Slashdot Mirror
Extrasolar Planet Could Harbor Life
BlueMorpho writes with a link to a Space.com article about a recently discovered extrasolar planet that may be able to harbor 'life as we know it.' Orbiting around the star Gliese 581 is a small rocky ball that might have the same liquid ocean and drifting continent configuration we're familiar with. The find may be unique in all of space exploration as this planet appears to be within a habitable band of temperatures for life, and is categorically not a gas giant. "The bottom line is exciting ...The conditions for life could be there, but is life itself? As yet, there's no way to know unless the planet has spawned beings that are at least as clever as we are. As part of the SETI Institute's Project Phoenix, we twice aimed large antennas in the direction of Gliese 581, hoping to pick up a signal that would bespeak technology ... Neither search turned up a signal."
This is categorically amazing! Gliese 581 has not one, but *two* planets capable of sustaining life as we know it!
"Skill shows through where genius wears thin." -Wittgenstein || Religion: uniting aviation and architecture.
...are the ones you can't see even with a telescope.
--I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
-- See?
The trouble is that despite the planet's title sounding like a science fiction title, the former residents of Gliese 581 were at least as clever as we are, and the planet is currently recovering from a complete nuclear winter...
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
I wonder what we'll find fist: a) A planet as inhabitable by us as Earth. b) A way to genetically modify humans to adapt to currently inhospitable conditions. Maybe we'll be able to breath sulfurous air, like that found on XJ93832, which is otherwise a resort planet. I've been doing my own experiments with a homemade dutch oven. My subject/wife is quite an innovator. I think she's been altered at the genetic level several times.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
hey kids! Exciting news a planet could have life - assuming it has an atmosphere. And if it does have that atmosphere, it doesn't overheat the planet through greenhouse heating. And oh yeah, all we know about it is its orbit and mass. And it almost definitely doesn't have life. Aren't you excited?
When the media flogs "science" stories like this, full of marginal ideas that probably aren't true are we just conditioning the public to ignore actual science as pie in the sky crap? Or does the break from Paris Hilton news stories have some tangible benefit to educating society at large?
...bomb it.
Because tiny microbes living in the soil always emit "signals". Technologically advanced life vs. life are two very different things. Jetson's like colonies would be nice to find, but honestly, we are more likely to find single cell organisms who haven't quite figured out how to build a radio tower.
Maybe they are really clever and able to watch our TV.
Orbiting around the star Gliese 581 is a small rocky ball that might have the same liquid ocean and drifting continent configuration we're familiar with. The find may be unique in all of space exploration as this planet appears to be within a habitable band of temperatures for life...
Wake me up when they really found something...
Recently? How recent? Doesn't it take like, 100 years for radio signals to go that far?
Blerg.
How many LY away is this one? And how many generations would a hypothetical space ship have to survive to get there if we could accelerate it with solar sails or something?
Not that it'd survive impacts at any kind of speed, given that it'd probably get knocked full of holes by micro meteorites and such over the incredibly long journey, and the whole crew would likely end up like blobs of jello after having no gravity for so long, assuming they survived the degenerative mutations caused by all the radiation exposure in space...
The planet is so close to the star that it's likely tidally locked so that only one side faces the sun and the other side is in eternal night. The temperature differential between the hot day side and the cold night side might cause the border to be under constant storm activity.
A "year" where the planet rotates around the star is only 13 days. If tidally locked, a "day" is the same amount of time.
The same tidal forces would also make any large oceans on the surface prone to immense tides. The strong tides may also result in more tectonic activity than on Earth.
"As part of the SETI Institute's Project Phoenix, we twice aimed large antennas in the direction of Gliese 581, hoping to pick up a signal that would bespeak technology ... Neither search turned up a signal."
Sure we didn't pick up a signal FROM THEM, but are we sending a signal to them in return? Kind of odd that we think they might be transmitting to us we we aren't transmitting to them, kind of a double standard there...
I've read Slashdot for the last 5 years, and now I start posting... Go figure
"We twice aimed large antennas in the direction of Gliese 581, hoping to pick up a signal that would bespeak technology"
The first interspace wardriving attempt thus ended in failure. The Gliesians must be hardwired.
The white zone is for loading and unloading only. If you need to load or unload go to the white zone. It's a way of life
WE are goin to tha new werld fer huntin' season!!!!!
Floatin' fish er gud eatin!
A planet of Earthlike mass in the habitable band would almost certainly have to have an atmosphere of some kind. Whether or not that atmosphere is breathable or not is another question altogether. From that distance, Venus or Mars would look pretty good to extraterrestial terran planet hunters. Masswise Venus is a near twin of earth but the surface conditions are straight out of Dante's Inferno. Mars is a shade too light to hold on to a thick O2 atmosphere and is basically a cold rusty desert. My guess is this place is apt to be more like Venus or Mars than Earth. Any chance we could talk Goldilocks into planet hunting?
Has this not been posted before?! It sounds so familiar.
Ryan
It's stories like this that always keep me thinking. Sometimes I wonder if I will be alive when we first find life elsewhere, or if we will get sidetracked on our quest.
When the discovery happens, it might be bacterial, insect, or something else, but every day seems to be getting us closer to finally proving that we aren't alone. Will that be our generation's moon landing / claim to fame? Finding not just building blocks but actual species (preferably with legs)on some mass of rock orbiting Gliese 581.
Dammit Otto, you have lupus.
> unless the planet has spawned beings that are at least as clever as we are. This implies that human beings are clever, which may be a false assumption.
