It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How many planets in Milky Way? At least 50 billion scientists say

page: 1
18

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

How many planets in Milky Way? At least 50 billion scientists say


www.thestar.com

WASHINGTON—Scientists have estimated the first cosmic census of planets in our galaxy and the numbers are astronomical: at least 50 billion planets in the Milky Way.

At least 500 million of those planets are in the not-too-hot, not-too-cold zone where life could exist.

Either way it shows that Carl Sagan was right when he talked of billions and billions of worlds...

Borucki said the new calculations lead to worlds of questions about life elsewhere in the cosmos.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
That is a very interesting study. I know the numbers have been extrapolated and therefore do not necessarily represent the actual number of planets in the habitable zone. However, even if 0.001% of those 500 million planets have a real chance of having some form of life, that still amounts to 5000 planets with life (intelligent or otherwise). That is in our galaxy alone!

With billions and billions of galaxy in the universe (latest estimates being ~300 billion), its hard to say that life, in one form or another, may not exist elsewhere. The universe may very well be teeming with life!

www.thestar.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 19-2-2011 by Ph0en1x because: Spelling



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
I hate that phrase.... "Scientists say". It sounds so official and yet means so little.

50 billion eh? I wonder how long that figure will stand.


Not sure about life out there though, I still wonder about it on our little ball of dirt sometimes. What if we are SO unique that we are "it"?

Just believing in life elsewhere or not being able to comprehend the impossibility seems slightly arrogant to me....how human, and what a great excuse for funding of said "scientists".

Ho hum...round and round we go.

Thanks for posting, and like William Borucki says..."I don't know".



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by nerbot
 


When "scientists" say something may be so, it has more credibility than the average person "saying" something and a higher percent chance of being correct. Even if it is an educated guess, it means more than the average person guessing the same thing; the scientists have access to a lifetime of education and interest in said subject matter, thus, it is only logical that their results will mean more than a kid on a computer using astronomy software. Having said that, you do have to be critical of what they say, as being critical in itself is a fundamental "property" of science, negative or positive criticism helps in the development of a stable theory but that is NOT to say that you should devalue every scientists' claim as you have as being mere # on the sidewalk. Your arrogance is unfounded.
edit on 19-2-2011 by Somehumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by nerbot

Not sure about life out there though, I still wonder about it on our little ball of dirt sometimes. What if we are SO unique that we are "it"?

Just believing in life elsewhere or not being able to comprehend the impossibility seems slightly arrogant to me....how human, and what a great excuse for funding of said "scientists"


That is entirely possible. Given the scale of things, however improbable, it is entirely possible that we might be 'it'.
On the other hand, the opposite is equally possible. Even if it is only some tiny bacteria growing deep underground somewhere, our claim of being the 'it' goes down the drain.


edit on 19-2-2011 by Ph0en1x because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
That's 500 million reasons to replace pathetic rocket technology with advanced anti-gravity and faster-than-light starship technology.


Like a faster-than-light mothership:


and (onboard) anti-gravity, planet-landing, shuttlecraft:



edit on 2/19/2011 by Larryman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Somehumanbeing
 


Maybe I should have explained my point of view better so you understood better.

So often, we hear stories and reports by "scientists". So often we hear and read about the incredible things they discover, invent, make, etc.

Not so often do we get as much information about those who do the science.

The search for life elsewhere could, and will probably go on for a very long time. Meanwhile, billions in funding goes to almost anonymous people for projects that don't actually help us in the here and now.

"Blinded by science" while millions starve and countries are at war and in revolution.

Ever consider if the same could be happening on 10,000 other worlds?



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   
The very article in the OP (imho) is where the status quo changes in regards to our perception on life out there.

It may not be the findings of actual ET life, but this is good enough for me. This is major.

I've been waiting 1 1/2 years to see what Kepler would tell us. I am not unimpressed.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Somehumanbeing
When "scientists" say something may be so, it has more credibility than the average person "saying" something and a higher percent chance of being correct. Even if it is an educated guess, it means more than the average person guessing the same thing;


Ridiculous. If a lay person comes to the same conclusion, his 'guess' is just as good as that 'scientist'. How many times in history have these 'scientists' driven out newcomers because their idea messes up the establishment.

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." _ Arthur C Clarke.

Sometimes scientists can be public enemy #1



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ph0en1x
I know the numbers have been extrapolated and therefore do not necessarily represent the actual number of planets in the habitable zone. However, even if 0.001% of those 500 million planets have a real chance of having some form of life, that still amounts to 5000 planets with life (intelligent or otherwise). That is in our galaxy alone!



An extrasolar planet, or exoplanet, is a planet outside the Solar System. As of February 18, 2011, astronomers confirmed detection of 527 such planets. More than 1235 planet candidates await confirmation investigations, including 54 that may be in the "Habitable Zone."[4][5][6] Six of the candidates in this zone are smaller than twice the size of Earth, including one (KOI 326.01) that is "Earth-size" (at 0.85 Earth radius).


en.wikipedia.org...

Gliese 581 System only 22 light years away



Sending a message to them now... Will get there in just a day over 19 years

www.hellofromearth.net...


Stars within 50 light years... those are the only ones that could have really heard us so far as more than 50 years ago our signals didn't have the power to go that far



www.atlasoftheuniverse.com...



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Thank you for your post and presenting this information


As I said in one of my earlier posts in the thread, it is not necessary that the life on any of known and hypothesized planets be intelligent life. Even if it is bacterial life growing in a remote place on a planet, we can not claim that life exists only on earth.

As for intelligent life, if it exists, we are so far removed from each other that we may never know of each others existence until some 'better' way of travelling or communicating in space is developed. Even if we have been sending out radio signals for past 50 years, it doesn't necessarily mean that any alien civilization can even detect it, let alone understand it.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by nerbot
reply to post by Somehumanbeing
 


Maybe I should have explained my point of view better so you understood better.

So often, we hear stories and reports by "scientists". So often we hear and read about the incredible things they discover, invent, make, etc.

Not so often do we get as much information about those who do the science.

The search for life elsewhere could, and will probably go on for a very long time. Meanwhile, billions in funding goes to almost anonymous people for projects that don't actually help us in the here and now.

"Blinded by science" while millions starve and countries are at war and in revolution.

Ever consider if the same could be happening on 10,000 other worlds?



How is discovering the probability of these types sizes and variety of planets and the chances they exist around stars in our galaxy not helping us?.

It may not bring about physical tangible things that we can use in our present day society to help feed or house someone but this information is greatly important to the human race.

HOW DARE you talk about the mere billions in funding the science community gets when that is just pocket change compared to the trillions we spend on the military industrial complex and many other useless materialistic items our society is addicted too.

For you to try and denounce the wonderful aspect of curiosity that we get to enjoy by finding new aspects of our universe like this example and discovery/theory that expands the way we can relate and see ourselves in the universe.

Just another small corner of the universe that is most likely teeming with life everywhere it can exists. ( And i believe it will exists in many places).





sir.
edit on 20-2-2011 by XRaDiiX because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-2-2011 by XRaDiiX because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
I posted this in the thread that I thought was the first one, I'll post it again though:

You all realize that...

Well, this is hard for me to type because I am piss ridiculous excited

500 million in safe zone. And that's an understatement:


And that’s a minimum because these stars can have more than one planet and Kepler has yet to get a long enough glimpse to see stars that are further out from the star, like Earth, Borucki said. For example, if Kepler were 1,000 light years from Earth and looking at our sun and noticed Venus passing by, there’s only a one-in-eight chance that Earth would also be seen, astronomers said. www.thestar.com...


So lets multiply that number, not by 8, because that's being optimistic, but by 4. That's 2billion planets in the GoldieLocks zone. Let's say 1% of that number actually sustain life: 20 million. And lets say that 1% of those species on those planets are within 10,000 years of approximate technological advancements (both ways): 200,000 planets. To assume that we have beings out of those planets who have learned to bend space time or utilize Heim Theory (en.wikipedia.org...) for travel let's say its another 1%...that's 2,000 planets. But if you want to dwindle that number down...it could be something like a .1% chance making it 200 planets with species holding god-like technology. And assuming only 50% learned not to destroy themselves in war...you have around 100 planets with species capable of traveling the galaxy with relative ease. Which reminds me of this: www.youtube.com...=399 (Yeah, Greer might be an opportunist, lying prick [from my opinion], but lets ignore the man for 15 seconds)

Now, all of that is conjecture, but it makes one wonder. It also fills my heart with hope.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by TheOneElectric
 


It does lead one to speculate with fascination, yes.

But.

But, you're making a false step in probability. We know that there is life on one planet in the universe. We don't know more than that. A sample of one, statistically means nothing. Nothing can be extrapolated about it. It might mean that on every planet capable of supporting life there is life everywhere, it might mean there is life somewhere, or it might mean there is life nowhere. But the sample of one tells us nothing about the chances at all. You need to have found examples more than once to generate statistics.

If we find one other inhabitable planet without life, then we can start to guess that life might be only 50% likely. If we find several, the chances go down.

If we find other inhabitable planets with life, then the chances go up. If all other inhabitable planets we find actually have life then the chances start tending toward 100%.

But.

But, the chance of life existing is not something that is *pre-determined*. It is something that is discovered by observing.

Because we do not know the mechanism for life to start. We have not observed that mechanism. We just have ideas about it.

And that's not even asking the question about *intelligent* life.

So many people look at the number and say, "wow, so many planets, so *some* of them *must* be inhabited by intelligent life".

I could just as well say to them, "wow, so many people who have lived, live, and will live on earth, so *some* of them *must* end up being the same".

We cannot assign probability to this at the moment. Not 1%, not 100% not any percent. It is a non-extrapolable statisttic we currently have. We just have to look. That's why it's important. We're not trying to discover life, or trying to discover intelligent life, just for its own sake (though it would be interesting in itself, just as a new species is on earth). We're trying to work out what the chance is, based on what we find. That is a much more important question for us to know the answer to.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by d60944
 



Originally posted by TheOneElectricNow, all of that is conjecture, but it makes one wonder. It also fills my heart with hope.


con·jec·ture
   /kənˈdʒɛktʃər/ Show Spelled [kuhn-jek-cher] Show IPA noun, verb, -tured, -tur·ing.
–noun
1.
the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
2.
an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.




posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ph0en1x
I know the numbers have been extrapolated and therefore do not necessarily represent the actual number of planets in the habitable zone. However, even if 0.001% of those 500 million planets have a real chance of having some form of life, that still amounts to 5000 planets with life (intelligent or otherwise). That is in our galaxy alone!

This data is bunk. There are far more habitable places. Lets take a look at Saturns moon, Titan - according to this data well outside the habitable zone.


The atmosphere of Titan is largely composed of nitrogen; minor components lead to the formation of methane and ethane clouds and nitrogen-rich organic smog. The climate—including wind and rain—creates surface features similar to those of Earth, such as sand dunes, rivers, lakes and seas (probably of liquid methane or ethane) and shorelines, and, like on Earth, is dominated by seasonal weather patterns. With its liquids (both surface and subsurface) and robust nitrogen atmosphere, Titan is viewed as analogous to the early Earth, although at a much lower temperature. The satellite has thus been cited as a possible host for microbial extraterrestrial life or, at least, as a prebiotic environment rich in complex organic chemistry. Researchers have suggested a possible underground liquid ocean might serve as a biotic environment.[11][12] It has also been suggested that a form of life may exist on the surface, using liquid methane as a medium instead of water; and anomalies in atmospheric composition have been reported which are consistent with the presence of such a life-form, but which could also be due to an exotic non-living chemistry.[13]
en.wikipedia.org...


Jupiter's moon Europa may also be a candidate.


On Earth, liquid water plays this role. Water has some chemical properties that make it particularly favorable as a medium for life, although we probably should not rule out the possibility that other types of liquid, such as organic liquids, might play this role in other types of biology. If liquids truly are necessary for life, then the potential abodes for life in the outer Solar System are quite limited. Europa and Titan both have been proposed to have oceans and are therefore the best possible candidate locations for life in the outer Solar System.
solarsystem.nasa.gov...


So if Saturn and Jupiter, by virtue of their moons, should classed as in the habitable zone then the results of this study are a massive underestimate of the number of habitable planets in the Milky Way to say the least.
edit on 20/2/11 by Pimander because: typo



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
en.wikipedia.org...

Gliese 581 System only 22 light years away

Sending a message to them now... Will get there in just a day over 19 years

Stars within 50 light years... those are the only ones that could have really heard us so far as more than 50 years ago our signals didn't have the power to go that far.

Except there is probably life in the solar system.

The first incorrect assumption made is that all life has almost identical requirements to us. The roots of this idea lie with the fact that we have been 'educated' to think that Earth has the only life. There are probably other life forms out there that don't require water (e.g. methane is a polar molecule when liquid putting Neptune and Uranus in the picture). There are also 'plasma critters' (see New Scientist. There is a fascinating article by Jay Alfred on possible Plasma bases life forms. This part is pertinent here.


Plasma, on the other hand, is associated with high temperatures. Plasma life forms would be much more adapted to environments which would be considered hostile to carbon-based life forms. It is possible that plasma life forms were already present in the gas and materials that formed the Earth 4.6 billion years ago. Carbon-based biomolecular life forms only appeared 1 billion years later. Tsytovich and other scientists (including Lozneanu and Sanduloviciu, discussed below) have proposed that plasma life forms, in fact, spurred development of organic carbon-based life on Earth.
www.unexplained-mysteries.com...


So, if plasma life forms can exist in more extreme conditions then all these calculations about where life can exist are way out. It can exist practically anywhere.

Next we have multiverses and other-dimensions. Lots of UFOs display signs of inter-dimensional behaviour. That multiplies up the possibility of life massively again. If there are multitudes of dimensions interacting with this one then the mind can only boggle at the possibilities.

Conclusion



The universe is teeming with life . Much of it is not as we know it. We are being interacted with and observed by this life an a daily basis.

Most historical and current cultures accept that there is life and intelligence everywhere (even in matter). Why has our culture not recognised it? Firstly, we have been obsessed with an atheistic materialism (a reaction to medieval religion and superstition) which has blinded us to many possibilities (modern physics is changing that). Secondly, we are simply looking in the wrong way. If we stop looking for life exactly like us (not that our galactic cousins aren't aware of us) we would probably see life all around us.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander
Except there is probably life in the solar system.


There is NO probability known for this. There might be, there might not be. We do not know. See my post a few above this one explaining how stats works.

The whole of the rest of what you are saying rests on your assumption that the probability is greater than zero. We do not know that. That's what we're trying to find out.
edit on 21-2-2011 by d60944 because: amend quote



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander
There are probably other life forms out there that don't require water (e.g. methane is a polar molecule when liquid putting Neptune and Uranus in the picture).


CORRECTION: Actually I meant ammonia NOT methane. Methane is non-polar whereas ammonia is polar and is found on Neptune and Uranus in liquid form. (Boy was I tired.)

SIGNIFICANCE: Molecules of water are polar. This is one of the reasons it is special and capable of harbouring the type of life found on Earth.
edit on 21/2/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)

edit on 21/2/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by d60944

Originally posted by Pimander
Except there is probably life in the solar system.


There is NO probability known for this. There might be, there might not be. We do not know. See my post a few above this one explaining how stats works.

The whole of the rest of what you are saying rests on your assumption that the probability is greater than zero. We do not know that. That's what we're trying to find out.


Don't forget, we are certain that the probability of life in the Solar System is greater than zero. How do we know that? Because we are alive.



new topics

top topics



 
18

log in

join