Notices
Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Distant planet judged possibly habitable

  1. #1 Distant planet judged possibly habitable 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    4
    In findings that if confirmed could stand as a landmark in history, as¬*tro¬*no¬*mers re¬*port find¬*ing the most Earth-like plan¬*et out¬*side our So¬*lar Sys¬*tem to date.
    http://www.world-science.net/otherne...ble-planet.htm


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Planet Formation vs The Big Bang Theory 
    Forum Freshman Everlasting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    93
    A new theory of how planets form finds havens of stability amid violent turbulence in the swirling gas that surrounds a young star.

    With the news of this new planet, and the controversy surrounding the
    Big Bang Theory. I am curious what the general concensus is?

    New planets are forming and evolving outside of the general theory.
    And if this is the case, do we have to start the whole theory over,
    by defining what a star is, and how they came to be?


    ___________________________

    Everlasting
    Futuristic Science Fiction Novel
    Moon Over Key Biscayne
    booksandmore.4t.com


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    95
    this is awesome, im really interested in this kind of things. Ignore my other post in this forum i just didnt pay attention lol

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:H...ne-en.svg#file

    this kind of stuff is cool but i dont know any physics or chemistry related to space and such. Does anone know of topics i can research independantly that would help me understand things like this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Planet Formation vs The Big Bang Theory 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    New planets are forming and evolving outside of the general theory.
    And if this is the case, do we have to start the whole theory over,
    by defining what a star is, and how they came to be?
    huh? How does this planet challenge any existing theory??


    on another note,
    Red dwarfs are al¬*so ex¬*pected to live ex¬*traor¬*di¬*nar¬*ily long be¬*cause they burn fu¬*el slow¬*ly. A red dwarf one-third the Sun‚Äôs mass, like Gliese 581, would typ¬*i¬*cal¬*ly shine for some 130 bil¬*lion years, out¬*liv¬*ing the Sun by thir¬*teen times. That might re¬*lieve at least one source of stress for any in¬*hab¬*i¬*tants of a red dwarf sys¬*tem. We on Earth are al¬*ready half¬*way through the Sun‚Äôs life¬*time
    If its sun it not much older than ours that planet's atmosphere might also out last our own given our sun is expected to greatly expand (become a giant red?) which would probably blow out any remaining atmosphere and melt metal on the earth's surface :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Planet Formation vs The Big Bang Theory 
    Forum Freshman Everlasting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    New planets are forming and evolving outside of the general theory.
    And if this is the case, do we have to start the whole theory over,
    by defining what a star is, and how they came to be?
    huh? How does this planet challenge any existing theory??


    :wink:
    With all of the existing conflicting theories: Intelligent Design,
    The Big Bang, Evolution. Isn't is quite possible for all of them
    to be true to some extent?

    I just don't believe the universe was created by a massive gas
    explosion, that created planets, and One Green Earth in particular.

    Just a Thought
    __________________

    Everlasting
    Futuristic Science Fiction Novel
    Moon Over Key Biscayne

    :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Planet Formation vs The Big Bang Theory 
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Everlasting
    With all of the existing conflicting theories: Intelligent Design, The Big Bang, Evolution.
    spot the odd one out : there's no conflict between the big bang and evolution, it's just that neighter of them agrees with ID - but then again many other parts of science don't agree with ID or its implications
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    959
    It's kind of sad, but I don't really get the whole concept of the ID theory. I mean, they've always said it contradicts the evolutionary theory, so would the following:
    "God created everything indirectly by initiating evolution..." be considered intelligent design theory, or no? It doesn't contradict evolution; it just says God aided in evolution.
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by Everlasting
    With all of the existing conflicting theories: Intelligent Design, The Big Bang, Evolution.
    spot the odd one out : there's no conflict between the big bang and evolution, it's just that neighter of them agrees with ID - but then again many other parts of science don't agree with ID or its implications
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: Planet Formation vs The Big Bang Theory 
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    321
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    New planets are forming and evolving outside of the general theory.
    And if this is the case, do we have to start the whole theory over,
    by defining what a star is, and how they came to be?
    huh? How does this planet challenge any existing theory??

