Notices
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Spitzer (my fav telescope) finds water on exoplanet!!

  1. #1 Spitzer (my fav telescope) finds water on exoplanet!! 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Pasadena, California
    Posts
    7
    A scorching-hot gas planet beyond our solar system is steaming up with water vapor, according to new observations from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope.

    The planet, called HD 189733b, swelters as it zips closely around its star every two days or so. Astronomers had predicted that planets of this class, termed "hot Jupiters," would contain water vapor in their atmospheres. Yet finding solid evidence for this has been slippery. These latest data are the most convincing yet that hot Jupiters are "wet."

    "We're thrilled to have identified clear signs of water on a planet that is trillions of miles away," said Giovanna Tinetti, a European Space Agency fellow at the Institute d'Astrophysique de Paris in France. " Tinetti is lead author of a paper on HD 189733b appearing today in Nature.

    Although water is an essential ingredient to life as we know it, wet, hot Jupiters are not likely to harbor any creatures. Previous measurements from Spitzer indicate that HD 189733b is a fiery 1,000 Kelvin (1,340 degrees Fahrenheit) on average. Ultimately, astronomers hope to use instruments like those on Spitzer to find water on rocky, habitable planets like Earth...
    the rest: http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media.../release.shtml

    I know the press release is kinda simple - but I always just assumed that water would be on exoplanets. Its nice to know that I assumed correctly - now, what about the rest of the exoplanets?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    35
    Do you know what the highest temperature creatures have been found at on Earth? Just curious, couldn't find it on google.


    I'm always confused.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Assuming that water is discovered on another planet or space body, and that planet is older than the earth: would this negate the evolution theory if life is not also found on that planet? At least, it may be deemed not a universal constant?

    Life, via evolutionary adaptation, would not depend on a critical mix of conditions exclusive to this planet, to effect life. Adaptation, if this has credibility [it is a theory only, not a fact], cannot be just the ability to prevail over this planet's negative, harsh conditions and evolve into life; it has to adapt and prevail under 'different' harsh conditions also - else life is a result of a focused, specialised impact, rather than it being a universal constant. There is already life on earth on the harshest conditions imaginable - such as volcanoes and where light never reaches. Why not elsewhere?

    IMHO, there is no life out there. The math and logics say so.
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    That's an interesting question. Of course, finding such a planet and confirming that conditions similar to those on Earth have prevailed for longer than they have here is a very long ways away.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Junior Lucifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Close to 290125001
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by MatTron
    Do you know what the highest temperature creatures have been found at on Earth? Just curious, couldn't find it on google.
    113º Celsius in nature, but laboratory record is 121º C.

    Search wikipedia for "hyperthermophile" if you want more info. Also may enjoy looking for "extremophile" to learn what some little critters love... :wink:

    BTW, Earth-like life is supposed to be unable above 150º C (423º K) as nucleic acids and other essential mollecules break apart at this temperature.
    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” -Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    That's an interesting question. Of course, finding such a planet and confirming that conditions similar to those on Earth have prevailed for longer than they have here is a very long ways away.
    Perhaps 'confirming that conditions similar to those on Earth have prevailed' may not be a critical factor. Before life existed here, this would have not been an applicable factor either. Adaptation is what it says, Adaptation - not subject to earth like conditions.
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by IamJoseph
    Assuming that water is discovered on another planet or space body, and that planet is older than the earth: would this negate the evolution theory if life is not also found on that planet? At least, it may be deemed not a universal constant?
    Abolutely not. Evolution starts where life begins - not before it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by IamJoseph
    Life, via evolutionary adaptation, would not depend on a critical mix of conditions exclusive to this planet, to effect life. Adaptation, if this has credibility [it is a theory only, not a fact], cannot be just the ability to prevail over this planet's negative, harsh conditions and evolve into life; it has to adapt and prevail under 'different' harsh conditions also - else life is a result of a focused, specialised impact, rather than it being a universal constant. There is already life on earth on the harshest conditions imaginable - such as volcanoes and where light never reaches. Why not elsewhere?
    Greetings!

    I absolutely agree with you. I believe life is not bound to Earth's conditions to flourish, but it adapts itself to some combinations of substances and conditions allowing it to evolve.
    Earth is not an obligation for life to exist, nor are its conditions, but i believe life sets, although partially, the story of an ecosystem and ultimately the course of a planet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by Hefaestus

    Greetings!

    I absolutely agree with you. I believe life is not bound to Earth's conditions to flourish, but it adapts itself to some combinations of substances and conditions allowing it to evolve.
    Hi!

    Does this mean, that life itself - or something embedded within life's program, creates evolutionary effects - is this your point?
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    3
    I believe life, through its existence, creates a set of conditions capable of influence evolution at a bigger level.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucifer

    113º Celsius in nature, but laboratory record is 121º C.
    That's amazing something can survive above the boiling point of water. Are you talking about those organizisms that live near "black smokers" at the bottom of the ocean?
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    35
    Thanks for the info Lucifer.
    I'm always confused.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Hafaestus
    Greetings!

