume resources, increase longevity, and to reproduce — in part, the very motives that led to the development of technological society. It seems likely that intelligent extraterrestrial life would evolve similarly and thus face the same possibility of self-destruction. And yet, for species self-destruction to provide a good answer to Fermi's Question, it would have to be very nearly universal. That is, this possibility would have a probability of very nearly 1.0. It has been suggested that a successful alien species would be a superpredator, as is Homo sapiens.<33>

This argument does not require the civilization to entirely self-destruct, only to become once again non-technological. In other ways it could persist and even thrive according to evolutionary standards, which postulates survival as the sole goal of life - not "progress," technology or even intelligence.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
and-justice-for-all Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 06:54 AM
Response to Reply #75
77. Fermi forgot about distances....
Intelligent life is probably isolated from one another and their technological development would be much different from our own. I will never rule out that the probability of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy or the universe, it is there, we are just no on the same page.

Space is to vast, to infinite with endless probabilities for intelligent and base life forms.

"It has been suggested that a successful alien species would be a superpredator, as is Homo sapiens.<33>" That is a horrifying notion, but possible. I read that an immediately thought of The Predator and The Xenomorph Alien, which scares the shit out of me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
comrade snarky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #77
141. Fermi also doesn't consider the possible types of intelligence
There may be technological life\societies and non-technological life\societies. That would further cut the number of species detectable by radio.

I don't consider a technological culture not using radio because it's just too basic and too useful. Even if we start doing our communication through modulated gravity waves or elfin magic there will still be a lot of our stuff using radio for a really long time. It's cheap and fast.

It's all so very speculative though, that's why I find it fascinating. I agree with you we probably don't have a lot of nearby neighbors. This was a nice biosphere with some interesting stuff for about a billion years before we showed up and there's no evidence we've been visited or sampled over a very long time. If we visit a system like Earth's (through robotics or in person) we're going to leave some stuff behind. There are stable places in the Earth\Moon orbits where a monitoring satellite can sit indefinitely and report back when anything looks interesting. Possibly long after the people who left it aren't interested anymore.

It seems to me we can break up the problem like this.

1) Life Appearing - How likely is this? Right now we have very little to go on. Doesn't seem like it's that unusual but...?

2) Complex Life Developing - How often will multicellular life develop? Again we have only one example to go by and it took a long time for that leap to be made.

3) Intelligent Life - How ofter will multicellular life develop a consciousness. Completely unknown! So far we have us, that's it.

4) Tool Using Technology - Will an intelligence be a modifier of it's environment through technology? Again no idea! We may be odd or we may be normal. There's no way to tell.

5) Outward Focus - Of technological cultures or species how many of those will be interested in anything but the local news?

6) Survival - Once we get all the way to to a complex, intelligent, tool using, creature with an interest in meeting or finding others how many of those will make it past our current stage where we have only recently gained the ability to wipe ourselves out?


That's a lot to get through and a lot of questions we just cant answer right now!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
and-justice-for-all Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #141
143. There may be technological life\societies and non-technological life\societies
Indeed there would be.

There are still primitive societies here that never use modern technology and probably never will, in the places time forgot.

You can also speculate that maybe they reached their potential and it ended in a disaster which sent them back to their beginning only to shun technology. This stuff is great to think about and also I like seeing speculations on the big screen too, the 'What is' sci films. Like Predator, which is a high tech/primitive superpredator...

Space travel is the ultimate challenge with lots of obstacles to over come, I am sure something out has made it into space travel. The Universe is far to old and life has had endless chances to succeed, many will try but only a few will make it.

One day we will hear the beacon, but I do not foresee it happening in my life time. But, that is only if we do not destroy ourselves first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
comrade snarky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #143
147. Long term I agree, I think we'll make it long enough know
Or at least have enough information to make an educated guess.
Knowing in my lifetime? Maybe, if we can work out that whole download and backup thing. Then I can hop from millennium to millennium and see how it all turns out. :evilgrin:

I don't worry too much about the Predator species, anyone that warlike probably wont make it too far past gaining the ability of efficient self destruction. Now the "alien", that's another story, a nasty animal or leftover bio-weapon. That's a plot you can sink your teeth into.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
and-justice-for-all Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 06:37 AM
Response to Original message
76. Of course there are 'earth-like' planets out there...
it's naive to think other wise.

