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.

 

There are 500 million planets in OUR OWN GALAXY capable of producing life

page: 8
71
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


You know life can exists In ocean too. have we searched the entire fossil record of earth there too? You can't deny the fact that that we have no idea whether some advanced life form like us existed at one time when the layers of earth over billions of years of sea/ocean life is buried miles deep under the surface let's not jump to conclusions remember deny ignorance noone can say for sure. Also remember objects have hit the earth many times some even the size of mars the fossil record in many areas or all would have been wiped away severely from such impacts even under the surface. Look at the planets in our solarsystem all the impacts that's what earth would look like if it wasn't for he weathering erosion etc.
edit on 23-2-2011 by XRaDiiX because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-2-2011 by XRaDiiX because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-2-2011 by XRaDiiX because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by XRaDiiX
 

Hi, yes your right the chance of detection decreases for planets further out and theres alot of confusion about those probabilities we just have to wait. I've read numbers ranging from 0.5% down to 0.0008% , let's hope its 0.5

The area kepler is looking at is pretty typical 80% m stars but there's over 6million stars in the fov they just choose the best 150,000 to monitor ( g type) , on the old kepler website it actually said 100,000 with 3000 being m stars. I read theyre monitoring 150k so maybe more m stars were included, im not sure. But still g type are what they're really after.



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


In my opinion they should be monitoring just as much M ( red dwarfs white dwarfs) as G Types( similar to our sun yellow orange stars) Because M stars make up 80% of the galaxies stars so it would be a wise idea to get a better Data sample then just 3000 M stars because the chance each system with planets will be detected by kepler is only 0.6% chance the elliptical plane will be aligned from our viewpoint !.

Just what i feel they should be doing since i strongly believe M stars will have just as many habitable planets as G types. Its just that the habitable zone is closer in to the star since M stars are usually cooler than G types
. So in essence we should be looking there as well! it just as important even more so since its 80% of the stars!
edit on 25-2-2011 by XRaDiiX because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by XRaDiiX
 


M stars are problematic for habitable planets. Tidal locking means 1 side of the planet will always face the star which means 1 side could just fry while the other side freezes. Tidal forces from the star at the HZ distance are big potentially causing internal & surface disruption again bad for complex life. M stars vary more than G type sometimes lowering their output to 40% of maximum. This causes a problem for detecting transits as small as earth as the variability mimics planet transits generating more false positives. They likely choose the least variable M stars to study. And then theres the big solar flares. From what we know about complex life stable conditions are best but M stars dont offer that.

On the other hand we know for a fact G type stars can produce habitable planets with complex life & intelligent beings. After all we are here. I'd prefer they search more G or early K type than M stars lucky for me thats what they're doing :p


edit on 25-2-2011 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


Never give up hope on the 80% of the stars in the galaxy. Isn't the habitable Zone of M types around Venus and in-between mercury most often? Then there would most likely be no tidal-locking. And what about gas giants in the habitable zone of M types their moons couldn't possibly be tidal locked in the habitable zone eh?



posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by XRaDiiX
 


Hz for most m stars is 30 days or even less, mercury orbit is 80 days. Moons around gas giants is a nice idea but they cant produce moons big enough to be earth size. They might be able to capture an earth size planet not sure tho.
edit on 26-2-2011 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


How do you know they can't capture moons that Earth size your statement is clearly wrong. You know they're are super gas giants much larger than jupiter orbiting these stars right? I'm sure these larger gas giants can capture and have Earth size moons or larger. Your assumption is based on No evidence i'd watch what you say about gas giants not being able to have moons the size of earth or larger because you have no evidence to prove it wrong or right.
edit on 27-2-2011 by XRaDiiX because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by XRaDiiX
 



How do you know they can't capture moons that Earth size your statement is clearly wrong.

i said i didnt know.


You know they're are super gas giants much larger than jupiter orbiting these stars right?


how many? i think weve found only 2 around M stars that are bigger than jupiter. Planets tend to scale with star size. Even then at twice the mass of jupiter thats still not enough to produce earth-size moons.

The HZ is also around 8 time narrower around M stars than around G or K type. Giving less chance for a planet to fall into that area.

sure we can still check them out and see whats there, but to say kepler should study as many M stars as G or K is a crazy waste of the telescope.
edit on 27-2-2011 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
great thread

i believe that there is life in the universe, there has to be with so many stars and galaxies how could a person say that we are just a fluke and are alone

scientists find evidence of life on earth in some of the worst places that life can thrive think about how life in deep ocean trences flourishes with no sun light at all

instead of looking out into the cosmos for life people should start with our own solar neighborhood first and go from there, everyone says that mars could have once harbored life who says it still doesnt or even that some of the moons of jupitor and saturn dont harbor life



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101


Moons around gas giants is a nice idea but they cant produce moons big enough to be earth size. They might be able to capture an earth size planet not sure tho.
edit on 26-2-2011 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)


You just said in your latest post you did not know but here you are stating I quote " Moons around gas giants is a nice idea but they can't produce moons big enough to be earth size."

Now let me get this right you said this and deny that you said it?
Clearly you're stating something you cannot know because we have yet to detect enough moons around exo-planets to assume this as a fact. Most likely because our level of technology is not advanced enough to detect the moons of almost every exo-planet we find yet. Although maybe a few moons may be detected through some of the techniques.
edit on 27-2-2011 by XRaDiiX because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by XRaDiiX
 


moons around gas giants are made from material attracted by the planet during formation. Theyre not big enough to make earth size moons. thats what i mean by "produce". There was a science paper on this subject in the late 1990s which concluded they cant make earth-size moons.

Capture would be when a planet is made elswhere in the system by the star then captured by the gas giant. I dont know if this is posssible or if the planet would be too big for capture.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


en.wikipedia.org...

i dont know how much of a source this is but according to this

Ganymede
Titan
Callisto
Io

are all bigger then the earths moon and these are all moons of a gas giant plaent



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by caf1550
 

Have I missed something? Why does Earth sized make any difference in terms of harbouring life?



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by caf1550
 


but theyre not as big as earth and thats what we're talking about.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 


read the previous wrong my bad



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by XRaDiiX
 


moons around gas giants are made from material attracted by the planet during formation. Theyre not big enough to make earth size moons. thats what i mean by "produce". There was a science paper on this subject in the late 1990s which concluded they cant make earth-size moons.

Capture would be when a planet is made elswhere in the system by the star then captured by the gas giant. I dont know if this is posssible or if the planet would be too big for capture.





Until i see the confirmed Data of actual observations of moons around exo-Gas Giants even exo-Neptune Sized planets around various stars i still believe it is still possible for them to have an earth sized moon or larger.
Your statement about a study has no validity whatsoever especially because we have not made any direct observations of gas giants moons yet around other stars than or own.

I've seen way too many "studies" and so called "Simulations of planet formation"
be proven wrong every time so i believe you are very ignorant in stating a fact you do not know yet



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander
reply to post by caf1550
 

Have I missed something? Why does Earth sized make any difference in terms of harbouring life?



I would like to guess that many of these moons if most of them turn out to be smaller than Earth even in the habitable zone do harbour life. Why wouldn't they be able to
even one of jupiters moons has a magnetosphere right?



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by XRaDiiX
 



Why wouldn't they be able to


too small to hold on to an atmosphere like earths.



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
just because they dont have an atmosphere doesnt mean they cant harbor life

leading scientists believe that under the think ice of Jupiters moon Europa there is a ocean that could be teaming with life

en.wikipedia.org...(moon)#Potential_for_extraterrestrial_life



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by XRaDiiX

Originally posted by Pimander
reply to post by caf1550
 

Have I missed something? Why does Earth sized make any difference in terms of harbouring life?



I would like to guess that many of these moons if most of them turn out to be smaller than Earth even in the habitable zone do harbour life. Why wouldn't they be able to
even one of jupiters moons has a magnetosphere right?

Some gas giant moons have water too



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join