New Estimate for Alien Earths: 2 Billion in Our Galaxy Alone

reply to post by XRaDiiX


It's not that it has mass. It's that mass is compressed light. Not flawed, just not defined. We simply do not know. When you condense light, something happens to make mass. The good thing about that for warp drives is that in theory, their gravity would be very very short range. because if it wasn't, you'd pull the Earth out of orbit while using said ship.

While the LHC made antimatter, it was s drip of an ocean. In theory precision collisions can bring that up to a much more realistic production, but we won't have beneficial amounts of it until we can physically change the state of matter into antimatter directly.

reply to post by XRaDiiX


i just brought the drake equation into this because it pertains to what we are discussing, i actually believe he universe is teeming with life

we wont see it in our lifetime but maybe our children or grandchildren will get to see this life and planets at some point

reply to post by caf1550


Yes but i think the drank equation is pretty much laughable with all the new data in the last year it isn't valid. We now know extremophile exists and think of the possibility of plasma life or on gas giants etc they are infinite possibilities. We need to make a new equation lets do it

well this is quite bad. I'm very disappointed

at least someone from kepler has now admitted it.

Accurate knowledge of nEarth is necessary to plan future missions that will image and take spectra of Earthlike planets. Our result that Earths are relatively scarce means that a substantial effort will be needed to identify suitable target stars prior to these future missions.

www.centauri-dreams.org...

that's right folks. Scarce

Its bad news for the next generation missions like TPF/darwin etc. to paraphrase jaws - We're gonna need a bigger telescope.

reply to post by yeti101


Your post has no merit. Where your link to a main stream source.

reply to post by XRaDiiX



are you still in denial XraDiix? or maybe your just confused by articles written in the mainstream media about this subject? i told you in the last thread these results arn't good. Here's the paper xxx.lanl.gov...

Our result that Earths are relatively scarce means that a substantial effort will be needed to identify suitable target stars prior to these future missions.

reply to post by XRaDiiX


Rare earth hypothesis

en.wikipedia.org...

Just because there are so many planets in a galaxy does not mean that all the planets are suitable for harboring life.

you have to take in where they are in the Galaxy how close another star is tot here home star are they in the Galactic habital zone, are they in there own habital zone for there star.

if they are in or near the center of the galaxy there is going to be to much x-ray radiation to be able to support life.

now i for one think that all the planets we have found is astonishing, even if they are in there own suns habital zone we don't know if they are earth like, what if there jsut a dead planet like mercury or pluto but they are located in the habital zone.

you have to look at everything with an open mind, look at the pros and the cons of everything

reply to post by XRaDiiX


i could see why the genral public get confused becuase in your space.com link they quote Joseph Catanzarite who is the same scientist i quote from his paper saying earth analogs are relatively scarce. lets look at those 2 quotes together the first one from his interview with space.com

This means there are a lot of Earth analogs out there — two billion in the Milky Way galaxy," researcher Joseph Catanzarite, an astronomer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, told SPACE.com. "With that large a number, there's a good chance life and maybe even intelligent life might exist on some of those planets. And that's just our galaxy alone — there are 50 billion other galaxies."

This interview is infact talking about the paper i gave you a link for as stated at the bottom of the space.com page. Now lets see what he says in the paper itself.

Our result that Earths are relatively scarce means that a substantial effort will be needed to identify suitable target stars prior to these future missions.

is this what confuses you? this same scientist giving 2 seemingly diffirent impressions of the results so far? I could see why it confuses the general public. Theres no confusion for me , he's not lying or contradicting himself in either of these. He just presents it to the mainstream media in a way which gives the results a positive spin but when it comes down to it the more accurate analysis and its implications for future planet hunting telescopes is in the paper. In fact on your space.com link it gives you the information and you even quoted it in your op

When it comes to the 100 nearest sunlike stars within a few dozen light years, these findings suggest that only about two might have earth-like worlds

I just don't think you understand the implications of this statistic. 2/100 means the next gen telescopes previously proposed just aren't good enough, they will not in their current form get funding. NASA wont spend $2+ billion dollars with such a huge chance of finding nothing. We need to increase their capability or get a lot better at identifying which stars would be good candidates for earth-like planets.

hope that helps

reply to post by yeti101


Nice trying to link documents and articles that are falsified. I said link a main stream source and you link a site that isn't even close to what i asked for.

You really are trying to contrive evidence based on your own ideas.

reply to post by yeti101


2/100 is actually really good number if you think about it.

Remember the kepler telescope did not exactly survey a large number of dwarf stars so this Data isn't even complete.

