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.

 

Further away planets 'can support life' say researchers

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   


Earth-sized planets could support life at least 10 times further away from stars than thought, researchers have claimed.

The University of Aberdeen team, which included academics from the University of St Andrews, said cold rocky planets thought uninhabitable might be able to support life beneath the surface.

PhD student Sean McMahon explained: "A planet needs to be not too close to its sun but also not too far away for liquid water to persist, rather than boiling or freezing, on the surface.

Further away planets 'can support life' say researchers

Isn't it funny how they claim things like this without having found life anywhere else?

Or they have found and are just preparing the masses for the announce, says the lill conspirator in me

news.stv.tv...


Mr McMahon said: "The deepest known life on Earth is 5.3km below the surface, but there may well be life even 10km deep in places on Earth that haven't yet been drilled.

"Using our computer model we discovered that the habitable zone for an Earth-like planet orbiting a sun-like star is about three times bigger if we include the top five kilometres below the planet surface.

"It has been suggested that the planet Gliese 581 d, which is 20 light years away from Earth in the constellation Libra, may be too cold for liquid water at the surface. However, our model suggests that it is very likely to be able to support liquid water less than 2 km below the surface, assuming it is Earth-like.

edit on 7-1-2014 by Indigent because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigent
 


Well lets hope they have found something out there, we are about done with this one.

Like good little parasites, when we are done destroying one host we will move on to another.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigent
 


I worry that man will continue to move from planet to planet destroying and leaving death in its wake if he does not first learn to take care of this planet and solar system first before heading out to other regions. Its like the rainforests, look at what we are doing there, it is a horrible shame to even dream of other planets until we can be proud of our own. There is no reason for any of the pollution or death here.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Battleline
reply to post by Indigent
 


Well lets hope they have found something out there, we are about done with this one.

Like good little parasites, when we are done destroying one host we will move on to another.


That is the nature of life, not somthing to be bummed out about.

Id just like to retire on another planet and watch a different sun rise and fall for the rest of my days






edit on 7-1-2014 by Biigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Battleline
 


That's what I was talking about and I have to say a very wise man said long ago that this phase is now called "The death and dying Phase" We had choices even 25 years ago, which could have ushered in the golden future but was thrown off course for the Death and Dying Stage.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigent
 


It's reasonable to assume that if a planet is farther out but has an internal heat source it would shift the habitable zone (for bacteria?).

What if the Earth is near the edge of it's habitable zone? --on the hot side (.95AU). Just computer modeling at this point but it might make you think about how fragile the Earth really is.

L ink to study that puts Earth 5% away from the hot side of the habitable zone

Just as a reminder, our sister planet Venus has a similar chemical composition to Earth and it is 0.74AU. The surface temp is about 700F.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigent
 


The conspiracy theorist in me agrees with you, but the optimist in me says that we humans are merely learning and planning on spreading our wings and settling down and colonizing on other planets once this one becomes inhabitable, which it will.

Isn't this why they want to colonize Mars?

I think the scientists are just planning ahead for the inevitable future.

Though I still wish they'd come out and confirm aliens exist already.



S&F



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Biigs
 


So I guess what you are saying is , we are what we are so no reason to be bummed out about it.

That's a different out look for sure. I would hope we as a species could evolve and in spite of our human nature become better.

Ya I know, foolish me.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigent
 


Sounds like they're covering their tracks for when the big announcement comes.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigent
 


It could be possible but the life would probably limited to extremophiles or bacteria, these planets might not support anything larger than that.

It's these types of life forms astronomers are hoping to be present on Europa, beneath the ice sheets. But we are still a long way off from getting a probe there, If the planning were to start now hopefully we'll be there by 2030.




edit on 7-1-2014 by Thecakeisalie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by InverseLookingGlass
 


i have to say then that as radiative decay generates heat there is always the possibility for a million coincidences that could possibly create life in some forsaken cavity of a rock somewhere outside the life belt scientist predict



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by InverseLookingGlass
 


Mars is in the habitable zone. Venus is on the edge of the habitable zone, and some of its orbit is within the zone.

Mars' issue is that it lacks a thick atmosphere, but that is not a "habitable zone" issue. Venus' problem is not that it is too close to the Sun, but that it has a runaway greenhouse effect, which may be related to its proximity to the Sun, but is not necessarily the direct cause.

If Mars had a thicker atmosphere (which it perhaps did once have), then it would seem more habitable. If Venus did not have the runaway greenhouse effect, then it could potentially be cooler and have a lower atmospheric pressure.

So our Solar system could be said to have three planets (and a dwarf planet, Ceres) in the habitable zone.


edit on 1/7/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Indigent


Earth-sized planets could support life at least 10 times further away from stars than thought, researchers have claimed.

The University of Aberdeen team, which included academics from the University of St Andrews, said cold rocky planets thought uninhabitable might be able to support life beneath the surface.

PhD student Sean McMahon explained: "A planet needs to be not too close to its sun but also not too far away for liquid water to persist, rather than boiling or freezing, on the surface.

Further away planets 'can support life' say researchers

Isn't it funny how they claim things like this without having found life anywhere else?


Well it's because we're finding life deep within the earth and deep within the ocean. So deep that it might as well be considered alien since its a separate biosphere than life on the surface. That along with things like the tidal heating of the interior of frozen moons (like the major moons of Jupiter) or active geology (volcanos, etc) means that yes, at least simple life can exist on planets outside of the habitable zone but that's pretty much been known for ages.

These planets would not have liquid water on the surface.

They basically would be places similar to Europa, Ganymede or Enceladus.

What is new about this research is that it indicates that subsurface life might be detectable from interstellar distances.

This is important for the design of future space telescopes which will look for life on planets around other stars as well as for the community which draws up target lists for them to study.
edit on 7-1-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Indigent
reply to post by InverseLookingGlass
 


i have to say then that as radiative decay generates heat there is always the possibility for a million coincidences that could possibly create life in some forsaken cavity of a rock somewhere outside the life belt scientist predict


Interesting you mention radiative decay..

Makes me wonder how long radioactive waste would take to clear on a different planet, would it be the same time frame as our planet?

or is there factors



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by InverseLookingGlass
 


Mars is in the habitable zone. Venus is on the edge of the habitable zone, and some of its orbit is within the zone.

Mars' issue is that it lacks a thick atmosphere, but that is not a "habitable zone" issue. Venus' problem is not that it is too close to the Sun, but that it has a runaway greenhouse effect, which may be related to its proximity to the Sun, but is not necessarily the direct cause.

If Mars had a thicker atmosphere (which it perhaps did once have), then it would seem me habitable. If Venus did not have the runaway greenhouse effect, then it could potentially be cooler and have a lower atmospheric pressure.

So our Solar system could be said to have three planets (and a dwarf planet, Ceres) in the habitable zone.



Correct mostly. Though there are really two different definitions of the Sun's circumstellar habitable zone and Mars and Venus fall outside of the conservative one while they are just on the outer and inner edge of the optimistic one.

Ceres does NOT orbit within the habitable zone of the sun by EITHER definition and it is smaller than our moon.

That said there ARE other asteroids like 3753 Cruithne, 2010 TK7, 2010 SO16 and other Quasi moons of Earth which orbit within the habitable zone. All of these are small objects much smaller than our moon and Ceres.





Mars lost its thick atmosphere as a result of its size. It simply was a little too small. So its thought that because of this it's core cooled down and solidified and it lost its magnetic field which then allowed the solar wind to blow away its atmosphere.

Had it been about a third larger it might have had one still today.

One of Venus's problems seems to be that it started out with too much volcanism which filled its atmosphere with a ton more CO2. This may have been due to being closer to the sun.
edit on 7-1-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Battleline
reply to post by Indigent
 


Well lets hope they have found something out there, we are about done with this one.

Like good little parasites, when we are done destroying one host we will move on to another.


So we should be tender about using rocky asteroids as we see fit?



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


I believe the subject was "habitable planets" not rocky asteroid's. big difference I think.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   

amraks

Indigent
reply to post by InverseLookingGlass
 


i have to say then that as radiative decay generates heat there is always the possibility for a million coincidences that could possibly create life in some forsaken cavity of a rock somewhere outside the life belt scientist predict


Interesting you mention radiative decay..

Makes me wonder how long radioactive waste would take to clear on a different planet, would it be the same time frame as our planet?

or is there factors


It would take the same time. The laws of physics are the same throughout the universe. Radioactive decay is no exception.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 


I always wonder if mars cooled off quickly, or if had some time where it had current earth conditions, I guess my fingertips got the answer for that as you once suggested me, but i think ill keep wondering and be happier.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Battleline
reply to post by ketsuko
 


I believe the subject was "habitable planets" not rocky asteroid's. big difference I think.


Bingo.

And you appear to have hit on what may end up being the debate of the late 21st/early 22nd century: ExoEcology.

If we find present day life on Mars and other worlds within and outside of our solar system, even just bacterial life, SHOULD we protect it? Or should we just study it and proceed about our activities regardless of whether they kill it or not?

Maybe an election issue 30 years from now.




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join