Slashdot Mirror


Earth to...Earth? Are you there?

jasamaman writes "So far all the planets found outside our solar system have been gas giants. So they are not habitable, and couldn't really hold life as we know it. But "planet hunter" David Charbonneau is looking for another planet just like Earth, and claims that astronomers are "very close"."

9 of 178 comments (clear)

  1. So what if we did ....... by Mattygfunk · · Score: 3, Insightful
    But the detection of those elusive, small Earth-like worlds may be closer than you think......

    I see the pointy that any further information about space (even out of our solar system) is useful, but what would we do if we found an earth-like planet?

    It is expensive and time consuming to send a probe to Mars, would we really want to investigate this far off planet before we properly explore our own solar system? And put the money in when the results may only come back years after we are all dead? Nope.

  2. Charbonneau likes BEER! by MarcoJROM · · Score: 2, Insightful

    PQ: On a personal note, what do you like to do in your spare time?
    Charbonneau: I find home beer-brewing very satisfying.


    David this one's on me!
    http://beer.trash.net/beerget.php?yourbeer=1017834 40990534471

    good luck on your quest buddy.

    --
    "It was penguin lust...at its worst." --someone
  3. egotistic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Why does man continue to hold "human and carbon-based" life forms as the most sacred. Give me a freakin break. Statements like "life as we know it" from scientists reveals how narrow minded they are. When ever I hear some scientist express those kinds of ideas, I am embarrased to be a human. Sure we don't know what other life forms are out there, but to assume that based on the life on this planet is both assinine and ignorant. Considering all the knowledge humans have gathered for the entire history of planet earth amounts to grain of sand on the cosmic beach of the universe, scientists should think before they speak.

  4. Re:How dose he know? by americanFatCat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think he's talking about the technology needed to find those planets. Currently, we've only been able to find gas giants because that's all our technology can handle; we notice them passing in front of stars or something. When the technology become available so that we are able to notice earth-sized planets passing in front of stars at great distances, then we'll discover that type of planet. If we are close to the technology, we are close to the final objective.

  5. Re:How does he know? by CrazyDwarf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm glad you posted the section you did here, as I didn't remember his exact words (and I can sometimes be a stickler for comparing what he said to what people think he said.) It says, "We are close to being able to find Earth-like planets." He doesn't say we're close to finding one, just that we're close to being able to find one. That's quite a big difference, especially when you consider that space is mostly empty. It could be 20 years after we are able to find one that we actually do.

    Just to kind of explain that to some of our slower readers... and this is in no way accurate, but just an example to help understand... if putting a coke bottle on the end of a telescope enables us to detect Earth-like planets, then we still have to search the skies with that telescope. That could take a long time, with the vastness of space.

    --
    It's easy to stand out when the general level of competence is so low.
  6. life as we know it by HighTeckRedNeck · · Score: 2, Insightful
    What do you mean "life as we know it" can't exist on a gas giant. We have bacteria, tubeworms, crabs and catfish living in conditions of 1000's of atmospheres pressure and 700+ degrees Celsius temperatures at the deep ocean vents. At this pressure many gasses are supper critical and act like fluids. C02 is polar just like water and could act as a solvent for life at the right T and P. Or for that matter a gas giant might have a layer of liquid water floating on a denser gas. (remember those folks that want to compress the C02 and dump it into the oceans). If we can have a complete spectrum of life from bacteria to vertebrates living in a deep ocean rift I don't think we can claim that "life as we {commonly} know it" is a necessary condition for "life as it could be". To assume so is just scientific arrogance. Who knows what exists deeper into those vents. There are bacteria that live in the crust and smelt gold compounds for energy. There are bacteria that live in old faithful. Bacteria living in the stratosphere, the artic ice, wherever we've been. And if you ask religious folks, matter isn't even necessary for intelligent life, just energy in the right configuration. After all, that's all matter is anyway, energy in a particular configuration. The idea that intelligent life as we know it can evolve beyond matter may not be just a fairy tale. Or for that matter that intelligent life started out as nothing but an infinite amount of intelligent energy that turned a portion of that energy into the space-time-matter complex we call the cosmos. And then for reasons of it's own, put the matter in a particular configuration that we, in our limited consciousness call "life as we know it".

    Maybe they just pick who they want to talk to.

  7. Re:Close, but not that close by Royster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First, we need to find an extra-solar system in which Earth-sized planets exist. It's now believed that these are fairly few and far between. The reason is that a vast majority of the gas giant systems we've discovered so far have their gas giants in either really close orbits to their stars, or are highly eliptical with passes close to their stars. In these situations, Earth-like planets would likely be tossed into their stars, or more likely, tossed into open space, by the gravitational effect of the giants.

    Oh, bullshit.

    The methods we have used until now to find extra-solar planets are extremely biased to find (a) large planets, (b) very close to the star and (c) in highly elliptical orbits. To make conclusions about the distribution of Earth-like planets from biased samples is foolhardy.

    It's as if you decided to count species by sitting in one place in the woods looking through a pair of binoculars. Sure, you would see all of the large mammals and birds that happened by, but you'd miss the vast majority of species by seeing hardly any of the incects (maybe a few fireflies if you were savvy enough to recognize them as animals) and none of the water dwelling animals. You conclusions about the distribution of species would be worthless because you saw only the easiest animals to spot.

    --
    I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
  8. Re:How dose he know? by emptybody · · Score: 2, Insightful

    he says that they are close to 'being able to discover' earthlike planets. He did not say that they were close to making the actual discovery.

    C'mon people. Work on your reading comprehension.

    --
    comment directly in my journal
  9. Re:Great, we're cephalopods by Corgha · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is not so much that we resemble the aliens as it is that the aliens resemble us.

    Remember that the sci-fi movies about which you write were written by humans, and no doubt the authors were trying to make a point about human behavior. Since, by your admission, the activity of serially raping planets for their resources is now associated with nasty aliens in your mind, it looks like the authors have succeeded in making their point.