In reading recent posts and seeing what France is doing to peoples right to practice freedom of religion, I'm not sure we could handle another world.

What kind of bigotry or hatefulness would a being from onother world find here. To bad we won't find out in our life time. This is exciting news however. Just think of dicussing creation or philosophy with a creature so distant from our world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In search of Earth, new class of planets found
By Michael Coren
Tuesday, August 31, 2004 Posted: 7:27 PM EDT (2327 GMT)


Astronomers on Tuesday announced the discovery of a new -- and possibly abundant -- class of planets that has more in common with Earth than the uninhabitable gas giants previously discovered.

"We are closer to answering the question, 'Are we alone in the universe?'" said Anne Kinney, director of NASA's Universe Division, Science Mission Directorate. "We aim to answer that question by looking for planets, eventually imaging them and ultimately diagnosing the presence of life on those planets."

Astronomers found the two planets, among the smallest ever detected, orbit different stars less then 50 light years from Earth. One planet circles a red dwarf star, the most abundant in our Milky Way galaxy, igniting hope that the discoveries may just be the beginning.

"We would like to make these discoveries routine and eventually push into the 'super Earth' regime," said Geoffrey Marcy of the University of California at Berkeley, who discovered a planet orbiting working with R. Paul Butler at the Carnegie Institution of Washington.

With evidence of smaller, rocky planets growing, finding another Earth seems more likely.

"It appears that most if not the majority of the remaining 100 billion stars [in the Milky Way galaxy] have some sort of planets orbiting around them," said Butler. "We are edging closer and closer to planet systems that are like our own solar system."

Using a technique that measures the "wobble" of a star caused by a planet's gravitational pull, astronomers inferred the existence of the two extraterrestrial worlds, or exoplanets, as well as traits such as their mass, orbit and speed. The star's movement, or wobble, is found by measuring the Doppler effect on light. The wavelength of the star's light lengthens, or stretches, as it moves with the gravitational pull of the planet reveals much about the planet itself..

The announcement follows on the heels of another by Swiss planet hunters who claimed to discover another planet even smaller than the one announced on Monday. That would add another instance to the new class of planets, although astronomers at Tuesday's conference said recognition of the claim would first require acceptance by a peer-reviewed journal.

There has been an explosion in the number of astronomers scanning the skies for the telltale wobble of distant worlds. Already, about 135 large exoplanets have been discovered. By refining their methods, astronomers can now detect objects even smaller than Saturn. Eventually, they have their sights set on discovering a world the size of our own.

Both of the recently discovered planets are slightly larger than Earth, about the size of Neptune, or about 17 times the size of our planet. Because they are so close to their star, they race through an extraterrestrial "year" in a matter of days.

Beyond that, astronomers can't speculate much about their appearance. They may consist of spheres of gas like Jupiter or look like Neptune itself with a core of rock and ice surrounded by a thick atmosphere of hydrogen and helium.

Given their proximity to the sun, they could also be like a scorched rock resembling Mercury.

The first planet orbits a cool, reddish dwarf star called Gilese 436 in the Leo constellation. Meticulous observation of the star began in July 2003 and detected the planet believed to be at least 21 times the size of Earth. It completes its orbit at the blazing rate of just 2.64 days instead of Earth's 365 days.

The second planet orbits a yellow star like our own, called 55 Cancri in the constellation Cancer, and is part of the first four-planet solar system ever discovered. It is estimated to be about the size of 18 Earths in mass, orbits in 2.81 days and lies about 41 light-years from Earth.

"It's the closest analog we have for our own solar system," said Barbara McArthur, investigator of the study from the University of Texas at Austin.

The planets were discovered using ground-based observations from the W.M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii, the Lick Observatory in California and the McDonald Observatory in Texas. Archived data from the Hubble space telescope was also used.

Both studies will appear in the Astrophysical Journal in December.

NASA will launch a series of missions to find more planets in the future including the Kepler Mission, the Space Interferometry Mission and the Terrestrial Planet Finder to seek out Earth-like worlds.

"These are the three missions that NASA designed to find that pale blue dot orbiting a yellow star that might harbor life," Butler said.

"...finding another Earth"

Hmm, wondering if that's our problem. We are looking for something LIKE our planets. Maybe there are other planets with sentient life YET different than ours. It takes one to know another. May be by NOT being discriminating and opening up our minds to allow the unknowns and unfamiliars, may be then we will find others UNLIKE our own. Just a thought. ;)

We could only hope.

Isn't this what happens in US schools? Religion isn't allowed in schools there is it?