    It doesn't. A lot of hype over an interesting find. The way the press spins this discovery is the stuff that makes astronomers crazy. We have the same thing in paleontology...a footnote of throw away speculation is picked up by the media and becomes the main focus rather than the actual discovery or the science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: Planet Formation vs The Big Bang Theory 
    Forum Freshman Everlasting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by Everlasting
    With all of the existing conflicting theories: Intelligent Design, The Big Bang, Evolution.
    spot the odd one out : there's no conflict between the big bang and evolution, it's just that neighter of them agrees with ID - but then again many other parts of science don't agree with ID or its implications
    There is a conflict with Evolution. Why haven't any other planets evolved with an atmosphere similar to Earth's?



    Everlasting
    Futuristic Science Fiction Novel
    Moon Over Key Biscayne
    booksandmore.4t.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    if you're talking about other planets, i assume you mean the ones in the solar system - as far as i'm aware we don't know anything about the atmospheres of more distant ones

    sticking to the planets of the solar system then, 2 reasons

    the place in the solar system : in the outer solar system hydrogen-dominated, in the inner carbon dioxide dominated

    mars lost most of its atmosphere from being too small + freezing out at the poles
    mercury is too small to hold on to an atmosphere
    venus has all its CO2 in the atmosphere whereas a lot on earth has precipitated as carbonates

    crucially of all, life has changed the earth's atmosphere by injecting oxygen + playing a large part in the carbonate precipitation

    in conclusion, no other planets in the solar system look like earth because none contain life as far as we know
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman Everlasting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    mars lost most of its atmosphere from being too small + freezing out at the poles
    mercury is too small to hold on to an atmosphere
    venus has all its CO2 in the atmosphere whereas a lot on earth has precipitated as carbonates
    How is this Evolution?

    Just a Thought

    __________________

    Everlasting

    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Everlasting
    How is this Evolution?
    my post was in reply to your question "Why haven't any other planets evolved with an atmosphere similar to Earth's?"

    the earth's atmosphere has evolved from its original composition because it contains life and life has added oxygen and taken out carbon dioxide

    other planets in the solar system don't have an atmosphere like earth's because they retained their original atmospheres of hydrogen or carbon dioxide rich atmospheres, or if they're small, lost their atmosphere
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 Re: Planet Formation vs The Big Bang Theory 
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Everlasting
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by Everlasting
    With all of the existing conflicting theories: Intelligent Design, The Big Bang, Evolution.
    spot the odd one out : there's no conflict between the big bang and evolution, it's just that neighter of them agrees with ID - but then again many other parts of science don't agree with ID or its implications
    There is a conflict with Evolution. Why haven't any other planets evolved with an atmosphere similar to Earth's?
    If you mean outside of the solar system; then we just don't know whether they have or havent
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,150
    Everlasting

    Matter is more or less randomly scattered through the universe, thus the local environment changes dramatically from one place to another.

    Theres region with very little matter(vacuum) others with expanses of gas (mostly hydrogen).

    The various environments alter the way matter can be arranged.

    In Vacuum theres presumably little interaction.
    In a region with a large mass of hydrogen gas, the very presence of this mass will draw matter together and also change the environment itself, with more pressure and heat, the center of that mass now has a new and different type of environment that in turn changes the way matter can organized as fusion allows heavier atoms(with different properties to be created).

    These heavier atoms scatter and allow new variety in types of environments and of matter organization (larger molecules)

    MarnixR explained why other planets have different atmosphere
    Its also possible Mars lost some of its atmosphere following a collapse of its magnetosphere

    (oh and, the environment, density and matter distribution of that other solar system may have been different from that which formed our own system and so could have produce somewhat different sun [ex:dwarf] and planets than those in our own solar system)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman Everlasting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    93
    Thank you Icewendigo.

    I think what I am adressing is Evolution vs. Regression, and their reflection on civilization. Mars did not evolve, it regressed. No other planets are sustainable to our life form. This bringing in again the question: Why? We observe the universe in broad theory. Could there be a reason for the differences in the planets? Are we saying that Evolution is finite? Man strives to evolve constantly, only to find that regression is taking place. Mars is now melting from global warming. Is our reality; now relative to the reality of Mars original regression? The observations that we make about our universe are theory, and generally are made with true scientific curiosity. But Creationism is the foundation for which all of these observations were made, and Intelligent Design the descriptor.