    I absolutely agree with you. I believe life is not bound to Earth's conditions to flourish, but it adapts itself to some combinations of substances and conditions allowing it to evolve.
    Earth is not an obligation for life to exist, nor are its conditions, but i believe life sets, although partially, the story of an ecosystem and ultimately the course of a planet.
    True, but a successful test for whether life evolved here on earth would only prove it hadn't if the conditions on the new planet we looked at were similar to those on earth.

    To show that life can evolve anywhere, we do better to find a planet unlike earth. It all depends on what you're trying to prove/disprove.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Exoplanet mystery 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2
    Was reading about a new exoplanet they've discovered (TrES-4), http://www.unregisterednews.com/content/view/198/51. Does anyone have any idea about how such a huge planet could form so close to a star? What kind of a star is GSC02620-00648, anyone know?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Senior miomaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    302
    If life wasn't to be able to evolve on that planet, does certainly not mean that it disproves the evolution theory.
    Simply, because there is water does not mean that life must exist or evolve, other needs must be fulfilled in order for life even to happen.
    Even if God has created mankind and this is proven, it does not mean that the evolution theory is false, since evolution happens; if God wants it or not. (So there is no problem with the evolution theory and parallel to that believing in God or other kinds of religions)

    regards,

    miomaz[/i]
    I haven't come to fight my word, but to find the truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: Spitzer (my fav telescope) finds water on exoplanet!! 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    [quote="Dr. Spitzer"]
    A scorching-hot gas planet beyond our solar system is steaming up with water vapor, according to new observations from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope.
    Assuming it contains water, and is at least as old as the earth, with similar conditions - is there any reason life should not also exist there? Would no life be a negation of Natural Selection and Adaptation, and that life can emerge from the inanimate?
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17 Re: Spitzer (my fav telescope) finds water on exoplanet!! 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by IamJoseph
    Assuming it contains water, and is at least as old as the earth, with similar conditions - is there any reason life should not also exist there?
    That would be an invalid assumption. As the quoted article points out the average temperature is estimated to be 1000 deg Kelvin. It is also a gas giant. About the only similarity with the Earth is that it's roughly spherical and is a planet.
    Quote Originally Posted by IamJoseph
    Would no life be a negation of Natural Selection and Adaptation, and that life can emerge from the inanimate?
    You keep asking this, even though it has already been answered. As Neutrino said "Evolution starts where life begins - not before it."
    Are you a creationist, IamJoseph? Creationists are the only people I know who consistently confuse abiogenesis and evolution. A bit like confusing grocery shopping with cooking, really.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Re: Spitzer (my fav telescope) finds water on exoplanet!! 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by IamJoseph
    Assuming it contains water, and is at least as old as the earth, with similar conditions - is there any reason life should not also exist there?
    That would be an invalid assumption. As the quoted article points out the average temperature is estimated to be 1000 deg Kelvin. It is also a gas giant. About the only similarity with the Earth is that it's roughly spherical and is a planet.
    Quote Originally Posted by IamJoseph
    Would no life be a negation of Natural Selection and Adaptation, and that life can emerge from the inanimate?
    You keep asking this, even though it has already been answered. As Neutrino said "Evolution starts where life begins - not before it."
    Are you a creationist, IamJoseph? Creationists are the only people I know who consistently confuse abiogenesis and evolution. A bit like confusing grocery shopping with cooking, really.
    My point is, that NS and Adaptation is not about prevailing over harsh earthly conditions, but most all conditions. Else this is not a universal constant or the cause of life here on earth. Water may not be the primal factor for life elsewhere, and also not the reason for the lack of life seen anyplace else.

    My question was not answered by your response. The temp limits for life on earth apply only to this planet; if life emerged here at 110, there is no reason life cannot emerge elsewhere at higher temps: the gravity and gass mixes elsewhere would compensate for the higher temps; survival and emergence of life, if there is an optional path, would not pursue a water dependent life where water does not exist.

    But regardless of such compensation, life can still emerge elsewhere if only the critical conditions was the issue, but I doubt this is the case. That is why we have no life imprints in the known universe for at least 4.5 Billion years. Correct math says the probability of life elsewhere is 'zero'; the possibility of life based only on vast size works against the probabilty of life, not for it. An actual survey of the known universe, which contains every mix of ages, distances and conditions, says NO LIFE. This would best reflect the unknown universe.

    Re if I'm a Creationist. Yes, but a scientifically based one - not a religiously based creationist. I don't see any alternative to the Creator/Creation premise. The rejection of Creationism is based on the current disdain of religions, and is not based on any logic, science or evidence there is any alternative to it. This is regardless that we cannot prove it, for or against.

    My view is based on the factor there is no infinity in the universe. Thus cause and effect must be in the preamble. By Creator, I don't mean any religious based one, but a supreme mind which created all the math and engineerings of the universal structures. I don't believe in self-generating accumulated elevations either - because I see all facets and aspects of the universe as 'intergrated' - which negates Random from the menu.

    I see humanity's pace quickening once we reach a determination we are it: no other life exists anywhere else. But we have yet not entered such a mindset, and are not ready to accept such a phenomenon. Proof of no life elsewhere [if such was possible], will be a greater shock and far more disorienting than discovering life out there. It will also enhance better responsibility upon ourselves, and promote a great awareness for peace on earth. Humans will then view humanity as a precious thing.
    Monotheism is the ultimate Scientific Theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    If we find an identical planet to Earth, yet find no life there, it does not disprove evolution.

    The only thing it would appear to prove is that the point at which circumstances spawn life are not certain.

    It might be safe to assume that there is a high degree of probability that makes the formation of life, and the advancement of life, a lotto.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20 Re: Spitzer (my fav telescope) finds water on exoplanet!! 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    IamJoseph,
    thank you for your comprehensive response.

    Quote Originally Posted by IamJoseph
    My point is, that NS and Adaptation is not about prevailing over harsh earthly conditions, but most all conditions. Else this is not a universal constant or the cause of life here on earth.
    There seems to be some misunderstanding on your part here. To repeat, Natural Selection and Adaptation have nothing whatsoever with the abiogenic origin of life. These processes 'kick in' once life is established.
    Darwin and most early evolutionists, (and most late evolutionists for that matter) did not claim that NS & A were universal constants. Most present day biologists would accept that they are implicitly universal constants for life as we know it. That still has nothing to with the origin of life.
    Your point about NS & A being about prevailing over most all conditions is a leap into the dark for which their is little or no evidential justification.
    Quote Originally Posted by IamJoseph
    My question was not answered by your response. The temp limits for life on earth apply only to this planet; if life emerged here at 110, there is no reason life cannot emerge elsewhere at higher temps: the gravity and gass mixes elsewhere would compensate for the higher temps; .
    There is every reason life - as we know it - cannot emerge at higher temperatures: the organic chemicals we believe to be necessary for life are wholy unstable at these temperatures. No amount of playing with the pressures, gravity and chemical environment will alter that simple fact. If you have data that contradicts this please provide the relevant citations.
    Now you could object that I have made the qualification - life as we know it. If you are proposing life arising in some radically different form and chemistry you need to be able to offer some mechanism for this. Ca n you do so? [Again citations would be welcome.]
    Quote Originally Posted by IamJoseph
    survival and emergence of life, if there is an optional path, would not pursue a water dependent life where water does not exist.
    again, you are making an assumption that life can exist based upon a solvent other than water, without offering any evidence or support for this.
    Quote Originally Posted by IamJoseph
    But regardless of such compensation, life can still emerge elsewhere if only the critical conditions was the issue, but I doubt this is the case.
    Sorry, this did not make any sense to me and I suspect you were trying to make an important point.
    Quote Originally Posted by IamJoseph
    That is why we have no life imprints in the known universe for at least 4.5 Billion years.
    I am confused by your dates. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Life probably appeared here 3.8 billion years ago. If you believe this was the first life in the Universe (it is certainly the first known life) then the Universe was without the imprint of life for approximately 10 billion years. What am I missing?
    Quote Originally Posted by IamJoseph
    Correct math says the probability of life elsewhere is 'zero';
    Nonsense. Maths is a tool that can only deliver meaningful results when a problem is correctly stated. Maths, correct or incorrect, has nothing to say about the probability of life in the Universe.
    Quote Originally Posted by IamJoseph
    the possibility of life based only on vast size works against the probabilty of life, not for it. An actual survey of the known universe, which contains every mix of ages, distances and conditions, says NO LIFE. This would best reflect the unknown universe.
    Again, nonsense. A survey of those portions of the Universe which we can examine in the detail necessary to detect life says life is abundant - under appropriate conditions. Where those conditions are not met it appears to be absent. By logical extension, where appropraite conditions are met in other parts of the Universe the probability of life is likely to be high, or at worst, we can make no conclusion as to its likelihood since we do not understand yet exactly what conditions will favour its emergence.
    Quote Originally Posted by IamJoseph
    The rejection of Creationism is based on the current disdain of religions, and is not based on any logic, science or evidence there is any alternative to it. This is regardless that we cannot prove it, for or against.
    My rejection of creationism is based upon Occam's razor. I am not hostile towards religions. Creationism can be rejected logically, scientifically and evidentially, thoug I prefer to take a suitably agnostic stance on the matter.
    Quote Originally Posted by IamJoseph
    My view is based on the factor there is no infinity in the universe.
    And your evidence for this would be??
    Quote Originally Posted by IamJoseph
    I see humanity's pace quickening once we reach a determination we are it: no other life exists anywhere else. But we have yet not entered such a mindset, and are not ready to accept such a phenomenon. Proof of no life elsewhere [if such was possible], will be a greater shock and far more disorienting than discovering life out there. It will also enhance better responsibility upon ourselves, and promote a great awareness for peace on earth. Humans will then view humanity as a precious thing.
    So you have arrived at conclusion that life does not exist elsewhere based upon the fact that you don't think life exists elsewhere. It's not a novel position to adopt, but it is historically weak.
    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
  •