Well so could my underwear, but that doesn't make it true, does it.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
This is easily the most exciting time period in the history of astronomy (to date). New discoveries of real interest (even to nonexperts) are being made monthly. What a marvelous time to be living!
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Sure, the hum-drum science of everyday research is important... but so too are the stories that inspire us.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
i'm not joking
some people get ecstatic about little green men. me, i could care less about aliens, i really couldn't. fuck aliens. i just want somewhere else for humans to live so us, the human species, survives. that's job #1 for me
i'd be willing to exterminate the little green suckers too without a second thought if they interfered with our colonization efforts. i'm not in any way joking. people love aliens. i could care fucking less about them
in the next few centuries, before we colonize gliese 581c, if we get hit by an asteroid or a supervolcano, or someone like osama bin laden gets his hands on nanotech or enough nukes or a superbug or a certain chemical, civilization is doomed, perhaps permanently
and perhaps our species, our very existence, ends
what does that mean to you?
this new earth-like planet could be our insurance policy, our lifeboat: one planet can get wiped out, and mankind will still survive on the other
in my mind, weighing that insurance policy against little green men?
it's not even an afterthought: kill the little green men, wipe them out, colonize. i'm not joking in the least. that they go extinct so that we survive? sorry suckers, your extinct
now the THIRD orb we find that is colonizable?: if it harbors extraterrestrial life, well then, that's another story because our insurance policy is already reached. colonization can be forestalled or modified for coexistence
my story on Gliese 581c on kuro5hin
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
p. Even if we could transverse the VAST distances between solar systems (and most people have no idea just how vast we're talking), odds are that even simple life (i.e., the scummy pond) is rare.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
God help those poor bastards if they've got oil.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Perhaps it's time to establish a colony. How far are we from building a sleeper or generational ship giving aggressive assumptions (accept risky cryogenics, one way trip, generous time limits for a journey)?
Remember, we've only been transmitting signals for something like 100 years. Setting the question of life aside, the chance that there is life there that has developed the capability to transmit signals into space AND has survived long enough to sustain those signals is possibly more rare than an inhabitable planet.
No wonder SETI could not get any signal from them. They learnt their lessons. Last time they visited us on the Independance Day we uploaded a virus into their system. So they just set their modem "To ignore pings from the WAN side."
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Dude, relax.
It's a big universe out there.
We can share it with any species that we encounter.
Gliese 581 is, as astronomical distances go, relatively close: only 20 light-years away. It's one of the few star systems which, if inhabited, might provoke conversation. A simple exchange, along the lines of "how are you?" followed by "fine, and you?" would require a mere four decades. Tedious, but not unthinkable.
The actual exchange...
EARTH: How are you?
GLIESE 581: Sorry, we don't need Viagra. You can try the next planet over.
If traveling across the galaxy doesn't get me laid, nothing will.
Now, to build that spaceship.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
FTFA:
"There should be a belt of moderate temperatures somewhere near the twilight ring between light and dark."
Sounds VERY similar to the Twi'lek homeworld
I haven't seen anyone mention this, but Gliese 581 is an M-class dwarf. There's serious concerns about the habitability this entire class of star. They have large magnetic fields and are subject to very large solar flares which could exterminate life within their solar system. More details available:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M_dwarf#Habitability
The real question about supporting life is not only breathable air, but also the surrounding belts that insulate a planet from intense radiation. Ozone layer, Van Allen Belts, and the like are just as - if not more important - than a breathable atmosphere.
PLUS planet tilt.
And distance.
And possibly rotation speed.
I'm not saying that life exists anywhere else...just that the odds are against it. Maybe.
Viruses are DNA specific, most can't even swap between species on Earth.
Bacteria are slightly worse. The ones that cause us trouble tend to be highly specialized, which of course wouldn't be a problem on another planet. But there are also generalist. Most likely, our natural defense would have no trouble with those, but we could be unlucky.
The defense is also the largest problem, we would not be a good food source for the native life, but neither would the native life provide the necessary nutrients for us. We would at least need a supplement of Earth based life forms. And the Earth based life forms would be unlikely to be able to compete with the native life forms, so a sustainable colony would be a challenge.
We didn't find any planets for years and all of a sudden we find like 4 useful ones in 1-2 years? Is this a product of the new networked telescope system or did we get some new giant telescope or something?
Where is this information coming from?
Okay, I'll volunteer.
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
The second sentence (and 3rd, 4th, and 5th) is a given, but not very helpful. (Simple logic indicates that intelligent life can't be more common than life, and so on.)
So getting to .5 C is not a problem (except for the massive expenditures of energy). Also - based off that link, Alpha Centauri will probably never be closer than 8 years away.
Personally, I'm much more interested in the little green women than in the little green men. :-D
I'm sure I could find a way to further interspecies negotiations.
The previous article, from 3 weeks ago when the news was actually fresh:
2 5/0024257
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Seriously, how much does stuff like this pique the interest of the next Goddard, or even the next rank-and-file NASA employee? Or maybe the next Branson, who is willing to spend a fortune of private funds on space-related activities (even if he does have a long-term profit incentive)?
The next Goddard or rank and file NASA employee would languish at said NASA these days. The era of fast moving government projects to explore space a la Apollo is past for the foreseeable future, we can only hope. Apollo had a fire lit under it (pun intended) because of the space race between the USA and USSR. New opportunities to get things done in a decent time frame are are BECAUSE of investors like Branson, not despite them. Long history shows the alternative fast developers to peacetime profiteers like Branson are wartime states, from sailing ships to rockets. Now are you really sure you want to bash him and his big bad profit motive given the alternative?
the same planet we heard about a couple weeks back, that is 50% more massive than Earth and with 1.5 times our gravity?