No, religon isn't allowed in public schools, but there is no ban on religious clothing or outward signs. However most Public school districts are making rules as to what kids can wear. It all started with the Gang boom in the 80s and it got wheels from there. The state is not passing any laws of this nature to my knowledge however.

I wonder... If I were to start a topic about the economical benefits of equipping bananas with zippers, how long would it take before it's derailed into yet another topic about religion?

Haha! Well I have heard of Holy Bananas around my office here. ;)

<font color=lime>Most likely. :rolleyes: </font>

I'll make a few points about being 'alone' as it were, at least as it relates to me:

It's comfortable for certain reasons. A certainty we're alone says we're not about to be subject to random-fire from God-knows-what from God-knows-where, at any time. This is our space, and we can roam it or do stuff in it as we wish, without fear of stumbling upon something we weren't supposed to.

The problem is, it makes the universe incredibly cold. It's a prison as much as anything else if you're a solipsist. Never mind that to ingenuously arrive at such a conclusion one must be so morally bankrupt as to have lost all perspective and objectivity.

There's not much point in living, save what you choose to give it.

However, there are certain rational precepts which force this view upon us:

1. No positive proof of the contrary

2. No moral code is universal

3. No ultimate retribution

4. Bad guys can win

These things are very painful to arrive at if you don't believe in God, like me, but it's a pain you have to overcome...

there are actually some good reasons to assume only Earth-like planets could sustain life.

for one, carbon is the only element that can produce the great abundance of different complex molecules that seem to be necessary for complex life to evolve. iirc known organic compounds outnumber known unorganic compounds by about 10:1. the only other element, that could theoreticly produce a similar multitude of compounds is silicon (which has the same number of valence electrons as carbon, so they are chemically quite similar), however long chains of silicon atoms are typicly a lot more unstable than carbon chains. we can therefore reasonably assume evolution will preffer carbon based organisms to theoretical silicon based ones. luckily carbon is one of the most abundant elements in the universe, so there's enough of it around in most solar systems.

the problem is however, that most organic molecules break apart at higher temperatures, higher in this case meaning 50+°C, so this sets the limit on the surface temperature of a planet that we can expect to support carbon based life. temperatures also can't be too low, or complex organic compounds cannot form, though i don't really remember what 'too low' is in this case. there is however another sensible lower limit for temperature - the freezing point of water. running water is considered to be one of the basic requirements for life, as it's an excelent solvent for most unorganic and many organic compounds, catalysing chemical reactions between them. it is also one of the rare compunds that has it's liquid phase in the temperature range that is suitable for formation and existance of organic compounds and of those it is by far the most common (as oxygen and particularly hydrogen are both very abundant in the universe) and uniquely useful.

so, what else do we need besides carbon, water and a temperature in the 0-50°C range? well, for one we need the temperature to be in that range for enough time for complex life to develop. our only estimate for that is the time it took here on earth, so let's use a rough figure of a few billion years. that eliminates the more massive stars as the more massive the star is the faster it uses up it's nuclear fuel and dies. stars are ranked into spectral classes based on their surface temperature (which depends on mass) - O B A F G K M - ranging from the hottest and most massive O class to the coldest and smallest M class. as only F class stars and smaller live for more than a billion years it's unlikely that life could develop on O B and A class stars (which by the way, are very rare anyway).
but, a star also can't be too small as then for the planet to be sufficienlty warm it would have to be so near the star that it's rotation would be slowed down because of tidal forces. this happened to Mercury, which only turns around it's axis one and a half times in the time it takes for it to go around the Sun once. the result are extremly high temperatures on the day side and extreme cold on the night side. this eliminates M and some K class stars as candidates for life bearing planets. that's a shame, as most stars in the universe are M class.

so, we want a planet with enough carbon and water, orbiting an F, G or K class star at a right distance (so the surface temperature is in the 0-50° range). there are also further possible requirements, like the presence of a Jupiter-like gass giant that will clean up all the debris left over from the formation of the solar system (debris that would otherwise regularly hit the planet, reseting the evolutionary clock to zero), no companion stars or migrating giant planets that would perturb the orbits of the planets...

finding these planets is the ultimate goal of the planet-hunting astronomers, but our current instruments are not precise enough to find them yet. it's even doubtful that the current method for finding planets can ever be made precise enough to find other Earths. however, if NASA's and ESA's plans for the following 20 years become realised, we will have space based systems of telescopes capable of directly detecting the light from these worlds.

Wouldn't it be possible for life to develope outside those peramiters? Wouldn't evelution make this happen so life can exist in exstreme temperatures?

For those that actually believe that we are the only planet with life in the universe... well, I just cannot understand that thinking. It's extremely naieve and kinda arrogant IMO.

If you knew the numbers of stars up there, and galaxies... I've read many scientific books on these subjects, and the chances in our galaxy ALONE are very high that higher evolved life forms exist. (Type 1 and even type 2 civilizations)

Send us some girls from Venus! [img]smile.gif[/img]

And would society handle contact? Maybe....

[ 09-02-2004, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Ziroc ]

Can we handle being alone? I think not.

Whether or not there is other sentient life out there, we need desperately to get a foothold somewhere off this rock. Even if we don't destroy our own planet, it is only a matter of time before another asteroid like the one that killed the dinosaurs or the earlier one that split the moon off will come around. Or the sun will go out.

If we are out for long-term existence, we've got to explore and establish civilization in the universe.

Now, if we meet other cultures along the way, whether or not we can handle being alone will be determined, mostly, by who has the better ray gun. As it always is.

sure, life can exist even in very extreem environments. even here on Earth you can find bacteria living in highly acidic surroundings, in almost boiling water or under sheets of ice and even in rocks several miles below the surface. but it's hard to imagine evolution going much further from single cell organisms in such environments.

and Timber, don't worry... we should be able to defend ourselves from future asteroid or comet impacts in a couple of decades.

With comments like that not long. Comments like "we don't want your 'mine is better than yours crap'" doesn't help either. ;)

This is offtopic and potentially derailing Grojl. Shame on you [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I think we can't know one way or the other.

It is foolish to assume that there IS life on other planets simply because there is life here. There is no necessity at play. That's just faulty logic.

There are a unique set of minutely detailed circumstances that need not be replicated anywhere else.

Especially if it is all chance and there is no designer.

I think the odds of there being life on other planets increase supersubstancially with the addition of a cogniscant creator intending life. There is no reason why every solar system couldn't have life on it if that were the case. No reason why none of the Sol System gas giants couldn't have life we can't detect either.

But with that idea comes the idea that we're not alone in any case. ;) If you believe in a creator, you believe we're not alone.

So... remove the creator, and I think you heighten the odds of us being all there is.

But... all that said, all you can accurately say is what you have experienced, not that something you haven't experienced doesn't exist. You simply haven't experienced it. ;)

So, no I don't believe in life on other planets as I haven't experienced them, but I don't declare no life to exist, because how would I know.

I reside in a happy state of unknowing. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Ahhhhhh.

[ 09-02-2004, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

And just to stretch your brains a bit more on this, I give you The Fermi Paradox :D

Not necessarily. If the universe is infinite. . .

Very good info Mouse. It just boggles my mind, which isn't hard to do, to try and comprehend how vast the universe is. It can't fit into an equation because there is no boundries. To think that nothing else could be out there. Well it's just hard to believe.

ah, but there is a designer - the laws of physics and chemistry. even lab tests that try to recreate the conditions on the primordial Earth, show that complex organic compounds, including aminoacids, form within days. if you have a lab the size of a planet and hundreds of millions of years at your disposal, self-replicating molecules will eventually form - the first step towards the emergance of life.
life actually probably formed on earth several times, just to be wiped out by impacts powerful enough to sterilize the planet for hundreds or more years. after the period of the great bombardment ended, life as we know it today formed within a hundred million years, the first common ancestor with it's ~200 genes eventually giving rise to all the diversity of plant and animal species we see today.

basicly, we now have a pretty good understanding of how life first came about on the primordial earth and it seems that emergance of life is inevitable given the right conditions for a sufficient amount of time. since the ingredients for life are pretty commonplace in the universe, it is actually quite ignorant to assume earth is the only planet anywhere to harbor life.

[ 09-02-2004, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: frudi_x ]

Not necessarily. If the universe is infinite. . . </font>[/QUOTE]Exactly. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

If the universe is truly infinite then every form of life exists in every possible way, shape, and form on an infinite number of worlds exactly like Earth. In fact, if the universe is truly infinite, then there are an infinite number of us chatting in the Current Events Forum of IronWorks on the internet... across the universe. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 09-02-2004, 08:07 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

STOP IT!

I'm scaring me....

Not necessarily. If the universe is infinite. . . </font>[/QUOTE]I don't believe the universe is infinite. If it were infinite it would not be expanding. Expansion is increasing in size, area, dimension. An increase implies an existing limit, which is by definition FINITE.
It may expand infinitely - without end - but that doesn't make it infinite.

In any case, there is a scholl of thought that suggests the universal expansion is slowing, and will ulitmately result in "the big crunch".

In any case, the universe is not expanding, or it would already be where it is expanding into.

Also, "infinite" would be without beginning, for an origin is another finite parameter. Time being the fourth dimensional effect on an object.An object changes over time.

However, let's just say the universe is indeed infinite, that there is no end and no beginning to the universe, that it always was, always will be and just is.

If there is a creator, the odds of there being life are higher than if there is not, because there is no CHANCE in the equation, there is INTENT. Life spontaneously plopping into being ONCE all by itself is unlikely in the extreme. Twice? Three times? They are still odds with an impossible number of zeros to 1.

With a creator there are no odds. He could put life on as many planets as he pleases.

I fully agree with alot of what you posted here. Nicely articulated man [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

BUT

How can we be sure that the so-called 'laws' of physics have always been what they supposedly are now? And if the dynamics of physical forces can change, how has/does/will that affect the structure of our multiverse?

ah, but there is a designer - the laws of physics and chemistry. even lab tests that try to recreate the conditions on the primordial Earth, show that complex organic compounds, including aminoacids, form within days. if you have a lab the size of a planet and hundreds of millions of years at your disposal, self-replicating molecules will eventually form - the first step towards the emergance of life.
life actually probably formed on earth several times, just to be wiped out by impacts powerful enough to sterilize the planet for hundreds or more years. after the period of the great bombardment ended, life as we know it today formed within a hundred million years, the first common ancestor with it's ~200 genes eventually giving rise to all the diversity of plant and animal species we see today.</font>[/QUOTE]I see you replicated the conditions of primordial earth. Even adding a congnisant brain (a human one in this case) to assemble the compenents and thus initiate the sequence. How interesting. ;)

"Probably" in science doesn't really hold much water I'm afraid. "probably' can be anything, and used by all sides and all theories. "Probably" doesn't solve anything. ;)

Quote:

basicly, we now have a pretty good understanding of how life first came about on the primordial earth and it seems that emergance of life is inevitable given the right conditions for a sufficient amount of time. since the ingredients for life are pretty commonplace in the universe, it is actually quite ignorant to assume earth is the only planet anywhere to harbor life.

The "right conditions" are the whole miracle. A little bit closer to the sun, a little less of this, a little more of that. There are so many variables, and yet you're washing over the most complex aspect: the recipe.

I'm sure that fish inevitably cooks over a fire too, but who or what is going to ignite that fire?

It is only "ignorant" to make assumptions you have no possible way of proving. Assumptions are dangerous perpetuations of ignorance. Better to be happy with not knowing than to make statements of certain fact based on "probables" and "assumptions". ;)

As for the laws of physics and chemistry being the designer.... you miss the point. The laws are the parametres. The method. The roadmap. The pathways. The boundaries. They are not the instigator I am referring to. They are as much a product of creation as anything else.

In any case, to quote the far side..."So we know how. How is not the question we need answered. We need to know why. Why now brown cow?"

Or she

Or it

[img]smile.gif[/img]

Infinite and finite. I have a hard time understanding those two words. I try to cram all these images of different possibilities, to get a better picture of those two words, and it just boggles my human mind.

Now back to life on other planets or somewhere. Good link Mouse regarding the Fermi Paradox. One of the questions it asks is, why haven't extraterrestial life made contact yet with us. Who knows? Maybe they don't find us interesting, or we are not yet ready, or they see it might have bad affects for both beings. Or just maybe they are there in front and around us all these times yet we don't have the capacity to sense, to feel, or conscious enough to see them. Maybe they vibrate at a different frequency, and we just need to step up our own. Hint and a half for all our arses: Get wiser! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Or she

Or it

[img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE];)

nice link Mouse, we could be the most advanced life in the galaxy everybody else is at the caveman stage and that is why we are not getting any radio transmitions, why is it the automatic assumption that there is life out there more advanced then us? We maybe IT folks, the top of the heap, the big kahuna, number 1, The man with the plan. ;)

Small hint - this topic is about the possibility of life existing elsewhere in the universe. Let's keep it that way.

so you're saying that any experiment done by humans is unrepresentative of conditions found in nature, because there is a consciousness behind the experiment? in that case we should just give up on science as it can't really teach us anything about the world around us...
in this particular experiment nobody assembled the components, they just mixed up the gases believed to comprise Earth's atmosphere billions of years ago, added an occasional spark to simulate lightning and analysed the mixture after a couple of weeks. the 'assembling' part took care of itself, a result of natural laws. the same laws that brought the same components to the surface of the Earth over four billion years ago.
of course there are criticisms of these experiments, the primary one being that Earth's primordial atmosphere was not as reducing as assumed in the experiment. this is still open for debate, but even if so it would basicly just slow down the formation of complex organic molecules, they would still form eventually. there was plenty of time...