Don't try to come to conclusions before we have the data from the set of all types of stars. Because they just didn't survey enough dwarfs to get a real good estimate.

with the sheer amount of stars and the abundance of life here on earth in all shapes and sizes in all climates and varying altitude. it is very safe to say that the two combined create the possibility that not only is life in the universe, but it's in a lot more places then what you see first glance. but i believe it is limited to 1-2 planets per solar system and in perhaps 1 out 3 solar systems.

reply to post by yourmaker


I agree i think life may be able to exists on many types of different planets not just Earth types. Read the thread and you'll see my post on it.

reply to post by XRaDiiX


tell that to the kepler team who are writing these papers.

in any case results will improve but by how much? a good result would be 20 or 30/100, its unrealistic to expect it to increase by an order of magnitude thats fairy tale stuff

even if we get to 10/100 its still puts next gen telescopes in doubt.

reply to post by XRaDiiX

Nice trying to link documents and articles that are falsified. I said link a main stream source and you link a site that isn't even close to what i asked for.

what are you talking about? i linked directly to the paper thats discussed in your space.com link, written by the person they are interviewing in your space.com link.

from your space.com interview " Catanzarite and his colleague Michael Shao detailed their findings online March 8 in a paper submitted to the Astrophysical Journal."

i linked directly to the paper here xxx.lanl.gov... look at the freaking names and the submission date

reply to post by XRaDiiX


www.bio.miami.edu...

talks about the "rare earth" hypthosis

now by showing this thread to you doesnt say im not saying there isn't life out there all im saying is that a planet like earth might be very rare in the cosmos

btc.montana.edu...

So, Kepler can identify rocky planets with Earth-like masses that orbit at the right distance from their parent stars that liquid water can potentially exist on their surfaces*. However, what it can't do is tell us whether they have actually developed into life supporting worlds; and in our own solar system, Venus (about 25% closer to the sun than the Earth, about 80% of its mass, and yet a heat-sterilised volcanic hell-hole) provides a cautionary tale about getting too carried away if and when we start finding extra-solar 'Earths'. In reality, we'll have to wait for the likes of the Terrestrial Planet Finder or Darwin to directly identify possible signatures of life on any candidates that Kepler tracks down, by looking at the spectral characteristics of their atmospheres (although big Earth telescopes may also be able to contribute). However, this shouldn't be seen as a shortcoming. Kepler is designed to fill in a big gap in our present knowledge of solar systems outside our own: by the end of its mission, we'll have a much better idea of the average number of planets around a typical star, and the distribution of their sizes and orbits. We'll know whether our solar system, with its inner rocky planets and outer gas giants, is typical or unusual.

rare earth also says Red Giants and White Dwarfs are probably unlikely to harbor any life on there planets, and planets that are gas giants have no solid surface that is believed needed to harbor advanced life so you can rule those out.

Our observations suggest that between 20% and 60% of Sun-like stars have evidence for the formation of rocky planets not unlike the processes we think led to planet Earth. That is very exciting.[22]

this however is quite interesting but still it is a quite large gap in my opinion.

The discovery of Gliese 581 g, a Goldilocks planet only 20 light-years from Earth, has further called the Rare Earth hypothesis into question. With such proximity to Earth, exoplanetologists now estimate that the likelihood of finding an Earth-like planet in any given system in our galaxy is 10-20%,[36] bringing possible numbers close to Boss's guess

this is also interesting but a 10-20% isnt that much

reply to post by yeti101


Lets just remember that Earth 'types' aren't the only type of planets able to sustain life we just aren't sure yet there could be several types of planets that could sustain life. Read the entirety of the thread and you will see my posts on it.

This picture shows every Kepler planetary candidate host star with its transiting companion in silhouette. The sizes of the stars and transiting companions are properly scaled. The colours of the stars are meant to represent how the eye would see the star outside of the Earths atmosphere.
Stars have been properly limb darkened and the companions have been offset relative to one another to match the modeled impact parameter. Some stars will even show more than one planet! The largest star is 6.1 times larger that the Sun and the smallest stars are estimated to be only 0.3 times the radius of the Sun. The Sun is shown below the top row on the right by itself with the Earth and Jupiter in transit Don't forget to check out the high-resolution version, which is necessary to see some of the smallest planetary candidates

Link to the high-resolution version.

If I'm not mistaken, I haven't saw this picture anywhere before.

Very impressive!

reply to post by elevenaugust


i saw it on astronomy pic of the day a couple days ago but still very cool picture

Originally posted by caf1550
reply to post by elevenaugust

 

i saw it on astronomy pic of the day a couple days ago but still very cool picture

Yeah, but the original creator is Jason Rowe, who posted this on its Flickr account two weeks ago.

reply to post by caf1550


Same i've been going to APOD for 6 years now maybe more. I read space.com Everyday i love Astronomy that is why i created this thread