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
Man, who pissed on your cheerios this morning?
Quit being such a buzzkill and get some imagination. Dreaming is a good thing.
You sound like the "You'll never make it!" guy from Gulliver's Travels.
mod parent up ;-)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I agree that inspiring stories are needed - but the real stir here isn't that it might harbor life, but that we have finally found a terrestial planet in the habitable zone around a star. Does it harbor life? Maybe... but probably not.
Maybe someone familiar with concepts such as habitable zones could figure that out reading these general media articles - but the speculation is just inflating hopes unrealistically. When we finally DO find a planet harboring life, I'm afraid the public will just shrug and say, "didn't they announce that before?", not parsing the difference between COULD and DOES.
Assuming that alien life is fairly common in the galaxy (big assumption, but in fact every discovery that comes in seems to be pointing to the presence of life elsewhere), and we're fairly late arrivals on the universal scene - our solar system is a mere 4 billion years old, i always wondered why some militant civilization run by the likes of Hitler, or Genghis Khan, or even circletimessquare hadn't just wiped us out a long time ago, before we even got started? I mean all it would have taken was one such militant civilization to corner a big chunk of the galaxy. One answer was that millions or even billions of years ago battles were waged between civilizations to keep the galaxy safe. That certainly seems possible. Another answer i came up with was that civilizations don't develop the technology for interstellar travel until they evolve mentally and spiritually to the point where they are no longer interested in colonizing someone else but in true exploration. From all accounts of UFO craft, they appear to be noiseless and pretty fuel efficient. My guess is there's enough energy in the vacuum and ways of warping space that allow for such travel but until we stop waging wars we won't get to discover what that is. cheers
We killed the Martians with the cold virus...or was it the AIDS virus?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Namely, that we can exterminate the little buggers.
Here's the problem with an approach like that: any civilization, save the most pacifist ones, that is at least equal to you in firepower, can exterminate us just as easily. The benefits of trying to be friendly is that anything less than xenophobes on your scale could be influenced to accept us, regardless of their technological prowess. In other words, you've just increased your chance of finding a hospitable planet to live on.
Then there's the slight problem of reputation: if there are more civilizations out there, and word gets out we're sadistic buggers who exterminate anybody in our way, we might face some issues in keeping the planets we have.
Just because distances suddenly become interstellar does not mean that the basic calculations of regional politics have vanished. They simply have scaled up - in both risk as well as reward.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
thanks for the comic relief ;-)
if you had read down far enough, you would have noticed i said the third planet colonization could take into account the little green men
furthermore, i know something you don't seem to recognize: self-preservation trumps all
that's not neocon, that's not colonial era thinking
that's darwinian
say what you want, but if the history of the universe conspires to threaten earth, and some little green men on an orb we can flee to won't survive our colonization efforts, then i'm sorry little green men:
buh bye
now go back to dying your hair black and applying your eyeliner, dear emo. leave the survival of mankind in the hands of those actually a little more concerned with the actual survival of mankind than you seem to be. the way of your thinking is extinction
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Based on our very short and limited examples here on Earth, militant civilizations seem to have a notoriously short lifespan.
Or MP3s.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
The basic assumption that we can -reach- such a planet is the first major barrier. Remember how long it took voyager to get out of the system.. now multiply that distance a few (hundred?) thousand times.
First step should be the moon, then mars.. that takes all our eggs out of one nest - getting to another coup is cool and all, but baby steps are more likely to succeed.
-GiH
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
would you rather go extinct?
;-)
because humankind exists in a universe that is cold and uncaring, you would have humanity die?
what is not kind? humanity? or the universe?
you think the universe cares if it sends a planet killer asteroid our way?
don't hold against humanity what you should be holding against the universe
if the universe is to be a place of fairness and have a conscience, you must first survive and work towards that goal. but to survive, sometimes you have to be brutal. it's a conundrum. it's also reality. reality is not simple, it is complex
not surviving ENSURES that the universe remains cold and heartless
i think these truths about existence is something the little green men would understand
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Good Lord Man! Has the years of indoctrination to support the prime directive taught you nothing! Are we as a species worth preserving if it is at the expense of another. Are we really sufficiently evolved to judge which race has priority. Is not the galaxy large enough for us to peacefully co-exist. Why, by distroying another race, we may deprive ourselves of a cheap source of Spoo. Would you callously sacrifice future generations' Spoo!
Unless of course the aliens in questions are small cuddly furry purring creatures that reproduce very quickly. In that case they are our mortal enemies.
Does it have any oil?
The real hilarity is that you talk about self-preservation being universal, but assume your own brand of how to survive is the only method possible, without ever considering the consequences and how those consequences might reduce your ability to survive.
It is very much colonial era and neo-con thinking that starting wars of aggression is a sure fire way of increasing the odds of survival. Because of course nobody has ever regretted starting a war! History proves this, if you are completely and utterly ignorant. The 'if' of course being unecessary in your case.
It is very much an aspect of the modern idiot neo-con movement to think that your ideology can, by itself, ensure your survival without having to worry about reality. It is very much neo-con to think that anyone who questions your ideology-based plan based on practical grounds is actually an enemy of your ideology. Because neo-cons don't know anything about reality or practicality, they can only discuss ideology.
Perfect example: You're such a neo-con idiot you don't even realize that I was talking about the necessity of survival too! The words just bounce off your brain, removed by an ideological filter that prevents you from seeing reality.
Perfect example of why your way of thinking is dangerous: You talk about how when we colonize our 2nd extraterrestrial planet we may be able to consider the lives of the natives, but you don't talk about trying to find such a 2nd planet -- perhaps even an uninhabited one -- before wiping out the population of the first. Because you're a warmonger, war is always your first choice. And because you're an idiot, you think war will always make you safer.
Which is the real problem. Long before any of this stuff about alien worlds becomes relevent, philosophies like yours are causing many unnecessary wars here on earth. Warmongers like you are, right now, the biggest danger to the species.
If you were really concerned about the survival of the human species, you would kill yourself.
But in reality you are like most other organisms, ultimately concerned only with your own survival and the species be damned. And because you are a moron, you think that as long as someone else is being attacked, you cannot be hurt. Just keep laughing, genius, pay no attention to the consequences. That's a sure way to ensure your survival, you joke of darwinism.
The enemies of Democracy are
That means we'll have to go there twice?
Dammit. I've only got one FTL drive, and it took me a good twenty-five years of watching Star Trek to build that one!
What is is all that is. Isn't that obvious?
Actually, one of the biggest concerns isn't the amount of energy or even the amount of time (although of course these are serious issues.) The biggest is the mass of fuel required; this is usually the driving factor for the propulsion on any mission further out than LEO.
.5c, antimatter, or something else that has exhaust velocity near the speed of light is required to get to that speed. Of course this is still based on the idea that some kind of rocket propulsion is necessary. Still leaves the possibility of solar sails (my personal favorite) or more crazy stuff like space-time folding or whatever sci-fi stuff may actually work.
The basic equation for the mass fraction (initial mass over final mass):
m_i/m_f = Exp(Delta-V/V_exhaust)
So, based on this, in order to achieve the initial mass for 1kg of final payload would be:
SSME(V_exhaust ~ 4500 m/s): 3.03e14476 kg
Ion Thruster (V_exhaust ~ 40000 m/s): 4.02e1628 kg
VASMIR (V_exhause ~ 300000 m/s): 1.40e217 kg
Antimatter (V_exhaust ~ 3e8 m/s): 1.64 kg
Thus, in order to get to
Just my thoughts and numbers.
It'd be cool if someone would come up with a more interesting argument than we're perfect, everything here is perfect, so it's the only way to go. It's a good logical starting point, go with what you know, but claiming that life on Earth is the only way to go because that's how it works here is, well, basically begging the question, and last I heard, logical fallacies are bad.
I was just making it clear that being a fan of space stuff wasn't his only motivation, in case someone misconstrued my OP as such.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
But what if the alien organisms simply want a place to grow until they "hatch" and rip out from your chest?
yum.. tastes like earthburgles.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
And that's most likely the segment of the population we should be least concerned with, IMO.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Perhaps radio communication is archaic and they assume there's no intelligent life here. After all, there are no subspace transmissions emanating from this planet...
Or maybe they are really smart and just make sure not to send any signals our way for fear that we might just "drop in". This strategy seems to work pretty well for me. I've got one neighbor that I never acknowledge and he pretty much leaves me alone...
that was a beautiful diatribe
now, if you would like to actually talk to me, rather than your prefab stereotype in your head, which you somehow mistake for what i am and what i represent, then we can begin having a conversation. i am not responding to anything you wrote above, because i'm not going to defend a position that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I SAID
i am not a neocon, or any of the other b-grade hollywood villain cartoon cut-outs you despise that you apparently have labeled me as
are we clear?
are you listening to me now?
good, because if you respond to me, i will hold it to you that you respond to WHAT I ACTUALLY SAY and WHAT I ACTUALLY MEAN rather than pigeonholing me in one of your retarded prejudicial straightjackets
learn to communicate more effectively, dipsy doodle
now:
if the universe conspires to pit the survival of little green men versus us, then it is good bye little green men. you mention other choices. well no shit sherlock, if there are other possibilities, then obviously they will have already been tried! duh. i am talking about WHAT IF there are no other choices
i am saying that if it is starkly clear there are no other choices, then the little green men get wiped out, adios, hasta la vista baby
now: please don't bring up other choices in a hypothetical, when i am hypothetically suggesting that there might not be any other choices!
(smacks forehead)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
But still not nearly as short as their peacfull neighbors.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
SETI is looking for a ridiculously-strong, directed signal. Basically someone would have to have a transmitter with unheard-of wattage pointed right at the earth for us to detect it with the Aracaibo telescope.
Basically, if the Aracaibo telescope were on Gliese and were pointed at Earth, it wouldn't detect us. Until the SETI project gets a better telescope, the fact that we didn't detect anything coming from Gliese when we pointed one of our ground-based radio telescopes at it only means they aren't stupid enough to spend a billion dollars to build a 20MW directional transmitter, point it right at the earth, and leave it blasting for thousands of years hoping we'd give a listen.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
So then the question becomes...how do we create an anti-matter rocket?
My Sysadmin Blog
You won't believe this but...
In 2001 a polish nun call Sister Faustina, who had died in 1939 I think, was made a saint (canonized). As far as I know canonization is an infallible statement that the person went to heaven and led a life of exceptional saintliness.
In her diaries (which she was instructed to keep by her superiours) Jesus Christ appears numerous times. At one point he says that the universe is teeming with life, and it would be arrogant of us to think that it is only our planet that had life, or words to that effect.
Now because she is canonized that effectively means that the content of her diaries, while not themselves being proclaimed infallible, are approved of nevertheless.
The diaries also claim that Hitler was not the Anti-Christ, and that the Anti-Christ was already living. I would bet on Stalin.
As a result of this nun and her visions of Christ the Catholic Church instituted the Feast Of the Divine Mercy on the sunday after Easter sunday. Apparently if we don't ask God for His mercy we must eventually glorify His justice instead (ie. eternal punishment). And that message was the purpose of Jesus's appearances. Google for "Saint Faustina" for more info.
I shudder to think of a future with antimatter and starships capable of reaching fractions of C. Just need one nut-case to decide to smack his ship into the Earth at
Correct me if I'm wrong, but with the universe being estimated at 10 to 20 billion years old, then doesn't that mean that if we progressed 0.0000001% faster than them, then they would still be in the dark ages? If they progressed 0.0000001% faster than us, then they would have either conquered us, killed themselves off, or proven space travel to be a nearly-hopeless proposition, by now.
That's assuming they aren't following the prime directive, of course.
Yes, that's called a nightmare.
Dreaming is what we do. If you don't have dreams, you might as well kill yourself, because you're nothing but a living suicide anyway.
Stop saying that! You have NO IDEA if it is true. We have a sample size of 1 planet, and 1 moon, and even the moon is kind of sketchy since we haven't searched exhaustively - but we can be fairly sure that nothing is alive on that cold rock. We can't be sure if star systems with earthlike planets are common or not, because we're just now learning to detect extrasolar planets and learn things about them. And we can't be sure if earthlike planets can support life, but the only earthlike planet we know well enough to know if there is life on it or not has life on it. You can't learn anything from a sample size of one, but if you could, then we would be saying that 100% of the planets we have experience with have life on them, and therefore it is highly common. Since you can't, we don't, and your claims that life is probably rare are as ridiculous as claims that it is probably commonplace.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
A planet of Earthlike mass in the habitable band would almost certainly have to have an atmosphere of some kind.
I don't know much about formation of the atmosphere, so could you please explain why that has to be the case for any star and any planet of mass roughly 1 earth mass? Certainly issues like the chemical composition of the star, chemical composition of the planet, radius of the planet (from which we get a value for gravitational acceleration on the planet), and probably other factors too play an important role in determining whether an atmosphere forms.
I would also like to point out that (1) the planet would be tidally locked, rendering most of it inhabitable and (2) I had been told that the team that found the planet had retracted their statement that it lay inside the habitable zone (apparently it lies just outside).
I came here for a good argument
Which is why it's naive and dangerous to assume any alien civilization would share our idea of universal peace. We'd have to be quite cautious if we ever make a first contact with one.
i am not a neocon,
Oh please. Save me the bullshit. I don't care what your social beliefs are, because I'm not an idiot who can only think in one-dimension. The neo-cons grew within the Republican aparatus, and thus share their social stances for largely political reasons, but that's not relevent to what they are.
Neo-cons are the combination of the worst aspects of the Liberals and the Conservatives.
Like the Libearls, they believe that they can change the world for the better without having any understanding of what it is they're trying to solve.
Like the Conservatives, they believe that the best tool for executing foreign policy is military force.
Thus "spreading Democracy" by invading Iraq. You may not self-identify as a neo-con, but you don't self-identify as an idiot either, and you are clearly both. I'm not referring to what club you're a part of, I'm referring to the nature of your reality-deficient philosophy, and it's 100% neo-con.
"liberal warhawk" == "neo-con who supports gay marriage". Big deal. If the neo-con philosophy hadn't turned out to be such a flop in reality I'm sure we'd be seeing them start to pop up on the Democratic side of the
But it is funny hearing you all-caps screaming "respond to me not a caricature", Captain Straw Man. Keep it up, the ironing is delicious.
i am saying that if it is starkly clear there are no other choices, then the little green men get wiped out, adios, hasta la vista baby
In an absolutely trivial and meaningless case where all humans are in a box and all aliens are in another and in the human box there's a button that kills all the aliens and a timer that if it expires before the button is pushed kills all the humans, sure, anyone would agree what to do. Like all such trivial statements, it's irrelevent and extremely boring because reality is never going to be like that. Do you get it? Reality will never be like that.
So the problem is that in any real situation your interpretation of "starkly clear" is highly suspect. Your previous assessments of this nature are -- how shall I say this generously -- retarded. The fact that you didn't even mention an alternative to genocide until after you had rhetorically wiped out a whole planet and had moved on to another just demonstrates how deeply ingrained your warmonger thinking goes. Along with the assumption that any choices must have already been tried, so if nothing is being tried that leaves only war. As if the existence of alternatives is the hypothetical, rather than the black-and-white decision which will never appear in reality. Which is an extremely frightening way to think, because it deliberately avoids thinking.
Your simplistic binary "us-or-them" thinking is fine and dandy up until the very second it collides with reality, at which point it becomes not just irrelevent, but also foolish and dangerous.
The enemies of Democracy are
There's serious concerns about the habitability this entire class of star. They have large magnetic fields and are subject to very large solar flares which could exterminate life within their solar system.
Being that the planet is larger than Earth, the hope would be that it has a thicker atmosphere to help shield from magnetic storms. Any life may also be adapted to take cover during flair-ups.
Actually, I saw a computer-generated show on I think Discovery channel about just such a world. They figured a tidally-locked earth-like planet would have a permananent red-spot-like storm on it's star-facing side.
Table-ized A.I.
Never. Not ever. Even if life exists we'll never find it and it will never find us. Never. The obstacles are too large. For all purposes that obey the physical laws of the universe as we understand them today, we are effectively alone in the universe.
From that distance, Venus or Mars would look pretty good to extraterrestial terran planet hunters.
How do you know this?
Plus, part of Mars' problem is that it is small, unlike this new planet. Perhaps if it was a bit bigger it could have liguid surface water near the equator dispite its distance.
Table-ized A.I.
if you can apparently figure out what i believe without even talking to me, why waste your time talking to me? you apparently know more about what goes on in my head than i do. that's quite the gift! (pffft)
;-)
i mean again, that was a gorgeous diatribe. fuill of righteous indignation, fire and brimstone, truly a gorgeous withering fusilade of words. i think i was hearing "battle hymn of the republic" in my head as i read (snicker)
one small minor insignificant detail though, oh great smiter: IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME WHATSOEVER
but, living in times square, i've seen plenty of insane/ drug-addled people wandering around loudly persecuting the air in front of them
it's alternately sad, and amusing. but for someone like you, who can apparently navigate their way around the submit button a website, it can be nothing but amusing
so continue now with the comic relief
i mean SORRY! cutting insight and wit!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Why aren't their any Uranus could harbor life jokes?
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
and Billions.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Masswise Venus is a near twin of earth but the surface conditions are straight out of Dante's Inferno.
I think you mean that Mars is out of Dante's Inferno... those in the ninth circle of hell were encased in ice.
E pluribus unum
there is one option that might make a one way trip reasonable although probably not for a "manned" mission. Bussard Ramjet (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet) basically a fusion drive, using the existing hydrogen in interstellar space. We (the race) can start a fusion reaction - containing it for electrical generation is another matter - BUT it would not be necessary to contain the reaction only direct it. The ship could get a good boost leaving the solar system, accelerate to max expected velocity (or the halfway point which ever came first), turn around and decelerate to the destination (at an appropriate distance). Wikipedia claims .16c as a max - total travel at .16c = 20/.16 = 125 years.
It would take longer, depending on the mass of the ship and thrust actually generated, acceleration to and from .16c could take from months (unlikely) to decades.
125 years is a long time - but - robots dont know about time.
This is technically feasible, unlike many other 'interstellar drives' - warp drives, hyperspace etc.
remember:
Interstellar travel is only fast in Speculative Fiction.
Nah, George Bush just wants to watch the aliens, and maybe take a pot shot or two at them:Point of order: taking pot-shots at aliens is not something I'd recommend.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
But what's funny is that despite your protests, I've got you perfectly pegged.
Do you not describe yourself as a "liberal warhawk"?
Liberal Warhawk == Neo-Con, who supports gay marriage or some bullshit that's only a relevent distinction to one-dimensional thinkers.
As you've also made clear before, you believe that one-dimensional thinking is not only correct but natural. So I know why you don't like to be called a neo-con (doesn't fit your one-dimensional scale) but in every way that matters the term describes you perfectly according to your own words.
But keep pretending that I'm not perfectly describing your own words. I'm basically repeating them back to you, and you say it has nothing to do with you? It is to laugh!
Your original post, and every one after it, is a perfect example of your binary thinking, and how you can only discuss terms that trivialize a complex problem into "kill or be killed". You can't argue that I haven't accurately portrayed your illogic, you can only cry about it.
When you say "you apparently know more about what goes on in my head than i do" you really meant "posts", not head. Which isn't much of a trick, as you're a one-trick pony.
Oh, the answer I promised. Pointing out your logical fallacies and flawed binary thinking is easy and fun! I'm sure you'll reply with more of the same. It's like a tee-ball machine, where a brand new fallacy is automatically loaded onto the tee after every time I knock one out of the park. And then after the third straight homer, the tee starts to cry. Hilarious!
The enemies of Democracy are
you apparently had a major crack up over my approach to little green men, and rather than little green men, you want to change the scope to something TOTALLY DIFFERENT
ok, fine, i'll meet you straight on asshole, in a thread about fucking aliens on planets, let's argue about politics (wtf?! your choice, not mine, but so be it)
let's duke this out asshole, let's go for it:
first: do not label me, argue me. you have passion, good for you. can you use it to change my opinion? then you need to talk issues, not prejudices and stereotypical labels. do you think you can do that?
if so, let us begin: is it ok to invade sudan in the name of the suffering in darfur? (something i am completely for)
please, i know you have difficulties, but try to STAY ON THAT FUCKING TOPIC FOR A FUCKING MOMENT
k thx
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
But does it run Linux?
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!
I live on Earth, you insensitive clod!
OMG PONIES!
Finally, a place to keep all my pr0n!
Earthlike mass implies Earthlike gravity. A planet with a gravity well of that intensity at the range of temperatures encountered in the "habitable band" will hold on to most of the gases that accompany its formation as well as being able to capture some of the gases it enounters as it orbits (which will pile up a bit over the eons) as well as some fraction of ejecta from asteroid and comet hits. Note well, I didn't specify what sort of atmosphere. In the absence of life as we know it, we're talking things like CO2, N2, Methane, and whole other slew of things with similar molecular weights.
Look at our own solar system. Mars and Venus and a whole slew of gas giant moons have atmospheres. Given the gravity and energy input from it's star, you really have to stand this on it's head. You'd have to justify why it wouldn't have an atmosphere.
How do you know this?
Because that is what WE are doing. Mars and Venus are the closest things to "Earthlike" in our solar system apart from Earth itself. Well, there is Europa but that could be a little hard to pick out from Jupiter. Any putative civilization doing what we are doing and viewing OUR solar system using the techniques we are using will pick out our gas giants and maybe Earth and Venus. Assuming they don't pick up our radio, Venus and Earth are going to be "possible Zukelike worlds". If their processes are a bit more sensitive maybe they'll get Mars too. If their exobiology is in the state ours is in then all three will look about as good from interstellar distances.Either way your approach is typically neo-con. But you really think your original post had nothing to do with politics?! Inter-species relations, colonizing already-populated worlds, having an "insurance policy" for the human race, you don't think that's politics?! Well you're wrong. The fact that your decision on what to do was informed by your politics just makes that even more plain.
I know you had your major crack up long ago, but have you recovered enough to realize that I haven't actually changed the topic whatsoever? That I have benn arguing you, even if I choose to infuratiate you by applying a completely accurate label that you don't like? You label yourself and others all the time, just because my label fits too don't get your panties in a bunch. Because it's not just the label that fits, but the details as well as applied to your own words. But look, it got you to meet me "straight on" instead of ignoring what I say to rant some more! Well kinda.
And seriously, now you want to talk about Darfur, and you're accusing me of changing topics randomly? WTF, you're frighteningly unbound. But hey, this is still fun, so I'm game. Here we go:
is it ok to invade sudan in the name of the suffering in darfur? (something i am completely for)
Which is a perfect example of what I've been talking about this entire time. You are completely for invading Darfur, with absolutely no consideration or mention of who will be doing the invading, what they actually consider to be their goal, and how they actually plan to attain those goals, and when they will leave if ever. None of that matters; you're for it! Just because it's in the name of the suffering in Darfur.
As if being "in the name of" ever meant anything.
Yet, without even the barest of details, you still seem to assume that whatever happens in the invasion would reduce the suffering in Darfur. Just like you assumed that attacking an alien world would reduce the chance that humanity would be wiped out.
Apparently, if the Somalian Islamicists decided that they should head down to Sudan and invade "in the name of the suffering in Darfur", you'd be completely for it. Even though their method would be to establish their own mini-Islamic state in the Sudan and kill anyone in the refugee camps that didn't convert. Even if their presence didn't actually stop any of the Sudanese government death squads. Even if the only affect it had on the suffering was to add women getting stoned for innappropriate dress in addition to being raped, stabbed, and shot by the government. Even if they decided to stay forever and another thirty years of civil war ensued.
Or maybe China decides to step in, and to take care of things quick they just nuke Khartoum. Shit gets real peaceful for a while as the old government is gone and populations are more balanced, at least until someone decides to start questioning the new Chinese occupation...
Are you completely for that? That's rhetorical, of course you aren't. The point is you don't stop to think about what the reality of your hastily conjured ideology would be. You have a simple ideological crutch, and are unwilling to let it go long enough to embrace the nasty world of cause and effect.
Now as for me, is there a hypothetical military incursion into the Sudan aimed at stopping the genocide that I would support? Yes, hypothetically. But hypothetical invasions cannot stop real suffering. Only a real invasion can, and I'm sure as fuck not going to support a real invasion based on its hypothetical one-line description! Because in the real world your actions can have unintended consequences, in the real world people say they're doing one thing but actually do another, in the real world ideology cannot substitute for a plan. When ideology does substitute for a plan, then the result is failure.
Let me repeat that, as it is the crux: In reality
The enemies of Democracy are
calm the fuck down
i asked a simple question
i require a handful of sentences, then i can respond
it's called a dialogue
if instead you launch into a humongous diatribe against your stupid prejudices again, and wind up with all these conclusions without any input from me, you're not talking to me. you're dictating. you can dictate by yourself. go shout at a wall if it makes you feel better
now, try again, instead this time answer me with a handful of sentences
can you do that you hysterical twit?
i'm not going to talk about little green men and darfur in the same post (DIFFERENT FUCKING SUBJECT, REALLY), and i'm going to completely ignore the dozen assumptions you made about me in order to cover all the ground you did above, and filter all that bullshit out because apparently you can't and respond to your nugget about darfur:
was it right for the world to do nothing about rwanda in 1994?
now when you respond, calm the FUCK down, and cover the subject of darfur and rwanda, IN A FEW FUCKING SENTENCES
you think you can do that spaz?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I stopped listening to those a long time ago.
Quick! We need to hop onto the first spaceship that we can get our hands on! These poor aliens need to hear the good word of Jay-zusss the Chri-ist!
No, I will not work for your startup
Says LehiNephi - Galactic Slashdot Explorer #695428 returning from a 33 year
mission to explore the nearer parts of the Orion arm of the Milky Way.
You were out there. You saw it with your own eyes. Now you've come back to
awe a planet.
They've been picking up human tv programming starting with the Berlin Olympics
since 1953. However when the programming about a human social unit called
"The Brady Bunch" arrived on their world they decided to evacuate the surface
and build heavily fortified underground cities.
My argument against this line of reasoning is always the same.
Sure, space aliens from planet X that came to visit us would have to be be way more advanced than us. Sure they could wipe us out in a heartbeat.
But, why would they bother?
Why would a race so far advanced, bother to travel so far just to wipe ot some inconsequential race? There is nothing we would have that they would want. Any resources available on Earth they would be able to harvest from any number of other places closer and more convenient given their technology.
It would be like you traveling from the US to Hong Kong to squash an annoying moth. Sure you *can* do it but why on earth would you ever bother? If you are going on such a trip it is far more likely that you are a scientist going to STUDY the moth than it is that you are going to kill it for no reason.