    Just a Thought
    _______________

    Everlasting
    Futuristic Science Fiction Novel
    Moon Over Key Biscayne

    8)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    i'm sorry but i seem to have some trouble understanding what you're on about - you seem to be using english words but somehow you string them together into sentences without meaning, e.g.

    • i suppose it can only be within the confines of ID that evolution is set up as the alter ego of regression
      you seem to have this quaint idea of directed evolution (a notion science left behind as unworkable about 80 years ago) when you state that 'man strives to evolve'
      what do you mean with a sentence like 'Are we saying that Evolution is finite'
      it's not always the case that because you can ask why that it's meaningful to do so
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    913
    Quote Originally Posted by Everlasting
    Mars is now melting from global warming.
    Sorry to make a off topic post but..... Only the southern hemisphere of mars is warming as far as we can tell and only for the last three years. In fact mars (overall) is now cooler now then it was in the 70's which is at odds with earths warming over the same period.

    Ok.... carry on.....
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman LadyDragonWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Somewhere where I don't know where I am
    Posts
    6
    Ok, I JUST found out about this a half hour ago, so I apologize if everyone was done with this topic.

    I am trying to wrap my mind around all of this. This planet is 20 light years away and could be capable of supporting life. Someone in another forum mentioned that this planet is billions of years older than Earth. I wonder, if there is life on this planet, isn't it possible that the life evolved beyond us, depleted all the natural resources, and theres now nothing left. I mean, it's way far fetched I know, but could life on a planet similar to ours have followed the same path we are on now, and their end result is a reflection of our future? If there is intelligent life existing on this other planet, will it really take 20 years to come in contact with them? Or do you think it's possible to find a faster way?

    I wonder if they have chocolate-covered strawberries growing on trees...(sorry, had to throw something silly in )

    I'm sorry if my rambling doesn't make sense.

    xoxo
    LDW
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by Everlasting
    T Mars did not evolve, it regressed. No other planets are sustainable to our life form. This bringing in again the question: Why?
    Mars is significantly smaller than earth (it is about 1/3 the size) and has less gravity. It's atmosphere has less mass, and being on the surface of mars is the atmospheric pressure equivelent of being at over 100,000ft in altitude over earth.

    When humans are in aircraft and the aircraft depressurizes at 38,000ft, the Aircraft manuals state that an average person will loose conciousness 15 seconds after decompressurization due to a mixture of not having enough oxygen going to the brain and a similar thing to 'the bends'. The only way to avoid this is immediate application of Oxygen and an emergency decent to 15,000ft or below. Even on oxygen humans will eventually loose consiousness at that altitude. Double and add some altitude and you have the air pressure on mars. No life exists there because it's pretty darn inhospitable to all but the most basic forms of life. Viruses and Bacteria etc. Mars is also remarkably cold. Antarctica is warmer than Mars' equator at noon. Just happens that Mars is really really dry too, no water around except underground, and a little vapor in the air. I'd estimate you could fill up the great lakes of America with all the water on mars and have none left over. A reasonable amount when you are thinking small, but spread over an entire planet? that amount of water is hugeley inatequite.

    2 things caused this. 1: Mars is simply not big enough and 2: mars is too far away from the sun.

    Why is mars too far away from the sun? well Earth is here. 2 planets can't orbit on orbital planes too close without resulting in a decaying orbital resonance relationship. If Mars was close enough to the Earth to be comparible in heat reception from the sun, it'd either be Earth's moon, or be in constant danger of collision.

    and Planets don't evolve in the 'theory of evolution' sense either. Planets don't live and survive to produce offspring with variation. Planets don't have sex. They are just lumps of rock with some gas attracted to them by gravity. Very very large lumps of rock.