For every star, like our sun that is out there, the probability for there being an 'earth-like' planet around it increases. They say 'earth-like', not another Earth; Earth-like means having similar properties mainly those that have life sustaining elements. The combination of those element will be different of course and thus giving much different types of life. But then again, we only know of the elements that give life to Earth, who is to say that there is not silicon based life out there...

you know, if there was just a little more oxygen, bugs here would be frighteningly large.

So for every Star in the galaxy, the probability for 'Earth-like' planets orbiting them increases.


It is difficult to wrap ones head around just how big our galaxy is:

"The disk of the Milky Way galaxy is about 100,000 light years in diameter (one light year is about 9.5 x 1015 meters), but only about 1000 light years thick.

Our Galaxy contains about 200 billion stars. Most of the stars are located in the disk of our galaxy, which is the site of most of the star formation because it contains lots of gas and dust.

The halo, which is a spherical cloud surrounding the disk, contains only about 2% as many stars as the disk. It contains old and cool stars, since it has little gas and dust."

Eric Christian and Samar Safi-Harb
for Ask an Astrophysicist http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980317b.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
W_HAMILTON Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 07:55 AM
Response to Original message
81. Is there an end to the universe?
Has science ever come up with an answer to that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #81
101. we'll have a better idea once we figure out dark energy
Current estimates are that the universe will go on expanding forever, eventually reaching a point where there's so little energy available that nothing ever happens. (And by that, they really mean "nothing.")
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crimsonblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #101
119. That's but one theory
We still haven't determined if the universe's expansion is accelerating or not. If it isn't, then the universe will eventually collapse on itself (and IMO, this will cause a Big Bounce- a new universe would explode out of the singularity. I'm a big proponent of cyclical quantum physics(I forget the name)).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #119
122. this is what I mean by "current estimates"
Observations of type Ia supernovae *indicate* that the universe's expansion is accelerating, thus favoring an open universe. But there is some debate over whether these observations are being interpreted properly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crimsonblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #122
126. I'll agree that current calculation have the Universe's expansion accelerating
but there isn't enough data a/o better calculations yet to determine if the acceleration is increasing or slowing down. Considering there is still too much of physics we don't yet understand (the nature of dark matter, dark energy, a lack of a unified theory of physics), it's pretty much a "my science is better than your science" debate right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
W_HAMILTON Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #101
137. I can't even fathom that.
Who knows if humans will ever have the capacity to reach the "end" of the universe, but even so, what happens then? Is it like an invisible wall? :)

But you know, even the opposite is impossible for me to fathom. I think the only thing that is more difficult for me to imagine than a universe without an end, is a universe that NEVER ends.

I hope there is such thing as reincarnation, because I'd love to see how this all turns out :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 07:59 AM
Response to Original message
82. Way too much Firefly/Serenity for this guy. Fuck up one, they want to fuck up others.
Well fuck them. I'm all for science, but if we have this idea in our heads of spending money to get to these other "Earth-like" planets, what we want to do is fuck them up. Simple life forms? We're not simple, how do we know they're going to be simple.

God damned arrogance and conceit. This guy needs to be mumed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowknows69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #82
85. Aw damn it, whenever anyone makes a Firefly reference I'm supposed to drink
And I'm all out of gorram Mudder's Milk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #85
135. Hahahaha!!! Too funny! ^_^
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #82
102. Who's proposing trying to "get to" any of these planets?
I didn't see anything like that in the article. Going anywhere outside the solar system won't even get a serious nod until someone figures out how to travel at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #102
134. It always starts "plan-lite" ...
We started off with Star Wars and ended with ABM's. We start off with "simple-life" on other "Earth-like" (note reference to Earth-like, that always seems like a proposition for future exploration) planets, then the goal is how to get there and move there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowknows69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 08:08 AM
Response to Original message
84. The fact that the earth hasn't been invited into some "galactic consortium" yet
Should speak volumes about how the rest of the universe might view the behavior of our little monkey society.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eryemil Donating Member (958 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #84
92. For all we know they've set a quarantine zone around the solar system. n|t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoonzang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 09:03 AM
Response to Original message
88. The BBC's headline is rather misleading.
By Earth-like they could mean Venus or Mercury. There's no way to calculate the amount of truly Earth-like (Class M, if you will) planets. Yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #88
93. Venus-like worlds are probably far, far more common then Earthlike ones.
Indeed, all terrestrial planets close to thier stars and that are large enough to have substantial atmospheres and geologically-active surfaces may go though a Cytherean (Venus-like) phase during their existance. The Earth itself is doomed to such a fate 1.5 billion years from now as the slowly brightening Sun triggers that same water-vapor-triggered run-away greenhouse effect on Earth as it did on Venus ages ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandyj999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
103. I have always thought that.
Why would we think we are the only ones? I believe there are planets that are in their Stone Age and also some way more advanced than we are. Why not?:hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paparush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
105. Billions and Billions of Freeper heads exploding. OMG..its full of jars!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dogmudgeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-18-09 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #105
173. I laughed. I cried. I wet myself.
:rofl:

That remark was ... Something Wonderful.

--p!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
comtec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
106. kewl
just kewl :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jhrobbins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
109. Astrophysicists (especially the ones on A&E and Discovery) are given to such hyperbole.
I always will remember and tell my friends as well, that I heard some AP say there were as many 'suns' in the universe as there are grains of sand on the plane. WOW! That's a lot of suns - even for the universe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jayfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #109
114. Not So Fast
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jhrobbins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #114
118. Thanks for that - I often quote that to friends. It still sounds like a lot of suns though
Makes it even more realistic (at least to me) that there has to be millions of 'Earths' out there, in various states of evolution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jayfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #118
120. Now That I Think Of It, If We're Thinking Specifically...
about Sol(our star)then you are closer to being correct. If we're talking about any old star type, then the former applies.

Jay
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #109
151. Ha, ha, that's definitely a selection effect
Astronomers who are given to hyperbole are more likely to be invited to appear on cable science documentaries. The more boring ones tend to spend all their time in the office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
110. But how many have a thin enough atmosphere?
I've wondered this. Venus is about our gravity, and a lot closer to the solar energy and solar wind of the Sun to strip away it's atmosphere... but it's air is hundreds of times thicker than ours.

Isn't our unusually large and powerful moon the reason our atmosphere is comparatively thin?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #110
123. We have a Venus-worth of CO2 trapped in limestone rock.
All Gaian (earth-like) worlds start out with many earth atmospheres-worth of CO2 but the oceans rapidly suck up the CO2 and trap it in limestone. When a runaway greenhouse effect turns a Gaian world into a Cytherean (Venus-like) world the heat breaks down the limestone and releases the CO2 back into the atmosphere. Earth is doomed to the fate of Venus 1.5 billion years from now. The sun has slowly brightened over the eons as helium collects in the suns core making it more dense and making fusion go faster. at the same time CO2 has been sucked out of the earth's atmosphere by erosion, balancing things out. But there is not much CO2 left and this allows small changes in CO2 levels to cause the climate to shift wildly (as we are learning to our peril). When the CO2 levels drop to the minimum required for photosynthesis, 80ppm, the earth's thermostat will stop working and the runaway greenhouse effect will begin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
superconnected Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
131. It's always amazed me how people could believe in evolution and not believe another
Edited on Mon Feb-16-09 03:03 PM by superconnected
planet could have humans on it. It's far more likely than us being the only one. But they don't even touch that ever. This article finally says there are more planets like earth that could support life. You'd think Earth would have been an example that it happens in the universe so this is like, DUH!

I wonder how many scientists find bugs never classified before and decide it must be the only one of it's kind...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unc70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
139. "And crawling on the planets face, some insects called the human race.
"Lost in time, and lost in space...