When I picture it I imagine objects outside this and other solar systems. That is outside the immediate reasonable proximity of a star whither technically in orbit or not. I do not imagine extrasolar meaning a planet in orbit around another star in another solar system.
I bet the Bush Admin already has a plan to invade and steal its oil.
I don't know what the degree of error is on their measurements of that system, but Mars and Venus are at the *boundaries* of what is considered the "complex life zone". They didn't place this new world at the borderline (hot or cold) that I know of. As far as I can tell, it is in the middle. And again, if Mars were bigger, it still could be much more Earthlike even at that distance. The new planet does not have a size issue. Mars lost its atmosphere and magnetic field primarily because it is puny.
Table-ized A.I.
Try actually replying for once and see what an actual dialogue looks like, genius. Actually respond for once. It's amusing watching you change the subject to avoid answering, but it gets old.
Anyway, you want few sentences, got it.
Tell me what I'm supposed to be supporting. Not in hypotheticals that mean nothing. No "invasion in the name of [reducing] suffering in Darfur", actually give me some kind of outline here. I'm not supporting a hypothetical, ever. I'm not going to agree to whatever your plan is based on the false dichotomy of "my plan, or do nothing! [insert scary orchestral music]", because that's insane. I want you to for one second to actually talk about something as though you might actually have to make it work in reality.
One sentence to remember as you craft your answer: reality does not care what you intend. cause and effect is all that matters.. Repeat that until it makes sense.
The enemies of Democracy are
We haven't been colonized. Don't be silly.
The knock at your door is just a couple friendly men with large guns to take you someplace these questions will no longer trouble you.
I am more pessimistic about catching a signal from a technological source. 200 Years ago there were no artificial sources of EM radiation, and as far as i see it, since beginning of the 20 century we shifted the (commonly) used spectrum from a few kHz to a few GHz. We currently can resolve in science up to a few hundred GHz, which may be exceeded by commoly used tech already in 2100. I believe that LW and MW radio stations will be turned of by then. this leave a total obsevation window of 200 Years.
All exoplanets around the Gliese 581 star were found by HARPS, an instrument installed on European Southern Observatory. HARPS is only one of the two instruments that exist worldwide with high precision capabilities, so imagine what we could find if we had a Beowulf cluster of these. You may like to see the software used to run HARPS.
There is a moral right to intervene in humanitarian crises
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6666707.stm
and your ignoring of intent is hilarious
so in your mind, if i hit someone by accident with my car, versus i plan for weeks in advance on purposefully killing someone, its the same thing?
the justice system of every country, from the most liberal to the most conservative, netherlands to saudi arabia, understands there is a difference: manslaughter versus murder. intentional versus unintentional
why you can't you understand the concept of intent?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
For the link lazy:
Spock said, "It's life Jim, but not as we know it". Dr. McCoy said, "It's worse than that, he's dead Jim".
"This is crazy, you realise we could all go to jail for this?" - my manager, somewhere I used to work.
The mass of the planet is not the only thing which specifies its gravity. The earth's surface gravity is given by g=GM/R where M is the planet's mass and R is the radius (the gravitational force in the atmosphere is about the same, as the atmosphere extends 100 km or so up, while R is about 6000 km) . So without knowing the radius of the planet, there's no way to tell what the gravity could be (and the radius I would imagine has something to do with what elements were used to form that solar system). The planet is about 5 earth masses, which means it would have to be about 1300km in radius (or 1/125th the volume) to have the same gravity as earth on it's surface.
I came here for a good argument
Damn my spell check abilities. It should be R^2 of course, not R, so the radius has to be only about 3/7 that of the earth, not 1/5th (and 1/11th the volume)
I came here for a good argument
Dr Spock was 100% Earthling whereas the Enterprise's Mr Spock had a Vulcan father and an Earthling mother.
In Soviet Russia, 8 space barges would already be on their way to the second planet orbiting that star, and one to monitor the star itself - 9 in total. All using different propulsion systems and on slightly different paths.
Of the 8, 3 would contain lander robots, 2 would contain planetary analysis orbiting instruments,
and 3 containing vast vats of cryogenically frozen frog spawn that may propagate and multiply do form a future (alternative) food source (greatly pleasing the French!), or even for the basis for future life. The frog spawn would only be deployed and allowed to live if non-technological life is not met.
Quote: I remember reading that many astrologers estimate....
Your confusion of astrologers with astronomers doesn't lend much credence to the rest of your argument...
> Seems equally likely that the native lifeforms would be unable to compete with the
> Earth-based invasive species...
The native have home advantage. More specifically, fertile soil is very much alive, with a complex ecosystem which the locals life forms have adapted to. Even on Earth, it is rare that species flourish when moved to a different ecosystem (but when they do, it is often quite damaging). Even if some Earth-based species would flourish, it is far from certain that it would be the species we prefer.
The best bet would probably be to kill off the native life in the soil somehow, perhaps with radiation, and then seed the soil would a complete Earth based ecosystem. The border line would still be a combat zone between the ecosystems, with those species that can cross doing damage to both sides. And because of size, the Earth life zones would be much more fragile. Unless we nuke the entire planet, but then we probably should be terraforming some uninhabited planet instead.
Actually, we have more than a sample size of one. We have quite a few planets and moons and in this solar system--none of which, outside of earth, has been shown to exhibit even the simplest form of life. Now, granted, we haven't done an extensive survey of all of these moons and planets, but the all the studies we HAVE done have shown nothing but complete sterility among them (even on Mars, which seems the most likely candidate). It is not unreasonable to conclude from this that life as we know it is at least uncommon, if not outright rare.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.