    To discuss the Theory of Evolution alongside the Big Bang theory and the Accretion Disk Theory of Solar System formation is like discussing the theory of operating a Flight Navigation System on a 747 alongside the theory of what air is made of and how the earth was formed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    nice post ^^
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Everlasting
    I think what I am adressing is Evolution vs. Regression,
    You appear to think that evolution has a direction. The consensus view of biologists would be that this is not the case. Therefore there is no regression. What do you mean by regression? How does it relate, in your terms, to evolution?
    Quote Originally Posted by Everlasting
    I think what I am adressing is Evolution vs. Regression, and their reflection on civilization.
    This is a non sequitur if ever I saw one.
    Quote Originally Posted by Everlasting
    Mars did not evolve, it regressed.
    In what sense did it regress?
    Quote Originally Posted by Everlasting
    No other planets are sustainable to our life form.
    Really! You have amazing resources if you are able to make this statement with confidence. Perhaps you meant no planets in our Solar System can sustain our life forms. That is hardly surprising. The Earth couldn't sustain our life form for half or more of its existence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Everlasting
    We observe the universe in broad theory. Could there be a reason for the differences in the planets?
    Of course there is a reason (or rather several reasons). Planets form around different stars, with different compositions of their accretionary discs, at different distances, with different dynamic histories. What don't you understand about this?
    Quote Originally Posted by Everlasting
    Man strives to evolve constantly, only to find that regression is taking place.
    That kind of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution. You appear to be very confused over terminology. Wooly thinking typically leads to wooly results.
    Quote Originally Posted by Everlasting
    The observations that we make about our universe are theory, and generally are made with true scientific curiosity. But Creationism is the foundation for which all of these observations were made, and Intelligent Design the descriptor.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    28
    Let's put this discovery in it's proper context. This planet's conditions are the most "friendly" for life as we know it among the planets we've discovered to this point. There will be others. That doesn't mean there is life in this case, or on the others yet to be found that will meet our parameters, nor does it mean that there isn't life on planets outside of what we consider a "habitable zone." We simply don't know at this point. That's it. This discovery has nothing to do with evolution, regression, or the price of tea in China for that matter.

    Trust me. :-D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by LadyDragonWolf
    Ok, I JUST found out about this a half hour ago, so I apologize if everyone was done with this topic.

    I am trying to wrap my mind around all of this. This planet is 20 light years away and could be capable of supporting life. Someone in another forum mentioned that this planet is billions of years older than Earth. I wonder, if there is life on this planet, isn't it possible that the life evolved beyond us, depleted all the natural resources, and theres now nothing left. I mean, it's way far fetched I know, but could life on a planet similar to ours have followed the same path we are on now, and their end result is a reflection of our future? If there is intelligent life existing on this other planet, will it really take 20 years to come in contact with them? Or do you think it's possible to find a faster way?

    I wonder if they have chocolate-covered strawberries growing on trees...(sorry, had to throw something silly in )

    I'm sorry if my rambling doesn't make sense.

    xoxo
    LDW
    Actually, Gliese 581 is 4.3 billion years, to our Sun's 4.57 billion. What's really sad is that it's only 3.30769% of the way through its life span, to our 45.7% through. Funny how that works, huh?

    Also, the odds of chocolate, strawberries, and trees all evolving on another world=0, basically. Even less likely for a tree to evolve strawberries as its fruit, and to find someway to cover them with chocolate.

    But it IS an infinite universe, so...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Somewhere near Beetlegeuse
    Posts
    205
    Quote Originally Posted by Legendary
    Also, the odds of chocolate, strawberries, and trees
    all evolving on another world=0, basically. Even less likely for a tree to
    evolve strawberries as its fruit, and to find someway to cover them with
    chocolate.
    If we are going to be strictly scientific here, then we realise that chocolate
    has not, based on our single example of chocolate in this universe,
    evolved, but is made by an intelligent life form; us.

    We also realise that you cannot calculate probabilities based on a sample
    size of one, and therefore it is not possible to determine the probability of
    chocolate, trees and strawberries all evolving elsewhere in the universe.

    Incidentally, strawberries do grow on trees. Arbutus unedo L. grows
    to about 10m in Southern England and Ireland. The fruit of the previous
    year colour when the flowers are in bloom, first yellow then deep scarlet
    dotted with grey-tipped papillae and about 1.5cm long.
    Unfortunately, though edible they are not particularly palatable
    (unedo = "I eat one" only).
    Everything the laws of the universe do not prohibit must finally happen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •