100 billion Earth like planets in the Milky Way
Posted: 25 February 2009 07:31 AM   [ Ignore ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2492
Joined  2008-04-05

says Astronomer and author of a new book on the subject, Alan Boss. Is he full of crap and just selling his book, or…..? LINK to the short news blip.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/02/25/galaxy.planets.kepler/index.html

 Signature 

‘Every reflecting mind must acknowledge that there is no proof of the existence of a Deity’

‘If ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, knowledge of nature destroys them’

Percy Bysshe Shelley

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 March 2009 01:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  363
Joined  2006-04-05

[religionists]“But we’re special!  Our holy book tells us so!” [/religionists]

 Signature 

“It isn’t paranoia- it’s a heightened awareness of reality.” —our resident conspiracy theorist takes a stand!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 March 2009 06:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2492
Joined  2008-04-05

I hope like fookin’ hell that they find a trout stream on another planet! If so…I’m there. grin

Screw humans. We are just 3.8 billion years of thermodynamics and bio-chemistry.

 Signature 

‘Every reflecting mind must acknowledge that there is no proof of the existence of a Deity’

‘If ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, knowledge of nature destroys them’

Percy Bysshe Shelley

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 March 2009 07:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1646
Joined  2008-04-02

One problem with the Drake equation is that it doesn’t contain a variable for the likelihood that religiostupification will shorten the length of time that civilizations will remain viable before destroying themselves for superstitious purposes.

 Signature 

Real honesty is accepting the theories that best explain the actual data even if those explanations contradict our cherished beliefs.-Scotty

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 March 2009 10:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2492
Joined  2008-04-05

Yes good point Beam.

Fuckwittery must be factored into the Drake equation.

 Signature 

‘Every reflecting mind must acknowledge that there is no proof of the existence of a Deity’

‘If ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, knowledge of nature destroys them’

Percy Bysshe Shelley

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 March 2009 12:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1485
Joined  2007-12-10
Beam - 11 March 2009 11:39 AM

One problem with the Drake equation is that it doesn’t contain a variable for the likelihood that religiostupification will shorten the length of time that civilizations will remain viable before destroying themselves for superstitious purposes.

The L-factor (factor for timed survival of the civilization) includes this possibility so yeah, it’s accounted for.  It is also tagentially considered in the fc factor which deals with technological advancement.


And yes.  Boss knows what he is talking about.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 March 2009 04:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  949
Joined  2007-10-08

McCrea: Screw humans. We are just 3.8 billion years of thermodynamics and bio-chemistry.

Got that a little sideways McC. it was six million years of humans screwing after the billions of years bio-chemical stewing and shuffling made it possible… to screw, that is.


This article gave me deja-vu. Some mormon dude, I’ll call him irate R., was e-mailing me about this recent scientific theory and explained to me in a number of manic e-mails, that scientists are just now discovering what the “Doctrine and Covenants” and “Pearl of Great Price” (two off-shoots of the Book of Mormon that contain some of ole Joe’s “prophecies), predicted.  LOL

The deja-vu occurred when my hippocampus fired off memories of Jack Shooter saying the “fly hadith” and recent scientific research coincided with and “proved” the prophet’s prophecies!  shock

This irate R. dude believes, no wait, knows (because mormons don’t “believe,” they KNOW) that these other Earth-like planets belong to other good, patriarchal men because they followed the teachings of the church and are now gods.

Typical aye, religionists disagree with the science they don’t like and agree with the science that appears to buttress their “prophecies.” 


So tavishhiil, IYO, will the astrophysicists decide that other galaxies are brimming with life (whatever stage of development) too if it turns out that our galaxy is brimming (whatever stage of development) with life?
Can they tell if there are suns similar to ours in other galaxies?

 Signature 

“Proving the efficacy of a methodology without defining the word ‘efficacy’ can come back to bite you in the assertion.”—Salt Creek

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 March 2009 08:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2492
Joined  2008-04-05

The first replicating molecule happened on earth about 3.8 billion years ago. That was the beginning to the tree of life. Common descent says that we are related to the DNA in that molecule. I think it has been recently proven that all life on earth has some similar DNA/Genes. So, widely, I was just figuring that when life began in this biosphere, our origin began as well. I was talking about our most distant ancestor not our most recent. Obviously we split from a common ancestor with other primates about 6 million years ago.
Still, all life on earth is simply the product of thermodynamics and biochemistry, no matter how long it took homo sapiens to arrive.

