NASA basically announced there's no doubt life exist on other planets Kepler 452-b

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Klassified

This is like finding a needle in a haystack.
There's NOTHING prohibiting life from forming on a planet that can retain it's water in the habitable zone for 6 billion years.

Again, they even said it's planets like ours that our "common."
This is the way solar systems form and the same way it has produced stars, planets and moons it produces life.

using deductive reasoning...look at the graphic supplied by "elevenaugust"
the kepler 452-b object is in a system with no known gas giants, or apparently no other smaller rocky planets...is occupies the 'goldilocks zone' for liquid water...

I suspect that solar system has a Oort cloud & a Kuiper belt of Trillions of icy bodies that have apparently been drawn to crash into the single planet as icy comets over the billions of years - thus keeping the presence of water a very fundamental principal of 452-b eco system...

it is very possible that only water-world life exists there... and by the continual bombardment of those trillions of comets of a typical solar system cloud of comets/asteroids/frozen icy chunks of material have undoubtedly caused hundreds of extinction-level-events over the last 6 billion years

originally posted by: jonblade
I think the OP started a great thread.

Whilst there has been a lot of discussion and arguing of who is right and who is wrong, I think the simple facts make a lot of sense.

Yes, there is nothing concrete to say life exists here. However, for I think the first time ever, Nasa has been compelled to come out with a news conference to say this planet we have discovered is very special indeed. Just the fact that Nasa have mentioned such words and statements like "Another Earth", "This is the first step to find out the answer to see if we're alone" and "The closest twin to Earth so far" along with facts like it being in the Goldilocks zone, is rocky and could have water, plus a 385 day year cycle, suggests to me that they believe this to be a discovery of huge importance. And lets face it, when have they ever actually said key words like this before in public? I can't recall, if ever.

Regardless of what the conspiracy theorists say, the people at Nasa are amongst the cleverest in the world. And they are telling us this information. That speaks volumes to me.

Great points!

I think people just don't understand how Science works.

Science always reaches conclusions based on the available evidence. With this latest discovery of a planet that's been in it's habitable zone for around 6 billions years around a G2 star like the sun is just another piece of evidence that's just HUGE.

For instance, many Scientist came to the conclusion the Higgs exist before the LHC was even built.

Today many Scientist accept a multiverse and none of them have observed another universe.

Many Scientist have come to the conclusion Hawking radiation exists ad it hasn't been observed yet.

With life on other planets we have observed overwhelming evidence that life exists on other planets.

This is why Stephen Hawking came to the conclusion that Aliens almost CERTAINLY EXIST.

Dr. Michio Kaku said this:

“Some scientists say that perhaps we are the only life forms in the universe. Give me a break! I mean, how many stars are there out there in the universe, anyway? The Hubble Space Telescope can see about a hundred billion galaxies — that’s the visible universe,” Kaku says on the alien TV special.

“Each galaxy consists of a hundred billion stars. Do the math. A hundred billion times a hundred billion is 10 sextillion. That’s one with 22 zeros after it. There definitely are aliens in outer space — they’re out there!”

There was a recent article from Cambridge Biologist Simon Conway Morris about Alien life.

Aliens exist and they look like us says Cambridge Researcher.

In his new book called “The Runes of Evolution”, Professor Morris has discussed the “Theory of convergence”. This theory suggests that the process of evolution was not random and chaotic, instead it might have followed certain set of rigid laws; indirectly indicating that aliens might be existing on some other planet and might be even resembling humans.

“I would argue that in any habitable zone that doesn’t boil or freeze, intelligent life is going to emerge, because intelligence is convergent,” says Professor Morris.

Professor Morris further added: “Evolution is far from a random process. If the outcomes of evolution are at least broadly predictable, then what applies on Earth will apply across the Milky Way, and beyond. One can say with reasonable confidence that the likelihood of something analogous to a human evolving is really pretty high.”

He added: “And given the number of potential planets that we now have good reason to think exist, even if the dice only come up the right way every one in 100 throws, that still leads to a very large number of intelligences scattered around, that are likely to be similar to us.”

www.techworm.net...

This was before the GROUNDBREAKING DISCOVERY just announced by NASA.

The point about rolling the dice is exactly what I have been saying about Poker and a deck of cards. Out of 52 cards(microstates) there's 2,598,960 configurations(macrostates) that the poker hands can be in.

The constants of nature tells us that outcomes in our universe are not random. Events are random but not outcomes those events can be in.

So you can get dealt random cards in a game of poker but the outcomes that you can get are predetermined and limited to the 2,598,960 configurations. Just like dice. You can randomly roll a 2-12 with a pair of dice but the outcomes(2-12) are predetermined by the person who created the dice.

So we see planets forming, solar systems, moons, stars, comets over and over again in our universe and it can't happen any other way because of the constants of nature which gives us our laws of physics for our Hubble Volume.

So life exists on other planets unless there's some special ingredient on earth that can't be duplicated anywhere else in the universe.

a reply to: neoholographic

So, lemme get this straight....You bash early mathematical models predicting the Higgs, multiverse theories, and Hawking radiation because of a lack of direct observation, then in the very next sentence you say some nonsense about "overwhelming evidence" of life on other planets...

Do you not realize how ridiculously biased and hypocritical that is? I've got news for you: Likely though it may be, we currently have zero evidence of life existing on other planets. If anyone here doesn't understand science, it would be you.

Life most probably exists throughout the milky way Galaxy. Primitive microbial life. More complex forms are probably much rarer. Compound that with the distances involved and it's not likely we will find intelligent life in the Galaxy unless we happen upon some bi product of their technology, ie radio waves etc. we have Been using radio for a century and we are already starting to phase it out. So there may be a detection window for radio. More likely it will be some kind of emission related to tech, like radar or something we detect. Or they detect us first and send a probe here. Or they are here already

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Wrong again and you need to take time and reread the post.

Nobody bashed anything and the fact that you don't understand that explains a lot. Again, you have to get past your belief and try to understand science.

To say there's zero evidence of life on other planets is just silly.

There's EVIDENCE that led Stephen Hawking to say Aliens almost certainly exist.

There's evidence that led Dr. Kaku to say this:

“Some scientists say that perhaps we are the only life forms in the universe. Give me a break! I mean, how many stars are there out there in the universe, anyway? The Hubble Space Telescope can see about a hundred billion galaxies — that’s the visible universe,” Kaku says on the alien TV special.

“Each galaxy consists of a hundred billion stars. Do the math. A hundred billion times a hundred billion is 10 sextillion. That’s one with 22 zeros after it. There definitely are aliens in outer space — they’re out there!”

When a person can't even accept that there's evidence they're really blinded by their belief. You can say there's evidence but it's not enough to convince me that life exists on other planets.

When you say there's ZERO evidence then that just disqualifies you from the debate.

News flash, we are not special in any way. RIP Religion.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

I'm surprised this post hasn't been moved
to the hoax bin.

Good grief.

Kev

Double post.
See post below.

originally posted by: neoholographic
...When a person can't even accept that there's evidence they're really blinded by their belief. You can say there's evidence but it's not enough to convince me that life exists on other planets.

When you say there's ZERO evidence then that just disqualifies you from the debate.

I don't want to put word in the mouth of 'admirethedistance', but from what I know of him (from this board), he has seemed open minded enough, and understands the scope of the universe enough, to accept that life elsewhere probably exists. I don't know to what degree he feels this, but considering that in the post to which you replied, he said life elsewhere is "Likely", I'd say that means he thinks life elsewhere is -- well -- "likely". So I'm not sure where you are getting that he personally doesn't accept that life most likely exists elsewhere. His post makes me think he does.

However, his point still stands, although I want to re-word it to clarify how I feel about it. We currently have zero proof of life elsewhere. 'admirethedistance' wrote "zero evidence", but I think we could say that we do have evidence -- albeit that evidence is only circumstantial.

Granted, considering the evidence for life elsewhere is purely circumstantial, I can see how someone might say that while life elsewhere may be likely, we have Zero hard evidence -- just circumstantial evidence.

While circumstantial evidence might be enough to win in court, or enough for a person to personally feel that life most likely exists, it is NOT enough for science to state that life exists. Harder evidence is needed for that.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Wrong again and you need to take time and reread the post.

Nobody bashed anything and the fact that you don't understand that explains a lot. Again, you have to get past your belief and try to understand science.

To say there's zero evidence of life on other planets is just silly.

There's EVIDENCE that led Stephen Hawking to say Aliens almost certainly exist.

There's evidence that led Dr. Kaku to say this:

“Some scientists say that perhaps we are the only life forms in the universe. Give me a break! I mean, how many stars are there out there in the universe, anyway? The Hubble Space Telescope can see about a hundred billion galaxies — that’s the visible universe,” Kaku says on the alien TV special.

“Each galaxy consists of a hundred billion stars. Do the math. A hundred billion times a hundred billion is 10 sextillion. That’s one with 22 zeros after it. There definitely are aliens in outer space — they’re out there!”

When a person can't even accept that there's evidence they're really blinded by their belief. You can say there's evidence but it's not enough to convince me that life exists on other planets.

When you say there's ZERO evidence then that just disqualifies you from the debate.

"Evidence" and "Almost certainly" are not interchangeable terms. There is NO evidence, only probability. The probability of 'life' in its simplest forms are highly probable, but as life gets more complicated the probability decreases substantially. Life in no way guarantees intelligent life.

In very simple terms, this star is now preparing for retirement (where our sun is in its mid-career). G2 stars have a typical lifespan of around 10 billion years, so at 60% of that lifespan it is starting to get hotter and will therefore evaoprate all its water and extinguish any life present. This extraordinary finding is not that we are about to find life (although we may find evidence of it), but we are about to find out what happens to a star like ours and to a planet like ours in the future. That is the story. You're reading way too much information from this with some enormous assumptions.

there could be carbon orientated life on that planet ..but its very old 1,5 billions years older than earth...
point oure radiotelescoops on the planet would I say...there might be nothing !
humans exist for 2 million years think how humans will look after 1.5 billions years IF we would survive it..
Dino's ruled only halfway that time with no further intelligence.....

regard that the planet has est. 5 times earth mass...that would result in an far bigger gravity...and will be effecting life forms !
but nevertheless an good find

Evidence is simple.
All the evidence one should need is right here on Earth and all the lifeforms.
We are proof of intelligent life in the Universe.
So, if we were to examine life on this planet we would see that life has guaranteed intelligence as in our proven sample intelligence evolved here on this planet in the habitable zone of a G2 star.

So they look at a star.
and if they see a tiny fliker.
they can tell it has a planet with water air life trees and all kinds of things.
all this and its 1400 light years away!!!!!!

originally posted by: buddha
So they look at a star.
and if they see a tiny fliker.
they can tell it has a planet with water air life trees and all kinds of things.
all this and its 1400 light years away!!!!!!

Not exactly. Some things can be inferred through spectroscopy, but not what you're talking about....

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

You're just flat out WRONG.

You said:

However, his point still stands, although I want to re-word it to clarify how I feel about it. We currently have zero proof of life elsewhere. 'admirethedistance' wrote "zero evidence", but I think we could say that we do have evidence -- albeit that evidence is only circumstantial.

Yes, we have proof that life is elsewhere and if we didn't there's no way Stephen Hawking can make the statement that Aliens Almost CERTAINLY exist.

If there was ZERO PROOF of this then that statement would be like saying that pink unicorns almost certainly live on Europa.

If there was ZERO PROOF then Dr. Kaku couldn't say this:

“Some scientists say that perhaps we are the only life forms in the universe. Give me a break! I mean, how many stars are there out there in the universe, anyway? The Hubble Space Telescope can see about a hundred billion galaxies — that’s the visible universe,” Kaku says on the alien TV special.

“Each galaxy consists of a hundred billion stars. Do the math. A hundred billion times a hundred billion is 10 sextillion. That’s one with 22 zeros after it. There definitely are aliens in outer space — they’re out there!”

So when people throw around terms like ZERO PROOF or ZERO EVIDENCE it's just silly. In these debates some people are so insecure about there own personal beliefs that the people there debating against have ZERO PROOF or ZERO EVIDENCE and I guess this makes them feel better about their blind belief. It doesn't change the truth though.

Someone that truly has an open mind can accept this.

You can say there's proof out there beyond a reasonable doubt based on the available evidence or you can says there's proof that life can exist on other planets but there's not enough evidence to say this definitively.

That's a common sense debate. Saying things like ZERO PROOF and ZERO EVIDENCE is not a common sense debate about these issues it's just away to try and give your PERSONAL BELIEF on these matters more weight.

This occurs all the time in Science as I pointed out with things like the Higgs, multiverse, Hawking Radiation and Inflation.

Scientist look at the available evidence and then they ask is there a better theory to explain the available evidence. When dealing in these areas people often look for EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE which isn't scientific at all. I just look at the evidence and if the evidence points to life on other planets then I can accept it without the need for terms like ZERO PROOF or ZERO EVIDENCE.

To me, life on other planets exist beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT.

I haven't seen any evidence that says that life is a random event or earth has some special ingredient that can't be duplicated anywhere else in the universe.

It goes back to the constants of nature and the configurations matter can be in. Our universe has no choice but to produce planets, stars, solar systems and LIFE in our Hubble Volume.

So...to recap what this thread is about is:

1. OP heard what they wanted to hear in regards to life on other planets. The comment's that he said was made by NASA, was not at all made by NASA, he just inferred it with his own will.
2. OP believes that all life form must develop advanced intelligence because humans exist on Earth.
3. OP believes that finding a planet in the habitable zone of a solar system is finding a needle in a haystack.
4. OP believes this is big news.

So...I have little knowledge when it comes to astronomy. I won't lie. But I paid attention in tenth grade and even third grade when watching the space shuttle launches. So...let's deconstruct.

First off, NASA didn't "basically" say anything. Their announcement was about the planet, and the calculated and estimated factors about said planet. I think that's pretty well been established here. Nothing was really mentioned about life because, in case you haven't figured it out yet - there is no evidence/proof of life on other planets - however probable it might be.

Second...to assume that all life has to have intellect on the scale of technological advancement is just plain foolish. There's evidence of that not being true right here on our own planet. I don't understand why some people have such difficulty understanding that fact, unless they themselves are proof that life lacks astute intellect. (That was a joke by the way, don't get all bent out of shape over it.)

As for this being "finding a needle in a haystack" - what about all the other Exo-Earth's that we have found since '07? You act as if this is the first time we've found another planet like this. It's not. It's not even the first one we've found in the sweet spot known as the Goldilocks or Habitable Zone. There are astronomers that literally only do this kind of work. It's interesting, but it's not ground breaking, earth shattering (no pun intended), or compelling news.

What strikes me about this thread is, the OP seems to insist that life must exist there, but we can't even prove without a reasonable doubt that there is or was life on Mars right now. That's in our own solar system. We have experimental machines rolling around on it right now, and we still haven't found anything. So to make a leap and bound assumption that life exists on a planet 1,400 LYA based off what little we know about it - let alone our own solar system is just ridiculous.

You like to reach and contradict yourself a lot...

originally posted by: neoholographic
Yes, we have proof that life is elsewhere and if we didn't there's no way Stephen Hawking can make the statement that Aliens Almost CERTAINLY exist.

You know, because Stephen Hawking isn't allowed to have his own personal opinion about something, he has a gun to his head...everything he said is factoid, he also had undeniable proof.

If there was ZERO PROOF of this then that statement would be like saying that pink unicorns almost certainly live on Europa.

But Pink Unicorns almost certainly live on Europa. And I almost certainly am the walrus.

If there was ZERO PROOF then Dr. Kaku couldn't say this...

Why couldn't he? He said live should exist, but he didn't say he has the evidence or proof it does. He doesn't say it's been observed. Just like Stephen Hawking, that's his belief.

So when people throw around terms like ZERO PROOF or ZERO EVIDENCE it's just silly. In these debates some people are so insecure about there own personal beliefs that the people there debating against have ZERO PROOF or ZERO EVIDENCE and I guess this makes them feel better about their blind belief. It doesn't change the truth though.

Except that's exactly what you're doing right now. Trying to justify your own blind belief. To have blind belief is to believe in something without having any facts to support that your belief is truth, and that is exactly what your postulation of NASA saying there IS life out there is. Let alone the fact you're saying that they said it's on this new planet.

Someone that truly has an open mind can accept this.

There's a difference between being open minded and being just flat out presumptuous and - to use your own word - BASICALLY a liar.

You can say there's proof out there beyond a reasonable doubt based on the available evidence or you can says there's proof that life can exist on other planets but there's not enough evidence to say this definitively.

The latter is what has been said, but you cling to the former. That's a you problem, not a people problem.

Scientist look at the available evidence and then they ask is there a better theory to explain the available evidence. When dealing in these areas people often look for EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE which isn't scientific at all.

To make a statement that "life for sure exists on this planet", yes scientists DO require EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE, because that's a big statement to make. While it's common place that life does exist, that doesn't make it fact. It used to be common place that the Earth was flat, and that it was the center of the universe. We all know how that changed.

I just look at the evidence and if the evidence points to life on other planets then I can accept it without the need for terms like ZERO PROOF or ZERO EVIDENCE.

And what evidence do you have that none of us are seeing? We've all looked at the same links and same resources, yet for some reason you're finding some proof and evidence somewhere else.

To me, life on other planets exist beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT.

That is your own (in your own words) blind belief.

I haven't seen any evidence that says that life is a random event or earth has some special ingredient that can't be duplicated anywhere else in the universe.

Yet the evidence that intelligent life may be unique can be found at your local museum in the form of dinosaur fossils.

Please...

originally posted by: buddha
So they look at a star.
and if they see a tiny fliker.
they can tell it has a planet with water air life trees and all kinds of things.
all this and its 1400 light years away!!!!!!

What they do is analyze the light from the parent star as it shines through the atmosphere of the planet (albeit we are just talking about little specs of planets that in most cases cant even be seen -- it's the way they read the sensitive instruments that lets them analyze the light shining through the atmospheres).

They analyze the spectrum from this light to try to determine what elements exist in the atmosphere of a planet. In a few years (some astronomers estimate within the next couple of decades), telescopes and sensing equipment may be sensitive enough to be able to analyze these atmosphere much more precisely.

Most scientists feel that with this equipment they will be able to find signs of life processes of life as we know it. One of those signs of "life as we know it" in an atmosphere would be an abundance of free oxygen. We don't know of any other way that a lot of free oxygen can occur in an atmosphere except being due to life.

So free oxygen probably = life, and today's astrobiologists think that we will find this sign of life on a far-away exoplanet relatively soon.

a reply to: neoholographic

Are you trolling, or are you really just extraordinarily dense? Nobody (except for you) has even mentioned any silly idea that "Earth has some special ingredient that can't be duplicated anywhere else in the universe." Nobody.

I realize that that's your go-to argument that you use to convince yourself that you're better and smarter than others, but when you continue to repeat the same defensive crap in every post, when nobody is arguing that point, you end up looking like a damned fool.

I don't believe anybody here (except for the occasional religious fundamentalist) disagrees with the idea that life most likely exists beyond our planet. The folks at NASA certainly don't take such a stance, otherwise there wouldn't be missions like Kepler in the first place.

Let me say it one more time, so maybe it sinks in: Nobody is arguing that Earth is special or unique, or is the only inhabited planet in the universe. N-O-B-O-D-Y.

Hopefully you understood it this time. Now, moving on...Despite the fact that everybody here agrees that life almost certainly exists elsewhere in the universe, those who have a science education beyond 3rd grade understand that regardless of consensus, popular opinion, and probability, we cannot say with any certainty that there is life out there until we actually find it. Thus far, we have not found it, so our sample size is still one, and no definitive conclusions can be made. Anyone who says otherwise *ahem* is a liar and/or a fool.

I know that science isn't one of your strong points (you've made that abundantly clear), but this really isn't that hard to grasp...We have absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any life beyond Earth at this point. Now remember, that doesn't mean that anybody is claiming that there isn't any life anywhere out there, it just means that we don't have any evidence that there is, and every time you get on your little soapbox and insist otherwise, you make yourself look that much more childish and ignorant.

a reply to: Shugo

First you said:

You know, because Stephen Hawking isn't allowed to have his own personal opinion about something, he has a gun to his head...everything he said is factoid, he also had undeniable proof.

Hawking came to this conclusion based on the available evidence. He even did an entire special on the Discovery Channel explaining the evidence that led him to this conclusion.

Your entire post is basically bloviating about your opinion. You haven't presented a shred of evidence about anything. You said:

As for this being "finding a needle in a haystack" - what about all the other Exo-Earth's that we have found since '07? You act as if this is the first time we've found another planet like this. It's not.

Again, this shows you have no understanding as to what you're talking about. The reason NASA had a press conference for this discovery because it wasn't like any exoplanet that was discovered before it.

Show me the discovery of:

EARTH SIZE PLANET
AROUND G2 STAR LIKE THE SUN
IN THE HABITABLE ZONE FOR AROUND 6 BILLION YEARS
385 DAY ORBIT AROUND STAR

It's ASININE to try and act like this is nothing and this news is just something we heard before.

It's like finding a needle in a Haystack because this early in the process we have found a planet like this that fits our limited view of life. Just imagine if that view changes to something like Panspermia.

So again, it has nothing to do with leaps. Your hyperbole means nothing.

Hawking didn't say Aliens Almost Certainly exist out of the blue. He said it based on the EVIDENCE.

Dr. Kaku said this based on the EVIDENCE.

“Some scientists say that perhaps we are the only life forms in the universe. Give me a break! I mean, how many stars are there out there in the universe, anyway? The Hubble Space Telescope can see about a hundred billion galaxies — that’s the visible universe,” Kaku says on the alien TV special.

“Each galaxy consists of a hundred billion stars. Do the math. A hundred billion times a hundred billion is 10 sextillion. That’s one with 22 zeros after it. There definitely are aliens in outer space — they’re out there!”

The fact that you and others can't accept that people are reaching these conclusions based on EVIDENCE shows how insecure you are about your BLIND PERSONAL BELIEF.