Another 'Earth' Found?

[Black Heart]

Very interesting story

SCIENTISTS DISCOVER ANOTHER EARTH!

Gregg Prescott, M.S. In5D.com

NASA’s Kepler Space Telescope recently discovered an Earth-like planet orbiting a nearby star within the habitable zone of our galaxy. Kepler-186f is approximately 500 light-years from Earth in the Cygnus constellation.

The habitable zone, also known as the Goldilocks zone, is the region around a star within which planetary-mass objects with sufficient atmospheric pressure can support liquid water at their surfaces. While it has been estimated that there are at least 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in our Milky Way Galaxy, this particular discovery is labeled the first Earth-sized planet to be found in the habitable zone of another star.

new-earth-2

What does this mean?

In addition to Kepler-186f, there are 4 other planets that orbit a nearby star within the Kepler-186f system. What this means is that if the nearby star to this planet is similar to our Sun, then the probability of life on this planet exponentially rises.

“We know of just one planet where life exists – Earth. When we search for life outside our solar system we focus on finding planets with characteristics that mimic that of Earth,” said Elisa Quintana, research scientist at the SETI Institute at NASA’s Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif., and lead author of the paper published today in the journal Science. “Finding a habitable zone planet comparable to Earth in size is a major step forward.”

The nearby star to Kepler-186f has half the mass and size as our solar system’s Sun and only receives one-third of the energy that we receive from our Sun. Kepler-186f orbits its star once every 130 days.




Do you think there is life on other planets? Comment below!

References:
1. Kepler Finds 1st Earth-Size Planet In 'Habitable Zone' of Another Star | NASA
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability

[harrybarracuda]

There is always this assumption by narrow minded scientists that it has to have water and the right temperature to support life.

I would think in a few billion years of evolution there is the possibility that life forms exist that do not meet this criteria.

And that's even using the standard definition of "Life".

Although it's still worth looking for an extra-terrestrial habitat, because this one is getting fucked up by the minute.

[VocalNeal]

Although it's still worth looking for an extra-terrestrial habitat,

Given what NASA saw recently maybe they have found us. And to get here they will be 500 years plus more advanced than us assuming they can travel at the speed of light?

Which brings up an interesting question? You send a ship to visit your nearest "Earth-like" planet but by the time it gets there your technology maybe such that the second or third voyage ship would already be there?

[Takeovers]

There is always this assumption by narrow minded scientists that it has to have water and the right temperature to support life.

I would think in a few billion years of evolution there is the possibility that life forms exist that do not meet this criteria.

And that's even using the standard definition of "Life".

There are two parts to an answer to this.

The first is that it is a very valid assumption that life exists only with water. There is any number of reasons why that would be the case. Complex chemistry requires a liquid solvent. And water is the only liquid that fits the bill. You could think of methane instead but methane is liquid only in very low temperature. Temperature this low does not make complex chemistry impossible but very slow. So much slower that life based on it as solvent is quite unlikely. The fact that there are methane eating bacteria does not change that. For them methane has a different function than the water they need to exist.

The second is that scientists make this assumption conditional. They would not say water is the only possible means for life, it is just the most likely by far. Not only because the only life we know is based on it but because of what we know about chemistry in general.

[Takeovers]

Which brings up an interesting question? You send a ship to visit your nearest "Earth-like" planet but by the time it gets there your technology maybe such that the second or third voyage ship would already be there?

That is a theme used in Science Fiction as a plot. It is possible. The one way I see as possible to actually getting to another sun is very slow travel. Get to 5% of light speed and travel thousands of years. That scenario would mean that you send another ship later that can reach 10% or more of light speed would arrive much earlier.

With present knowledge FTL travel seems really impossible. Though scientists are still wary of ruling it out completely.

[Hans Mann]

There is always this assumption by narrow minded scientists that it has to have water and the right temperature to support life.

I agree. Beer would do just fine.

[rebbu]

The below numbers give the rough amount of stars in the universe. To even imagine that we are on our own is ludicrous.

Kornreich used a very rough estimate of 10 trillion galaxies in the universe. Multiplying that by the Milky Way's estimated 100 billion stars results in a large number indeed: 100 octillion stars, or 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, or a "1" with 29 zeros after it.May 31, 2014

How Many Stars Are In The Universe?

[Cujo]

There is always this assumption by narrow minded scientists that it has to have water and the right temperature to support life.

I would think in a few billion years of evolution there is the possibility that life forms exist that do not meet this criteria.

And that's even using the standard definition of "Life".

There are two parts to an answer to this.

The first is that it is a very valid assumption that life exists only with water. There is any number of reasons why that would be the case. Complex chemistry requires a liquid solvent. And water is the only liquid that fits the bill. You could think of methane instead but methane is liquid only in very low temperature. Temperature this low does not make complex chemistry impossible but very slow. So much slower that life based on it as solvent is quite unlikely. The fact that there are methane eating bacteria does not change that. For them methane has a different function than the water they need to exist.

The second is that scientists make this assumption conditional. They would not say water is the only possible means for life, it is just the most likely by far. Not only because the only life we know is based on it but because of what we know about chemistry in general.

All that is based on the elements we know, and we assume we know all the elements of the universe.
Lets assume for a minute that we DON'T actually know everything.

[Rainfall]

The below numbers give the rough amount of stars in the universe. To even imagine that we are on our own is ludicrous.

Kornreich used a very rough estimate of 10 trillion galaxies in the universe. Multiplying that by the Milky Way's estimated 100 billion stars results in a large number indeed: 100 octillion stars, or 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, or a "1" with 29 zeros after it.May 31, 2014

How Many Stars Are In The Universe?

Big number, but you reach it pretty quickly when you take earth and subtract the conditions that made complex life possible here, you have to add several zeros each time. When we talk 'life' we certainly don't mean lonesome bacteria but a biosphere with millions of large species. Take away the moon of this size, and it's impossible because the planet wobbles all over the place with no stability in the seasons and rapid changes from hot to cold everywhere on the surface. If it's too close, it send's 100 metre tsunamis around that planet every day. Take away the magnetic field, life impossible. Just enough tectonic activity to recycle the surface, too much turns it into hell, too little and all surface becomes one shallow ocean. Considerably more or less water. Subtract planets that don't or very slowly or rapidly rotate, the majority. And, and, and. At least 90% of all stars you can discard to begin with, they're in centres of galaxies or other hostile to life neighbourhoods. Of the remaining 10% discard 90% again, systems of several stars, unstable giants or dim dwarfs. Surrounded by clouds of rocks which bombard the planets with big ones much more often than once every 100 million years. Discard the systems that right now are too young or old for life.

We agree that the rules of physics and chemistry apply anywhere in the universe, safe bet biology joins them. No life without carbon because it forms more compounds than all other elements combined without it, and all complex ones contain it. No life without liquid water, at higher temperatures proteins get fried. No evolution and adaptability to changing conditions without highly complex compounds carrying information. Now we had all sorts of conditions in earth's deep past, and still have them like impossible pressure on the sea floor. Yet all life took the way of carbon and water. The rules produce odd anomalies, land-based plants extract carbon from the air and nitrogen from the soil. The other way round would now be much more effective, but evolution has stuck to the idea since the emergence of cyanobacteria 3 billion years ago.

[Takeovers]

All that is based on the elements we know, and we assume we know all the elements of the universe. Lets assume for a minute that we DON'T actually know everything.

We by no means know everything. But it is a VERY safe assumption that we know all the elements of normal matter that exist in the universe. Except some exotic very heavy particles that may exist for small fractions of a second.

[Takeovers]

We agree that the rules of physics and chemistry apply anywhere in the universe, safe bet biology joins them. No life without carbon because it forms more compounds than all other elements combined without it, and all complex ones contain it. No life without liquid water, at higher temperatures proteins get fried.

Highly hypothetical Si could take the role of carbon. But that would have to be a very high temperature chemistry and that would be lacking the necessary liquid solvent water is for carbon based chemistry. So yes, I agree, I too don't see any non carbon/water based life as remotely likely anywhere.

[BaitongBoy]

Although it's still worth looking for an extra-terrestrial habitat, because this one is getting fucked up by the minute.

There is no other like TeakDoor...So scientists should quit trying to find something similar...

And you're correct...This one is so fcked up it can barely support life, let alone rational argument...

You know who you are...

[harrybarracuda]

Although it's still worth looking for an extra-terrestrial habitat, because this one is getting fucked up by the minute.

There is no other like TeakDoor...So scientists should quit trying to find something similar...

And you're correct...This one is so fcked up it can barely support life, let alone rational argument...

You know who you are...

I said "It's still worth looking" and you read "scientists should quit trying to find something".

Huh?

[BaitongBoy]

^Just a joke about life as we know it on TD, Captain Kirk...

[beazalbob69]

But it is a VERY safe assumption that we know all the elements of normal matter that exist in the universe. Except some exotic very heavy particles that may exist for small fractions of a second.

We know all the elements that are stable and relatively stable on earth with earths gravity. Some of the exotic elements could be common on higher gravity planets plus some we cant even produce on earth.

[Takeovers]

But it is a VERY safe assumption that we know all the elements of normal matter that exist in the universe. Except some exotic very heavy particles that may exist for small fractions of a second.

We know all the elements that are stable and relatively stable on earth with earths gravity. Some of the exotic elements could be common on higher gravity planets plus some we cant even produce on earth.

No, really not. What can exist is configuration of known elements that don't exist on earth. Like metallic hydrogen under extreme pressure on the large gaseous planets. Or like the throughly exotic Bose Einstein condensate which is again a new configuration of known elements. It was theorized to exist long before it was possible to create. We don't know elements just because we have discovered them. We know what exists and can exist because we have thoroughly understood the way they are built from their components. Elements have been proposed with their properties before they were even found. Helium was discovered first as a spectrum in our sun before we found it on earth. It was found, because it was searched for. It was searched for because our understanding of the elements required its existence.

There is that theory of dark matter. We have no real idea what it is. We are not even really sure it exists though it best fits present theories of the Universe. But whatever it is if it exists, it is not conductive to life, that much we know.

[beazalbob69]

But it is a VERY safe assumption that we know all the elements of normal matter that exist in the universe. Except some exotic very heavy particles that may exist for small fractions of a second.

We know all the elements that are stable and relatively stable on earth with earths gravity. Some of the exotic elements could be common on higher gravity planets plus some we cant even produce on earth.

No, really not. What can exist is configuration of known elements that don't exist on earth. Like metallic hydrogen under extreme pressure on the large gaseous planets. Or like the throughly exotic Bose Einstein condensate which is again a new configuration of known elements. It was theorized to exist long before it was possible to create. We don't know elements just because we have discovered them. We know what exists and can exist because we have thoroughly understood the way they are built from their components. Elements have been proposed with their properties before they were even found. Helium was discovered first as a spectrum in our sun before we found it on earth. It was found, because it was searched for. It was searched for because our understanding of the elements required its existence.

There is that theory of dark matter. We have no real idea what it is. We are not even really sure it exists though it best fits present theories of the Universe. But whatever it is if it exists, it is not conductive to life, that much we know.

What about the theorized "island of stability"? Yes I agree with you and I am grasping at straws here.

[Bettyboo]

The first is that it is a very valid assumption that life exists only with water.

I'm not sure that's even true on Earth itself? I know very little in this area, but have read about sulpher (?) based life forms in areas of no light (as in photosynthesis or potential for). On Earth, it's water based but there's certainly a possibility that life can be formed without the 'water'. Here's a link:

Hydrogen sulfide is a poison gas that’s lethal for humans even in very low concentrations. Yet, this compound — two parts hydrogen, one part sulfur — turned out to be the food source for bacteria that drive an entirely new ecosystem. (New to usat least. Some scientists suspect this type of ecosystem might, in fact, be the oldest on our planet.)

For more than a century, biologists have known that bacterial life can exist based on chemosynthesis, but before the 1977 Galapagos Hydrothermal Expedition, no one had imagined an entire ecosystem could be generated from chemosynthetic processes alone. [Extremophiles: World's Weirdest Life]

Chemosynthesis is the biological conversion of carbon molecules and nutrients into organic matter — the stuff of life. Whereas photosynthesis uses energy from sunlight to convert carbon dioxide into that organic matter, giving off oxygen as a byproduct, chemosynthesis uses inorganic molecules (such as hydrogen sulfide) or methane and combines them with an oxygen source (in this case seawater) to create simple sugars.
Earth Life May Have Originated at Deep-Sea Vents

As I've said, I don't know much (virtually anything actually), but this seems like an interesting article/thought/piece of physics.

[Takeovers]

I'm not sure that's even true on Earth itself? I know very little in this area, but have read about sulpher (?) based life forms in areas of no light (as in photosynthesis or potential for). On Earth, it's water based but there's certainly a possibility that life can be formed without the 'water'.
............

As I've said, I don't know much (virtually anything actually), but this seems like an interesting article/thought/piece of physics.

These are carbon based organisms using water as a solvant. They are related to all life on earth. The sulphur is just an alternative energy source. They are an exciting discovery, that's for sure. Before they were found nobody thought there would be this kind of life in the deep ocean.

[Takeovers]

What about the theorized "island of stability"?

I know very little about that. Not even sure that old theory is still valid. But it may well be, I won't rule it out. These would be very heavy far transuranic atoms, not very likely to form their own branch of chemistry, that could lead to another form of life.

[CaptainNemo]

All that is based on the elements we know, and we assume we know all the elements of the universe.
Lets assume for a minute that we DON'T actually know everything.

That will always be true, and all science is based on probabilities, as is the theory of knowledge itself - you have to use the scientific method to prove the scientific method, which is using the argument as a premiss for itself (i.e.: circular reasoning).

Within the realm of reality that we can deal with and all its physics; and with our understanding of systems of logic and reason; we can build pretty sensible models about what elements exist and what they might do - but they are always constrained by the underpinning systems of knowledge that we use to construct them.

e.g.:
Is the universe a hologram?

How could we interact with different systems of what we might try to describe as "life" within other branes of reality?