'probably' is just a word for describing probability, even if rather numericly inaccurate. in this case used to convey the fact that all conditions for the emergance of life existed on Earth half a billion years before the current DNA based life appeared (it was actually initially based on RNA or even something simpler). it is therefore reasonable to assume that life did indeed develop before 3.8 billion years ago (the age of the oldes phosilized microorganisms), but was wiped out by giant impacts that were common until 3.9 billion years ago.

as for 'probability' in science - as i said, the word is only a rather crude way to express probability. and that's what science is really about - probability. and aproximation.

but you don't need anyone to ignite a fire to get a cooked fish, as long as you just have a big enough ocean and enough time to wait! eventually some poor fish somewhere will get too close to an undewater heat source (a heat vent, an underwater volcano, a lava flow...) and get cooked, no 'divine' intervention necessary.
of course, that will leave you with just one cooked fish and you'll have to wait a while to get another one. life however, is very resiliant and once it begins it's not easy to get rid of it.

what consitutes a scientific proof anyway? it's just about using existing knowledge to describe something to within a certain degree of certainty. to make the explanation probable enough.
as for assumptions, they are a key asspect of furthering our knowledge, as without assumptions on the nature of new phenomena science could not advance.

everything after 10^-43 of a second after the creation of the universe is a consequence of the actions of natural laws. everything after that moment can be explained by HOW, no WHY's are required. wheter or not some consiousness had something to do with the would-be-universe before the 10^-43 second mark, that's a matter of bersonal beliefs - those however have nothing to do with science.

the answer is we're not sure if the 'laws' of physics were always the same. or to be more accurate, we aren't sure if the fundamental physical constants (speed of light, gravitational constant, fine structure constant...) are indeed constant or if they changed through time. the debate is not likely to be settled soon, though observations of distant space objets and phenomena have put constraints on possible variations of some of the constants.
however, even if these constants and our 'laws' of physics turn out to be changing through time, it just means there is another 'law' governing this behaviour, one that we are yet to discover. rememeber, that what we reffer to as natural 'laws' are nothing more than aproximations we derived to explain observed phenomena.

[ 09-03-2004, 05:20 AM: Message edited by: frudi_x ]

All you need is love.
All you need is love.
All you need is love, love.
Love is all you need.

Really couldn't resist. :rolleyes:

Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.

What I have read is that the chance that other sentient beings exist in the universe are quite big, but the chance of them being close enough to someday meet us are quite small. So the chance that this topic question be answered before Ziroc dies of old age are quite very small indeed. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Let me rephrase: Yorick, not every topic has to be about creationism. Please quit taking every opportunity to pull out the soap box, and please quit trying to set the world record for number of posts closed. Thanks much, old buddy, old pal.

[ 09-03-2004, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

And as for you well know TL, (and others who may care to take this under advisement) use of language in context gives certain words and phrases added significance. Therefore, please refrain from using what some will consider offensive blasphemy in posts directed at those of a "religious" persuasion. Personally speaking, it does not matter a jot to me, but it adds nothing to your point.

I edited it.

Thank you [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

If you could just see your way clear to taking your personal disagreement with Yorick to PM, all would be sweetness and light :D

Now, lets get back on topic ;)

Let me rephrase: Yorick, not every topic has to be about creationism. Please quit taking every opportunity to pull out the soap box, and please quit trying to set the world record for number of posts closed. Thanks much, old buddy, old pal. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm not talking about creationism theory. I didn't present any creation theory vs evolution theory arguments. I am talking about life existing in the universe, and my belief firstly that life, in the form of a creator and other spiritual beings means that 'no, we are not alone' and secondly, that the existence of a creator in my mind increases the odds of other physical lifeforms existing.

Am I not allowed in this discussion because of the reasons for my opinions? Are the only valid opinions about extraterrestrial life ones that are atheistic? I elaborated on my opinions to illuminate why I exist in a comfortable state of not knowing.

Why take the topic off-topic and challenge my right to contribute to a discussion?

I believe that life exists in the universe that is not of this planet, but do not believe in the necessity of life on other planets.

How is that not related to this discussion? Can we get back on topic please. Thanks.

[ 09-03-2004, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]