Another Earth is Out There!

[CloneIce]

Biggest Waste Of Money. EVER

Ah yes, I agree the study of the unknown, and science in general, is a big waste of money. Human life has never been improved by anything to do with NASA, science, or the accumulation of knowledge.

As far as I am concerned, the Earth is flat, and the best way to determine if someone is a witch is to put her on the scales with a duck. "What else burns? More witches!"

 

[Cyclonepride]

not really like saying EVERY capital city the size of des moines will have an ames.

More like saying that a good place to look for a state university is to look at it as a "satalite" of a state capitol/or major population center. Since we don't have unlimited resources to scan the entire universe, and for lack of a better strategy lets start by looking where we think the PROBABILITIES of another earth are slightly higher then any other "guesses."

No one is even coming close to saying that "every des moines has an ames". Or that every set of dupicate circumstances produce the same results. Just saying Capitols/population centers MAY increase the likelyhood of a State university being within 50 miles. So lets start there. See Ann Arbor/Detroit. Not every Capitol will have one, but the chances are better than looking 2 in SW iowa where there are only about 5 people per square mile.

It isn't even saying that intellegent life might not be found in other places, just if I know if I'm playing poker 4 aces would be great, but sometimes you have to work 2 pair and that is certainly better than 9 high. So I'll chose to work on the 2 pair until we know enough to have the 4 aces. Feel free to work on the 9 high if you want.

Perhaps I did give a poor example, or an oversimplified one. My point is that this guy is making an outrageous extrapolation from a very small set of facts. The odds of a life sustaining planet are much lower than this implies.
"

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."

 

[CloneIce]

This is about like saying that Ames is twenty miles away from Des Moines, so therefore, every city exactly like Des Moines will have a city exactly like Ames twenty miles away from it. You would think real scientists would laugh this guy out of the room.

I don't think the article was implying idential Earths (like Star Trek and many science fiction models have). I think he was talking about Earth-like planets, i.e. planets with the climate to sustain life.

 

[Cyclonepride]

I don't think the article was implying idential Earths (like Star Trek and many science fiction models have). I think he was talking about Earth-like planets, i.e. planets with the climate to sustain life.

That is still quite an extrapolation based on the little we know, and the relatively few planets we have discovered. One billion sun-like stars certainly does not equate to one billion earth-like planets. Not only does a planet have to be the right distance from such a sun, it also needs to have the right chemical composition, the right atmosphere to balance the temperature in the right range, etc. That doesn't even start to account for the completely unknown spark that creates life in the first place. This sounds like a really weak attempt to discount the uniqueness of our planet and those who make spiritual implications about that uniqueness.

 

[Cardinal&Gold11]

I actually heard that there is a clone of everyone on every other earth that is out there, only they are better

 

[Aclone]

Interesting that the article automatically disqualified "gas giants like Jupiter", when scientists have long speculated that a larger moon of such a gas giant could also support life--thus the "forest moon of Endor".

After all, aren't gas giants proto stars themselves, or is my astronomy rusty?

 

[Balrog]

Interesting that the article automatically disqualified "gas giants like Jupiter", when scientists have long speculated that a larger moon of such a gas giant could also support life--thus the "forest moon of Endor".

After all, aren't gas giants proto stars themselves, or is my astronomy rusty?

Well, I'm not an astonomer or a cosmologist, but I will take a shot at it.
By definition, a protostar is a large object that forms by contraction out of the gas of a giant molecular cloud in the interstellar medium. The protostellar phase is an early stage in the process of star formation. For a solar-mass star it lasts about 100,00 years. It starts with a core of increased density in a molecular cloud and ends with the formation of a T Tauri star, which then develops into a main sequence star. This is brought about by the T Tauri wind, a type of super solar wind that marks the change from the star accreting mass into radiating energy.

Most scientists agree that our solar system formed at the same time, (all of the planets and the sun.) When the sun was accreting material, it was accreting gas molecules, and when Jupiter was forming, it was accreting smaller clumps of rock which became larger and larger. Once Jupiter became a certain size, and accreted all of the material available, it began to accrete the gas that was available (as it was now denser and had become gravitationally viable.) So, as Jupiter formed, it missed out on the symetrical availability of gas of which the sun took advantage.
Actually, a single sun in a system is somewhat of an oddity. Odds are, usually, binary systems are the norm. Our solar system actually had a better chance of having two much smaller suns, than having a larger main sequence star, and four gaseous planets.

I understand that Jupiter would have had to have been any where from 20 to 80 times larger than it is, for it to have "turned on" but I don't know for certain. Jupiter and the sun share almost identical amounts of Hydrogen and Helium in their gas make up, I think about 80 to 20. Jupiter just missed out on the availability of exclusively gas molecules in it's advent, I think. So, by definition, it wouldn't be considered a protostar.

Go Cyclones :yes:

 

[Cyclonepride]

Well, I'm not an astonomer or a cosmologist, but I will take a shot at it.
By definition, a protostar is a large object that forms by contraction out of the gas of a giant molecular cloud in the interstellar medium. The protostellar phase is an early stage in the process of star formation. For a solar-mass star it lasts about 100,00 years. It starts with a core of increased density in a molecular cloud and ends with the formation of a T Tauri star, which then develops into a maiun sequence star. This is brought about by the T Tauri wind, a type of super solar wind that marks the change from the star accreting mass into radiating energy.

Most scientists agree that our solar system formed at the same time, all of the planets and the sun. When the sun was accreting material, it was accreting gas molecules, when Jupiter was forming, it was accreting smaller clumps of rock which became larger and larger. Once Jupiter became a certain size, and accreted all of the material available it began to accrete the gas that was available (as it was now denser and had become gravitationally viable.) So, as Jupiter formed, it missed out on the symetrical availability of gas of which the sun took advantage. Actually, a single sun in a system is somewhat of an oddity. Odds are, usually, binary systems are the norm. Our solar system actually had a better chance of having two much smaller suns, than having a larger main sequence star, and four gaseous planets.

I understand that Jupiter would have had to have been any where from 20 to 80 times larger than it is, for it to have "turned on" but I don't know for certain. Jupiter and the sun share almost identical amounts of Hydrogen and Helium in their gas make up, I think about 80 to 20. Jupiter just missed out on the availability of exclusively gas molecules in it's advent, I think. So, by definition, it wouldn't be considered a protostar.

Go Cyclones :yes:

You win the Bill Nye the Science Guy award for today!:notworthy:

 

[mikeiastat]

How can we be sure that he is not just Cliffy Clavin, even a blind squirl finds a nut every once in a while.:unsure:

 

[PackerClone]

In reply to the post's about why scientist always say the planets are 3 Billion years behind earth, i believe its because we are actually seeing them as they were 3 Billion Earth years ago... or in over simplified terms, because of the time it takes light to travel, we are seeing the planet as it was that long ago and not what it would look like now if we were on it. My science and astronomy are not exactly up to date but i believe that would explain the difference in time that is always quoted by the scientist.

 

[Clones85']

Ah yes, I agree the study of the unknown, and science in general, is a big waste of money. Human life has never been improved by anything to do with NASA, science, or the accumulation of knowledge.

As far as I am concerned, the Earth is flat, and the best way to determine if someone is a witch is to put her on the scales with a duck. "What else burns? More witches!"

So you think spending billions of dollars to see if there is bacteria on Mars is money well spent? Or seeing if there is another earth? How can you justify that when there are a lot of other things out there that the money would be way way more beneficial going towards?

Honestly, what did landing on the moon do to better us? It's cool and all, but that is about it. Once again, 90% of what these scientists do is the biggest waste of money. EVER