"And meaning."

- RHPS

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tbyg52 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
146. I've never thought otherwise, since I was old enough to think about it. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goforit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 10:59 PM
Response to Original message
148. You don't need a degree to figure this one out. Thanks for the obvious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bill McBlueState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #148
152. You may not need a degree
But if nobody was willing to pay people to do astronomy full time, we wouldn't know there are planets orbiting other stars.

You may not *really* need a PhD to plan an observing run, collect data, interpret it, discover extrasolar planets, and write papers about them, but you'll have a hard time making a living at it without the right credentials.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 11:10 PM
Response to Original message
149. The Galaxy Song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQu_RRLbVDA

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,
That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
A sun that is the source of all our power.
The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'.
Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.
It's a hundred thousand light years side to side.
It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick,
But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide.
We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.
We go 'round every two hundred million years,
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe.

The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-18-09 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #149
175. Remember this song?
Stuck in my head for years...

The sun is a mass of incandescent gas,
A gigantic nuclear furnace.
Where hydrogen is turned into helium,
At a temperature of billions of degrees.

The sun is hot, the sun is not,
A place where we could live...


Etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strong Atheist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
153. Unlikely. First you have to consider the
Edited on Tue Feb-17-09 12:54 PM by Strong Atheist
habitability zone:

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

Lots of star types could not support an earth-like planet due to their lifetime. Red dwarfs make up most of the stars in the universe:

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

and have problems with their habitability zone, tidal locking, sunspots, and light output.

Super giants and hyper giant stars are too short lived:

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

I have messed around with this a bit for fun, assuming that I had access to type III technology:

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

and found it rather hard to position a planet in such a way that it was in a habitable zone, it had time to develop, and their were no problems with radiation/flares etc.

It would be even worse if you wanted INTELLIGENT life to have evolved:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #153
154. And yet we exist
If the odds can be 1 in several trillion, perhaps they can be 2 in several trillion...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strong Atheist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #154
155. There are 100 billion stars in the galaxy, and billions of galaxies in the
Universe, so yeah, there may be some here and there. I seriously doubt that there are BILLIONS in this galaxy, as the OP article guesses...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #155
166. Well, the article said billions of earth-like planets
If you define that as a rocky planet with something like an earth mass, in something like an earth orbit, there probably are many millions of them.

That seems more and more likely as time goes on, given the discoveries of larger exoplanets, now numbering in the 300 plus range. The current technology for exoplanet searches are heavily biased towards large planets close to their stars. It seems very likely that as the search technologies are improved the earth like planets will show up in abundance. But the science is still young. There have been many unexpected results (gas giants in close orbits, planets around pulsars, etc), so predictions should be held lightly.

As for life on these planets, that's still a fact free science. It is true that we only have one example where life has evolved, but it seems hard to believe that we are a one-off, at least to me. So far in the history of science, the notion that earth is nothing special seems to have held, whenever we have obtained the means to test that idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-18-09 03:18 AM
Response to Reply #153
176. I like the Fredric Brown Theory...
Edited on Wed Feb-18-09 03:19 AM by onager
In his sci-fi short-short story from 1956, Answer.

He predicted an intergalactic Internet, linking all the computers across all the (many) technologically advanced civilizations on different planets.

And when all the linking was done and the universe had one giant super-computer, they input the first question: Is there a god?

The answer: There is now.

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xenotime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 04:38 PM
Response to Original message
160. Maybe we can send * and the lemming pugs there..
To keep their policies from ruining this planet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marksmithfield Donating Member (139 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
161. It would be terribly sad to think we were alone
Among all this beauty in the universe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevebreeze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-17-09 10:54 PM
Response to Original message
172. to me the curious thing is if other "earths" exist why not little green men
visiting here?

It seems likely to me they are correct that their is life elsewhere in the universe. I suspect however that traveling from here to there is far more problematic then even our si-fi writers have imagined. Which is why we have not had extraterrestrial visitors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 11:40 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC