• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[Billions of] Far-Off Planets Like the Earth Dot the Galaxy

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
A very interesting development and article.
We now have a much better handle on probability of... possibility of life.
Not knowing how probability of the precise conditions, but that there are so many [more] planets that could harbor it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/s...ets-that-could-be-like-earth.html?src=me&_r=0
By DENNIS OVERBYE
November 4, 2013

Ad that's just in Our galaxy.
The numbers get pretty dizzying when/if one multiples by the umber of galaxies.
 
Last edited:
None of that makes any difference for human or human like occupation if the gravity profile isn't exactly the same as Terra.
 
clownboy said:
None of that makes any difference for human or human like occupation if the gravity profile isn't exactly the same as Terra.
Click to expand...

So, sentience doesn't count unless that life is identical to us, being as we are "The God's Image" folks?

With all due respect, that is "human" arrogance, not analysis. The chances that we are the one and only form of life are virtually zero.
 
Brian Williams on NBC last night said the number of earth like planets was 40 billion with the nearest 12 light years away. We should be able to make some kind of contact through lasers or scopes or something in the next 100 years.
 
mbig said:
We now have a much better handle on probability of... possibility of life.
Click to expand...

No we don't.

We have a better handle on how many habitable Earth-size planets there likely are in the galaxy.

We're not one micrometer closer to having a "better handle on probability of... possibility of life".

You people are positively religious in your need to not be all alone.

It's unsettling.

Buy a woobie and stop trying to replace God with aliens.

Trying to be "scientific" about things doesn't make your child-like monophobia any more attractive.

When we find some, ANY evidence of extraterrestrial life then you can talk about the likelihood.

Until then, the number of Earth-like planets doesn't tell you ANYTHING, the fact that there might be ice on Mars doesn't tell you ANYTHING, the fact that Europa has a liquid something core doesn't tell you ANYTHING, the fact that we've found amino acids on meteorites doesn't tell you ANYTHING.

All interesting stuff, no doubt, and great information in it's own right, but it doesn't make the Gospel according to Sagan any more relevant.
 
Since we don't know the exact 'cause' of life, I was very careful in my OP using the secondary/conditional "probability of... Possibility of".

My OP: "A very interesting development and article.
We now have a much better handle on probability of... possibility of life.
Not knowing [the] how probability of the precise conditions, but that there are so many [more] planets that could harbor it."

And that statement remains 100% accurate even by your denialist position.
That said..
If there were were virtually No planets like us in Size and in the 'Goldilocks zone', I think I could fairly say that odds of life elsewhere went down.. as it turns out, I'd fairly say, they just went up.
 
Last edited:

That isn't true. Is it empirical evidence of life? No. Is it circumstantial evidence that life should be abundant? Yes.

We have come to some fairly good conclusions about what is necessary for the formation of life and we've made great strides in attempting to deconstruct abiogenesis and the like (see the recent Scientific American piece on the subject, I'm having trouble locating it at the moment). While we are not certain precisely how inorganic and organic compounds coalesce into life (or their antecedents) we have quite a few very good competing theories and not in-substantive empirical evidence and experiments to support these theories such as the Miller-Urey experiments. If one accepts that some form of abiogenesis is the mechanism for life arising from non-life then regardless of which particular theory is correct (or combination, or variance) it would become metaphysically extraordinary if this (or these) processes did not repeat themselves somewhere else.

Extrapolating from this it becomes easier to form circumstantial evidence for their being life in the Universe, in fact it becomes virtually impossible that it doesn't exist. Especially when you have evidence for billions of potential environments that this process could occur on over billions of years.

Your vehemence is what smacks of religious fervor, not the other way around.
 

In fact this study proves that there are/were/will be life on 40 billion planets in our galaxy! Time to send out ambassadors.

Just to make you rage about it even more.
 
mbig said:
If there were were virtually No planets like us in Size and in the 'Goldilocks zone', I think I could fairly say that odds of life elsewhere went down.. as it turns out, I'd fairly say, they just went up.
Click to expand...

Why does life NEED a 'Goldilocks zone'?

No reason that I can think of.

We know that we live on a planet that lies within a 'Goldilocks zone', but we also know that there is plenty of life on this planet that lives in ecosystems that are very un-Goldilocks-like?

We know that there are creatures that live here on Earth at temperatures, pressures, and chemical concentrations that would kill us in less than a second.

What's to say that those sorts of lifeforms wouldn't be the rule and we the exception?

What's to say that we shouldn't be looking for "that" type of planet rather than "this" type of planet?

Like I said, knowing that there are more habitable Earth-size planets doesn't increase AT ALL our understanding of how many, if any, might actually be inhabited.
 
Sherman123 said:
Your vehemence is what smacks of religious fervor, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I won't wishfully believe something completely out of hand until I see some evidence for it.

VERY religious.
 
soot said:
Agreed.

I won't wishfully believe something completely out of hand until I see some evidence for it.

VERY religious.
Click to expand...

The circumstantial evidence for considering it's possibility is rather high, and the story in the OP is merely compounding evidence.
 
No.
The life in Less hospitable zones here, Still lives well within conditions that do NOT exist on un-Goldi planets.
ie, Subterranean and Sub-Sea life live in very stable/narrow range temperature (say 40-100 F) that do NOT exist so on say Mercury (+800F, -270F) or very sub-freezing Uranus (-300F).
As I suspected, its ignorance of simple facts that leads to your position.

Let me add..
Unless one believes 'God created man' and 'uniquely in his image', the odds of life went up.. Big Time. Even if one does believe that, it is cause for doubt if the believer is anything but 100% brainwashed.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
As I suspected, its ignorance of simple facts that leads to your position.
Click to expand...

:roll:

Right. Sure.

Your myopia is blinding you to what I'm saying.

What is the prime determinant of whether or not a planet is in the Goldilocks zone?

That temperatures suitable for the existence of liquid water can be sustained.

That's all.

Do we know of extremophile populations here on Earth that don't require a liquid water environment?

Yes, we do.

Now, did the extremophiles "migrate" into these extreme environments from elsewhere as a result of some evolutionary process?

Or did life arise in extreme environments, lakes of liquid asphalt for instance, and emigrate out, only then evolving to require a Goldilocks zone-like environment?

I don't know.

Do you?

No.

So it becomes a "chicken or an egg" kind of thing.

Clearly you've chosen a side, as I've said absent any real evidence, and you've sworn allegiance to it.

Keep worshiping aliens if you want. I think it's stupid, but it isn't taking any money out of my pocket so I really don't care.

Unless one believes 'God created man' and 'uniquely in his image', the odds of life went up.. Big Time. Even if one does believe that, it is cause for doubt if the believer is anything but 100% brainwashed.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in God, let alone believe that God created anything.
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
How about some ****ing civility here please. Damn, can't even talk about astronomy ...
 
Last edited:
clownboy said:
None of that makes any difference for human or human like occupation if the gravity profile isn't exactly the same as Terra.
Click to expand...

And why does it have to be exactly?
 
specklebang said:
So, sentience doesn't count unless that life is identical to us, being as we are "The God's Image" folks?

With all due respect, that is "human" arrogance, not analysis. The chances that we are the one and only form of life are virtually zero.
Click to expand...

Not my point. They talk about these worlds being human habitable. Probably very few of those billions are. Also I have read in the past where there is speculation that sentience as we know it also relies on a certain gravity profile like we have here.
 
PirateMk1 said:
And why does it have to be exactly?
Click to expand...

Too much, even by a little and our organs are smooshed, blood doesn't flow. Too little, even by a bit and our bones disintegrate and our blood again has flow problems, organs balloon. Gravity affects chemistry, electro-chemistry and pretty much everything that comprises sentient life as we know it.

Just the brief time astronauts are in a different gravity environment causes lifetime effects. They never regain the bone loss fully.

Btw, Goldilocks zones are named that way for the fairy tale, not too hot or too cold. That's why the search for them is supposed for HUMAN occupation or the development of human like life.
 
Last edited:



I think you're overstating the gravity issue quite a bit. It's not like 1.1g or 0.9g would cause these problems.

I've seen plenty of speculation that we could adapt to substantially different gravity... and no studies saying we HAVE to have exactly 1.0000g to thrive.


Granted, 40 billion is certainly optimistic for finding Earth-like conditions... but a planet could vary a fair bit from Earth's profile and still harbor earthlike life.
 

I would say this that life would adapt to whatever gravity that it finds itself on if the genetics or other mechanism is flexible enough.

Human habitation I bet would get by just fine on range of gravitational pulls, from a .3g to 1.5 and maybe more depending on how we modify ourselves.
 

Actually, its more like trillions and the gravity "theory" is exactly that - a theory.

Obviously you have never been abducted by aliens. The next time they come for me, I'll recommend you to them.




(just being entertaining)
 
So far I have turned up limited info on gravity and life, other than microgravity (zero-gee) stuff, which isn't really relevant to the question.


However there is some research suggesting that variations in gravity are not a deal-breaker for life forms...

Ecce mundus: HIGH GRAVITY LIFE!!!


... I'm not coming up with anything that says humans or Earthlike life couldn't survive modest gravity variations... probably within .75 to 1.25g. Centrifuge experiments have been done with animals...
 
Definitions and qualifications

So I think that while one would have to subtract many for reason of surface condition/nature, one might have to add back others only slightly smaller than Earth that weren't counted in the "1-2 times earth size", data set.
 
Last edited:
specklebang said:
Actually, its more like trillions and the gravity "theory" is exactly that - a theory.

Obviously you have never been abducted by aliens. The next time they come for me, I'll recommend you to them.




(just being entertaining)
Click to expand...

If aliens abduct you Mr. Martian ambassador, that would be a breach of professional ethics. Only Earthlings from trailer parks are allowed to be abducted.
 
PirateMk1 said:
If aliens abduct you Mr. Martian ambassador, that would be a breach of professional ethics. Only Earthlings from trailer parks are allowed to be abducted.
Click to expand...

I can tell you haven't been home for a while. When the earthies sent their robot to Gwrzztgrblfg Park, it created a disturbance and frightened the hatchlings. In a special session of Cungretz, we have placed walls around the robot that appear to show a barren planet (ha ha) and now the Teepee Party is objecting to the costs.

Each time I'm abducted, of course, the ransom is paid (conveniently my abductors accept earth currencies although nobody believes the new $100 bill is real) because, well, I know things. In fact, I no longer even go along on the abduction. I just get the money and spend it paying off climate scientists to support the "barren Mars" concept and to the Churches to help promote the "gods image" humor.
 

There are more than 300 billion stars in our Milky Way alone with more than 400 billion and perhaps as many as a trillion planets, of which there may be close to 100 billion in the habitable zones. There are hundreds of billions of galaxies in the Universe, perhaps more than a trillion. So the number of possible planets is likely far, far, far, far in excess of the trillions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…