nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Two billion planets in our galaxy may be suitable for life

ThunderCat

New data from Kepler indicates that planets capable of supporting life are far more common than previously thought...

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/nov/04/planets-galaxy-life-kepler

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

antofitz

awesome

mr lee

finding life on another planet is the ultimate goal for mankind and i suppose it works the other way aswell,other life finding us,either way it will be deeply profound,i hope i'l be alive to witness it,the aliens better hurry up.

maninasia

ThunderCat wrote: »

New data from Kepler indicates that planets capable of supporting life are far more common than previously thought...

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/nov/04/planets-galaxy-life-kepler

Than previously thought by who?

If there is life out there, it is far more likely to have evolved on rocky planets with liquid water on their surfaces, similar to Earth.

Rightttttt.. that would be from our massive example of..... one.

So using a low ball figure there are at least 100 billion in the Milky Way alone. And we don't know yet if there is life on the other planets in the Solar System or on our moons (which outnumber planets by 20:1).

Using our example of 1/100 billion we know that life is FAR MORE LIKELY TO HAVE EVOLVED ON LIQUID WATER ON A ROCKY PLANET SIMILAR TO EARTH.

But this eejit can make a statement like this and get so many thanks.

I give up.

(by the way the term for this is confirmation bias).

ThunderCat

maninasia wrote: »

Than previously thought by who?

Rightttttt.. that would be from our massive example of..... one.

So using a low ball figure there are at least 100 billion in the Milky Way alone. And we don't know yet if there is life on the other planets in the Solar System or on our moons (which outnumber planets by 20:1).

Using our example of 1/100 billion we know that life is FAR MORE LIKELY TO HAVE EVOLVED ON LIQUID WATER ON A ROCKY PLANET SIMILAR TO EARTH.

But this eejit can make a statement like this and get so many thanks.

I give up.

(by the way the term for this is confirmation bias).

The text I posted in the original post is just the title of the article and taken from the very start of the article itself. I only typed it out so it would give some context as to what the link was about. I saw it, thought it was relevant to this forum and thought that some people might like to read it.

maninasia

I'm not criticizing you, I'm criticizing the author of the article. But I would recommend people to look beyond a title and analyse things a bit more logically for themselves.

jumpjack

Crowdy.
Corwdier.
Scary.
More scary.

ShowMeTheCash

Life on any plannet will have a finite window, studys show that they reckon life began in around 3.5 billion years ago, the earth was around a billion years old when it did.

At some point the earth will go back to being a ball whereby life will not be able to survive... Solar flare... Suns tranformation into a red giant or something else...

Our time in the universe will probably be so insignificant an entire universe of life, people civilisations will never even know we where even here!!

But may... just maybe a civilisation at the same maturity maybe close enough for us or them to perhaps acknowledge either one of us actually existed...

I often amuse myself with technology.. Wondering what the greatest technological advancement in the universe ever was and when? Maybe it was life!

Rhys Essien

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Life on any plannet will have a finite window, studys show that they reckon life began in around 3.5 billion years ago, the earth was around a billion years old when it did.

At some point the earth will go back to being a ball whereby life will not be able to survive... Solar flare... Suns tranformation into a red giant or something else...

Our time in the universe will probably be so insignificant an entire universe of life, people civilisations will never even know we where even here!!

But may... just maybe a civilisation at the same maturity maybe close enough for us or them to perhaps acknowledge either one of us actually existed...

I often amuse myself with technology.. Wondering what the greatest technological advancement in the universe ever was and when? Maybe it was life!

I don't think technology had anything to do with how life began.:D

ShowMeTheCash

Depends what you deem as technology.

tac foley

Unless we can come up with a method of transporting our physical bodies many times faster than the speed of light, we are totally screwed, and we will never, ever, know.

More to the point, just think of the expense!

tac

Maudi

tac foley wrote: »

Unless we can come up with a method of transporting our physical bodies many times faster than the speed of light, we are totally screwed, and we will never, ever, know.

More to the point, just think of the expense!

tac

Hi tac..the speed of light as a restrainer is getting a bit old fashioned..i feel the speed of light as a limitation will be proven to be wrong (in the future : )

Maudi

tac foley wrote: »

Unless we can come up with a method of transporting our physical bodies many times faster than the speed of light, we are totally screwed, and we will never, ever, know.

More to the point, just think of the expense!

tac

Hi tac..the speed of light as a restrainer is getting a bit old fashioned..i feel the speed of light as a limitation will be proven to be wrong (in the future : )

Manach

My own take on life, is that the development of such was both fraught with risk and catastrophe during its evolution on earth - which did act as a driver out could have wiped all life out so then advanced life even with the numerous planets mentioned would be quite rare.
On expense, as per Tac, get the India Space agency to do so. They have run successful missions for only about $80M

BorneTobyWilde

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suBp3ai-xG8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vYjRt7Sizc

They showed up a day ago in Germany. They do exist

maninasia

tac foley wrote: »

Unless we can come up with a method of transporting our physical bodies many times faster than the speed of light, we are totally screwed, and we will never, ever, know.

More to the point, just think of the expense!

tac

The brain is simply a neural network. A neural network can be consrtucted out of many different types of materials. It can even bounce around from place to place. As such, there is no limitation in beaming our brain (neural network) around in the future.

You might need something to beam it to, you can simply send that ahead.

maninasia

Maudi wrote: »

Hi tac..the speed of light as a restrainer is getting a bit old fashioned..i feel the speed of light as a limitation will be proven to be wrong (in the future : )

There is no evidence that the speed of light can be superseded so far. None.

However once you can bend space the speed of light may become immaterial.

As I always say, after they invented planes people hardly ever take a boat across the Atlantic ocean. It doesn't matter that there is a finite speed limit for boats on water.

Zubeneschamali

maninasia wrote: »

However once you can bend space the speed of light may become immaterial.

Bending space does not get you around the problems of faster than light travel. It's still time travel, unless relativity is wrong.

maninasia

This sentence doesn't mean anything to me, can you explain more?

Zubeneschamali

maninasia wrote: »

This sentence doesn't mean anything to me, can you explain more?

According to relativity, travelling from A to B faster than light travels from A to B is time travel, meaning you could kill your own grandfather and disappear in a puff of logic.

Anything which allows this kind of causality violation is impossible.

ShowMeTheCash

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

According to relativity, travelling from A to B faster than light travels from A to B is time travel, meaning you could kill your own grandfather and disappear in a puff of logic.

Anything which allows this kind of causality violation is impossible.

I think you are wrong in this description, it does not appear to make sense!
Granted time is a tricky one.

But what your saying here is not correct...

The idea of bending space is the idea of not having to make the journey.

It take light something like 8 minues to travel from the sun to here.
Bending space is the idea of the Now, you are not traveling through time, actually you are not traveling it all, the idea of going from point A to point B instantaneously...

Zubeneschamali

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The idea of bending space is the idea of not having to make the journey.

The point is that it doesn't matter if you travel from A to B by warping space, wormholes, hyperspace, subspace or teleportation:

If you can get there or send a message faster than light can get there, you can set up a time-travel paradox.

Wikipedia mentions this problem for the Alcubierre warp drive, and gives references, and for wormholes, too.

Zubeneschamali

To spell out the problem using wormholes:

Say you've got a wormhole between two giant Egyptian rings, call them Stargates A and B, and you hang a clock on each. You take A on a spaceship and zoom it to Alpha Centauri and back, and then stand them beside each other. Just like the Twins in the Twins Paradox, the A clock shows an earlier time than the B clock. Let's say your ship wasn't very fast (for a starship), and you only managed 5 minutes total time dilation. The A clock reads 11:55, and the B clock 12:00.

Now step through the A gate: you pop out the B gate at 11:55, and tell yourself not to go through.

Paradox! It's 12:01 and there are two of you now! But the "now" you never went through so where did the "then" you come from? How about mass-energy conservation? 80kg of matter just came from nowhere!

This really is how the physics says wormholes would behave, if they were possible.

So they aren't possible.

ShowMeTheCash

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

To spell out the problem using wormholes:

Say you've got a wormhole between two giant Egyptian rings, call them Stargates A and B, and you hang a clock on each. You take A on a spaceship and zoom it to Alpha Centauri and back, and then stand them beside each other. Just like the Twins in the Twins Paradox, the A clock shows an earlier time than the B clock. Let's say your ship wasn't very fast (for a starship), and you only managed 5 minutes total time dilation. The A clock reads 11:55, and the B clock 12:00.

Now step through the A gate: you pop out the B gate at 11:55, and tell yourself not to go through.

Paradox! It's 12:01 and there are two of you now! But the "now" you never went through so where did the "then" you come from? How about mass-energy conservation? 80kg of matter just came from nowhere!

This really is how the physics says wormholes would behave, if they were possible.

So they aren't possible.

Look I think you have misinterpreted a few things.

Also your example does not make any sense!

Time dialation happens due Time dilution when an object is moving!
The perceived time to the object seems less to that of the observer.

When you get back if A reads 11:55 and B 12:00 you will not come out of B at 11:55, the dialtion has already happened you simply need to adjust your clock!

What you are talking about is time slicing, your example does not make sense but I understand what you are trying to say. (Time gets funny when we move)

Let say we had a magic telephone and I could call someone at the other end of the galaxy instantaneously, if both people remain static then the time slice should remain the same, if I start to say run in the opposite direction the time slice can move, so essentially I could call someone in the past, this is because the Now time frame can move if we do....

But this has nothing to do with what we are talking about...

The difficutly with the now is... there is no such thing, everything is moving when we say now we mean now relative to something else... But that is a very different to what we are talking about.

There is no paradox in your example nor should there be whereby we move by bending space to somewhere on the same time slice. i.e. Not moving in relation to the space we are moving too.

Zubeneschamali

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

When you get back if A reads 11:55 and B 12:00 you will not come out of B at 11:55, the dialtion has already happened you simply need to adjust your clock!

No, it's not just a matter of your clock being wrong any more, because of the wormhole.

Repeat the experiment above, but this time you stand beside hole B, stick your hand through the hole and shake hands with the pilot throughout the trip.

Now, when he comes back with his time dilated end of the hole, you pull your hand out at 12:00, but for the hand sticking out his gate, it's still only 11:55, so you can chop that hand off! Or grab it and pull your 11:55 self though into 12:00. It's a closed timelike curve.

Still don't believe me? Have a read of this.

ShowMeTheCash

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, it's not just a matter of your clock being wrong any more, because of the wormhole.

Repeat the experiment above, but this time you stand beside hole B, stick your hand through the hole and shake hands with the pilot throughout the trip.

Now, when he comes back with his time dilated end of the hole, you pull your hand out at 12:00, but for the hand sticking out his gate, it's still only 11:55, so you can chop that hand off! Or grab it and pull your 11:55 self though into 12:00. It's a closed timelike curve.

Still don't believe me? Have a read of this.

No I understand the theory I just don't think you quite grasp it.
At no point will you land back and the hand will be sticking out...
Also you have your dilation the wrong way around... Not that it actually matters..

The time dialation only happens while you move not when you have stopped, when you stop you are essentailly back in sync.

But I will go with you on the example:

A and B, I put my hand in A and see it come out from B and wave for 3 seconds.
I now Jump in my spaceship with A at 11:50, put my hand threw and begin waving, I zip to Alpha Centauri and back and land back at A 11:55 and B 12:00...

What do you think has happened?
Why do you think there is a paradox?

let say we have an instantainious live feed from the space graft moving.
And the space craft has a live feed back to mission control...

The guys on the ground will have watched 10 mins of footage.
On the spacecraft you will have 5 mins of footage.

Let me explain what will happen.

Lets say on the journey I wave from side to side 60 times a min.
5 Mins x 60 = 300

How many times you reckon my hand will move from side to side in the 10 mins at point B?

It will still have only moved 300 times...
The dialtion should be visible the faster you move... Effectivly if you are able to see your hand and you move fast enough you may even see it begin to change! as time is effecting it differently than the rest of your body...

But as you slow down and you sync back up then you are back in sync... Albeit you hand is now 5 mins older than the rest of your body!

ShowMeTheCash

Your example and that paper has more to do with wormholes than the example we are talking about...

Wormholes become theoretical...

We usually have bands of how things work.
Newtons laws of physics work... within a band, but when we start looking at sub atomic particles then these laws of physics no longer work!

Same goes for wormholes theory as it makes a lot of assumptions about what a wormhole actually is.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

My head hurts. Are we going to have ET for real or not?

Zubeneschamali

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

But as you slow down and you sync back up then you are back in sync... Albeit you hand is now 5 mins older than the rest of your body!

Firstly, it is you that has the dilation wrong, the twin who travels is younger, not older. Secondly, the whole point is that time does not synch up - less time happens for the moving end of the gate, the clock on it is not wrong, that is how much time has actually passed.

If I wave my hand once per minute, we know exactly what will happen, because we know how a clock is affected. I wave 15 times through the hole at A.

On board ship I wave 5 times on the outward journey, 5 times on the return and I still have 5 waves left when the ship lands, just as the clock still shows 5 minutes.

So now my hand exists twice - and we can hand it an apple, and that apple will travel into the past when the hand is pulled in - but it can't, because I already pulled out my hand with no apple 5 minutes before the apple was handed to me.

Paradox.

From the paper on closed timelike curves I linked to earlier "Most physicists react to this by asserting that the laws of physics must prevent the existence of classical, traversable wormholes". I'm with them.

Zubeneschamali

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Your example and that paper has more to do with wormholes than the example we are talking about...

No. The same logic applies to any method of faster-than-light travel or communication. It's time travel.

Zubeneschamali

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

Are we going to have ET for real or not?

Extraterrestrial life? Definitely.

Intellligent? Probably.

Contact it? Possibly.

Travel to meet it, or have it travel here to meet us? Unlikely.

Faster than light? Definitely not.