A billion previously unknown stars right here in the Milky Way

Space.com has an interesting article about the possability of a billion stars existing right under our noses, but were unable to see until now.

Astronomers have found that a diffuse X-ray glow in our galaxy is not generated by hot gas but rather it's radiating from old stars that have yet to be counted.

There could be roughly a billion stars we didn't know about in the Milky Way, they said Wednesday.

The discovery, if confirmed, "would have a profound impact on our understanding of the history of our galaxy, from star-formation and supernova rates to stellar evolution," according to a statement released by NASA.

Of course my firt thought goes strait to the possability of life existing on these stars' surrounding planets. Who knows?

It's amazing how little we really know - even about our own galaxy. Makes you wonder if knowledge is really infinite - there's always something new to be discovered.

What's even more interesting about this, is the potential of life existing in our own galaxy. It seems the odds have just increased further

Exactly!

I don't know whether everyone here is familiar with the Drake Equation, but this discovery skews the R* factor (just like the recent discovery of a multiplicity of extrasolar planets have skewed the f-sub-p factor) even further towards the statistical probability of other intelligent life in our galaxy.

Life in the universe?
Have a look at this article. It's mind boggling!

www.ufoindia.org...

I've made mention of the drake equation before and was told that it isn't a reliable way of figuring out the chance of ET life in our galaxy. The point was made that one could insert any number they wished and have a different value for N. That makes sense for the Nsube, Fsubl, Fsubi, Fsubc, and L values. But the value of Fsubp and R values seem to be values that we can know, get closer to knowing, or at least see when estimated values are increased by discoveries like this.

Here's an article that'll skew that equation more:

The Growing Habitable Zone: Locations for Life Abound

In a galaxy filled with billions of stars, scientists searching for alien life need some way to pick out those which are most likely to harbor habitable planets and moons. For more than 150 years, an important tool in this screening process has been the concept of a "circumstellar habitable zone."

Traditionally, this zone has been defined as a narrow disk around a star where temperatures are moderate enough that water on the surface of a planet can exist in a liquid form. The idea is that where liquid water exists, life might arise.

Beginning in the latter half of the 20th century, new information began to emerge that challenged the traditional view. Scientists on Earth began finding rugged organisms thriving in harsh conditions that were off-limits to most other creatures. Meanwhile, images beamed back by robotic probes in space revealed that other moons within our solar system were much more interesting geologically—and perhaps biologically—than our own.

However, beginning a decade ago, planets discovered around other stars began to reveal a diversity of planetary systems that was beyond expectations.

We used to think life could only exist in a thin zone, where the conditions were not too harsh, be it too cold or too hot. The 'Goldilocks Zone' it was called.

But then we've discovered these microbes called extremophilles that thrive where others can't , in the frozen wastes of the polar regions to the radioactive pools of hot water around the planet. Looks like the 'Goldilocks Zone' for life has expanded.

look up at the night sky with a good pair of night vision goggles. There is just little or no space in the sky between stars. If you look at that and then realize thats the visible layer and it will on into infinity with stars throught the universe, you get the picture.

How much of that though is just noise in the light amps?

However that is an interesting experiment. I'll have to try that some time I'm in an area free of light pollution.

It seemed very idiotic and ironic to me how so much is dedicated to space exploration and the search of knowledge of outter space, when so little is known about the depths of our oceans, lands, undiscovered species of animals, the nature's secrets etc.

Why thrive to learn about the outside when we don't even know everything about our own backyard??

EUF, one reason I can't think of why so much resources are dedicated to space exploration is because the infrastructure for such exploration is already quite established, so it's just a matter of building up on that infrastructure.

On the other hand, to explore the depths of the ocean, one must create a whole new infrastructure. Not to mention it's only within the past couple of decades that the technology to do serious exploration of the oceans became available.

Astronomy has existed for many millenia, and we humans have always sought to reach for the stars.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Of course my firt thought goes strait to the possability of life existing on these stars' surrounding planets. Who knows?

My first thoughts went to the idea that the laws of science (laws, rules, etc) operate differently in different parts of the universe.

This is one of the older questions in science, is the behaviour of nature here in our local environement, likesay this quarter of the galaxy, the same throughout the galaxy and universe? And one of the ways that we feel we can say 'yes' to this question is to look at the rest of the universe and see that, if things operated differently, then we would have a difficult time explaining what we observe in the rest of the universe. But, something like this, seems to say, yes, we do have a difficult time understanding some basic things about the universe, black matter, dark energy, repulsive gravity, even regular radiation now, is 'misunderstood'.
So does this mean that the phyiscal 'laws' do infact operate differently in different parts of the universe, or that our basic understanding of science itself is flawed and incorrect, or that merely this is one area that we have happily discovered something 'new', happy even though it leads to confusion.

I doubt, for the record, that things operate fundamentally differently in different parts of the universe, but still, thats what this made me think of.

the previously linked article regarding technology levels fails to take into account the distance and time it will take information to travel. if we could only contact life forms that existed within 100 years of our technology, we could really only ever communicate with civilizations that were 50 light years or less from us. the chances of one of those stars supporting any kid of life is slim, intelligent life is slimmer, and intelligent life on par with our technology even slimmer.

basically, we ain't finding shiite...any radio receptions we do recieve would be on the magnitude of hundreds of years old, and the civilization that sent us that transmisison could very well be dead by the time we receive it.

Originally posted by apc
How much of that though is just noise in the light amps?

However that is an interesting experiment. I'll have to try that some time I'm in an area free of light pollution.

I was using millitary twin scope equipment on the US Mexican border. It truly is amazing!!!

On a side note: I find that the amount of water here on Earth and the amount of other dominant gasses on any given planet seems predetermined in my mind. Say methane on one planet and helium on another compared to Earth with a majority of H2O.

[edit on 27-2-2006 by IntelRetard]

Originally posted by EarthUnificationFrontier
It seemed very idiotic and ironic to me how so much is dedicated to space exploration and the search of knowledge of outter space, when so little is known about the depths of our oceans, lands, undiscovered species of animals, the nature's secrets etc.

So you propose that Astrophysists, Astronomers and Cosmologists give up their lifes work and re-specialize?

Why thrive to learn about the outside when we don't even know everything about our own backyard??

You think we have been static in that area?

Penny for Penny, I'm willing to bet you that the Earth sciences recieve more funding then the Space sciences.

Also if it weren't for the Space Sciences then we wouldn't have Ocean Observing Satellites either.