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.

 

Starless Planets May Be Habitable After All

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

LIQUID water may survive on free-floating planets that have no star to warm them. If they also support life, they could act as stepping stones to spread life around the galaxy...

...Dorian Abbot and Eric Switzer of the University of Chicago calculate that rocky planets with a similar mass to Earth could remain warm enough to keep water liquid under thick, insulating ice sheets for over a billion years
Source: New Scientist

The criteria for habitable worlds has just expanded. I do not know what if anything this implies for planets on the outer reaches of our own solar-system or if a planet would have needed to be previously habitable before going rogue.
edit on 21-2-2011 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by WingedBull
 


one day ;/



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Thanks for posting this, this seems to be a game changer for where life could be found. If there are 50 billion planets out there (as recently announced), there could potentially be a lot of rogue planets floating around there this situation could apply.

SnF



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
I've have agreed with this idea for a while, i believe Enceladus was a good example of this. Though low in mass, Saturn II may have a subsurface ocean due to gravitational tidal effects.

en.wikipedia.org...

a rogue planet drifting in the Kuiper belt or in intergalactic space with substantial size, water, and radioactive decay within its core could possibly harbor life.

Alien life could be within this solar system.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Honestly, if you throw out human pre-conceived notions about life, which is biasedly based on our own and only known example (ALLEGEDLY!), there could probably be life just about anywhere. The problem is that scientists tend to assume that you HAVE to have Oxygen, warm temperatures, a protective atmosphere and liquid water to have life, but that's only what OUR own type of life requires. There could be life which functions perfectly in the freezing cold of space; life which breathes a different type of gas; life which uses something other than water for it's processes; life which has adapted to survive deadly radiation or even life which is made of pure energy itself. We should look everywhere, because the life on our own planet is already so biologically diverse, despite it all sharing a common origin. Just imagine how 'life' may have developed in other exotic places throughout our universe.
edit on 21-2-2011 by Charizard because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charizard
Honestly, if you throw out human pre-conceived notions about life, which is biasedly based on our own and only known example (ALLEGEDLY!), there could probably be life just about anywhere. The problem is that scientists tend to assume that you HAVE to have Oxygen, warm temperatures, a protective atmosphere and liquid water to have life, but that's only what OUR own type of life requires. There could be life which functions perfectly in the freezing cold of space; life which breathes a different type of gas; life which uses something other than water for it's processes; life which has adapted to survive deadly radiation or even life which is made of pure energy itself. We should look everywhere, because the life on our own planet is already so biologically diverse, despite it all sharing a common origin. Just imagine how 'life' may have developed in other exotic places throughout our universe.
edit on 21-2-2011 by Charizard because: (no reason given)


I can see you are going to be a great member


You echo many of my comments in this thread. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Great to meet you.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by WingedBull
The criteria for habitable worlds has just expanded. I do not know what if anything this implies for planets on the outer reaches of our own solar-system or if a planet would have needed to be previously habitable before going rogue.
edit on 21-2-2011 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)

Glad to see you are coming over to my way of thinking. Surely this beats just debunking? There's hope for you yet.


Which one of us is going to link this information to this live thread?

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

Surely it should be you?


edit on 21/2/11 by Pimander because: beats debunking




posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Many planets are droplets, formed mainly in an instant in:

Hypernova Explosions.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 01:23 AM
link   
Why is it that only planets can host life forms?

Why can't plasma based life forms occupy the stars and the gas giants?



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   
This is certainly possible although speculative at the moment. Life could also exist in abundance on comets and ice clouds. Brown dwarfs are very common and they may also support life.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Very interesting ty for posting


Sadly I'll be long dead and gone before this theory can be explored



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
I think you've confused "habitable" with "life-supporting." We could not live on these rogue planets without domes and the like; the liquid water is all beneath a sheet of ice. So they are not habitable; they could support and produce marine life.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander
Glad to see you are coming over to my way of thinking. Surely this beats just debunking? There's hope for you yet.


I am afraid I have no idea what you are talking about. Life on other worlds does not equate to that life coming here.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Solasis
I think you've confused "habitable" with "life-supporting." We could not live on these rogue planets without domes and the like; the liquid water is all beneath a sheet of ice. So they are not habitable; they could support and produce marine life.



so they would be habitable for marine life



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Solasis
I think you've confused "habitable" with "life-supporting." We could not live on these rogue planets without domes and the like; the liquid water is all beneath a sheet of ice. So they are not habitable; they could support and produce marine life.


I think you are confusing habitable and life-supporting with hospitable to human life. They are not one-in-the-same.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by WingedBull
 


"habitable" in its relevant sense indicates, even if it doesn't actually mean, that humans can live there. When you see "Planet is habitable", most people's first thought is "by humans." The word very clearly suggests "by humans" in this context.

And I actually didn't confuse "life-supporting" with "for-humans". That was kind of the entire point of my post.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Solasis
"habitable" in its relevant sense indicates, even if it doesn't actually mean, that humans can live there.


No, it doesn't. And no such meaning can be inferred from the piece in question


Originally posted by Solasis
When you see "Planet is habitable", most people's first thought is "by humans." The word very clearly suggests "by humans" in this context.


There is no such suggestion anywhere in the piece.

You may mistakenly think that is what it suggests, but most reasonable people will realize this article is not talking about human life.


Originally posted by Solasis
And I actually didn't confuse "life-supporting" with "for-humans". That was kind of the entire point of my post.


Actually, you still are confusing it. Why are you even trying to argue this point?
edit on 22-2-2011 by WingedBull because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by WingedBull
 


We can argue about the connotations of the word "habitable" until we're blue in the face. I think more people would say that they saw this post and expected it to attempt to argue that starless planets would support human life than would say that they expected it to be what it was.

But it is a brute fact that my post was attempting to make a distinction between "life-supporting" and "habitable" by which "life-supporting" would have been the more appropriate phrase, as it doesn't carry the connotations of "supporting human life" which I think "habitable" does. I don't know why you're arguing that point unless you didn't actually read my post.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by Pimander
Glad to see you are coming over to my way of thinking. Surely this beats just debunking? There's hope for you yet.


I am afraid I have no idea what you are talking about. Life on other worlds does not equate to that life coming here.


Partly I was referring to the fact that you have produced something other than a series of contradictions to what people are saying. You have given us some new evidence or ideas - which is what I try to bring to the party. It's good to get out of the box (cage) sometimes.


I didn't say it life on other worlds did equate to life coming here. What are you talking about?

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

In the the thread I linked to above, I had spent some time explaining how current estimates of where life can be found are gross underestimations. You have actually found corroboration for my theory. When I said you were coming over to my way of thinking, I meant that you had done research and presented new evidence moving you closer to my theory. Very positive.

However, having said that, you appear to have just posted a series of contradictions in every post here since.



posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Hmm, the opening post defines habitable as capable of supporting life, not as inhabitable by human beings.

I believe that was a critical point.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join