 Signature 

‘Every reflecting mind must acknowledge that there is no proof of the existence of a Deity’

‘If ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, knowledge of nature destroys them’

Percy Bysshe Shelley

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 March 2009 11:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  949
Joined  2007-10-08

Oye vey McCrea, I wasn’t disputing your description of a plausible timeline, I was making a play on words based on your use of the term “Screw humans.”

Here, read it again with that in mind:

McCrea: Screw humans. We are just 3.8 billion years of thermodynamics and bio-chemistry.

me: Got that a little sideways McC. it was six million years of humans screwing after the billions of years bio-chemical stewing and shuffling made it possible… to screw, that is.

 Signature 

“Proving the efficacy of a methodology without defining the word ‘efficacy’ can come back to bite you in the assertion.”—Salt Creek

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 March 2009 05:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1485
Joined  2007-12-10

ii,

It’s a matter of statistics at this point.  Yes, it’s relatively simple to find stars in other galaxies that are sun-like, but being sun-like isn’t really all that important in the grand scheme of brewing life.  The current understanding is that there are TONS of high probability candidates for life just in the Milky Way, let alone the rest of the universe.  We won’t get to closely examine those candidates to anywhere near the point where we would be able to tell one way or the other anytime soon.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 March 2009 08:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  949
Joined  2007-10-08
tavishhill2003 - 22 March 2009 09:57 PM

ii,

It’s a matter of statistics at this point.  Yes, it’s relatively simple to find stars in other galaxies that are sun-like, but being sun-like isn’t really all that important in the grand scheme of brewing life.  The current understanding is that there are TONS of high probability candidates for life just in the Milky Way, let alone the rest of the universe.  We won’t get to closely examine those candidates to anywhere near the point where we would be able to tell one way or the other anytime soon.

Thanks for deciphering my question and answering tavish…  you’re the “go to” guy in this field of study. I figured that statistics figured in here somehow, but,  by “sun-like” I mean specifically, ‘earth sun-like’ in its size, diameter and life-span, so much so, that this sun also happens to have an earth-like (which I assume means water-bearing) planet trapped in a similar gravitational dance, or orbit,  that is/was conducive to life developing before the star goes/went supernova.
IOW, is it possible to tell if a particular sun in our galaxy has/had similar life-span(s) and planet ratios?

(Do my questions even make sense? One too many twists in the DNA. cheese )

 Signature 

“Proving the efficacy of a methodology without defining the word ‘efficacy’ can come back to bite you in the assertion.”—Salt Creek

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 March 2009 12:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1485
Joined  2007-12-10
isocratic infidel - 23 March 2009 12:49 AM
tavishhill2003 - 22 March 2009 09:57 PM

ii,

It’s a matter of statistics at this point.  Yes, it’s relatively simple to find stars in other galaxies that are sun-like, but being sun-like isn’t really all that important in the grand scheme of brewing life.  The current understanding is that there are TONS of high probability candidates for life just in the Milky Way, let alone the rest of the universe.  We won’t get to closely examine those candidates to anywhere near the point where we would be able to tell one way or the other anytime soon.

Thanks for deciphering my question and answering tavish…  you’re the “go to” guy in this field of study. I figured that statistics figured in here somehow, but,  by “sun-like” I mean specifically, ‘earth sun-like’ in its size, diameter and life-span, so much so, that this sun also happens to have an earth-like (which I assume means water-bearing) planet trapped in a similar gravitational dance, or orbit,  that is/was conducive to life developing before the star goes/went supernova.
IOW, is it possible to tell if a particular sun in our galaxy has/had similar life-span(s) and planet ratios?

(Do my questions even make sense? One too many twists in the DNA. cheese )

Yeah, the lifespan stuff is easy to spot.  It all depends on mass usually.  Whether or not there is a planet that is Earth-sized is there in a similar orbit is a tougher question.  The planet would have to be within a certain range for water to exist there as a liquid at the surface and other atmospheric traits would need to be exhibited as well.

Profile
 
 
   
 
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed