Scientists Have Discovered Another Earth With Probable Life!

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness


your usage of percents beyond 100%

Again sarcasm

Look it up.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
probability is only limited by you.

No its only limited by available data.


Show me life is probable on this planet?


Show me the data?


Until you do its is neither impossible or probable.

I am not saying there Is or is not life.

It is clear you have limited scientific education.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a the limited data is in your mind only...

10000%

Please show the possibility of this and I will agree.

It appears sarcasm is lost on you.

Is it? where should I look my pocket? If I find it do you want it back? 3 ways 3 plays 3 assumptions for a furry lil beast Chewbaca thats a lot of gumption to spit out for a tiny troll in matters apparently found droll


your the one saying there is a high probability of life.

If so you show me the evidence.


Until then there is no evidence either way.

edit on 6-3-2015 by BigBrotherDarkness because: fun yes?

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness

Is it? where should I look my pocket? If I find it do you want it back? 3 ways 3 plays 3 assumptions for a furry lil beast Chewbaca thats a lot of gumption to spit out for a tiny troll in matters apparently found droll

So I am a troll for not having a approved opinion?

If you have no further data. The then we DONT know if there is likely life or not.


And Chewbaca was a wookie not a ewok.

a reply to: crazyewok

Self placation is not the answer.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: crazyewok

Self placation is not the answer.

Not even on topic.

You cant refute my arguments so you are focusing on poster not the debate.

= You lost the debate.


You cant prove there is likely life or not.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness

Is it? where should I look my pocket? If I find it do you want it back? 3 ways 3 plays 3 assumptions for a furry lil beast Chewbaca thats a lot of gumption to spit out for a tiny troll in matters apparently found droll

So I am a troll for not having a approved opinion?

If you have no further data. The then we DONT know if there is likely life or not.


And Chewbaca was a wookie not a ewok.

Hate to break the news to you lil buddy but he's a couch now



I get it, you want to have a trekkie starwars fan club battle the universe takes all kinds and accepts you for you but you cannot accept it for it? then how on Endor did you get here? Hyper drive or Warp will work no matter what name you call a chihuahua feed it well it will always come back bye bye troll may Queen Amidala have mercy on your soul

No debates here... there's a possibility there is and isn't. There's a high possibility you will reply and lesser one that I will. Enjoy your clown hat.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: crazyewok

Self placation is not the answer.

Not even on topic.

You cant refute my arguments so you are focusing on poster not the debate.

= You lost the debate.


You cant prove there is likely life or not.

Try making a valid argument... if you want to debate I answered all of yours but failed to answer any I have handed, so who is off topic and too blind to see it... reply he must reply he shall, thinking he won is why lost he has.

Seeking approval is the problem, you need it not from me, and I need it not from you what you must insist shows the former and not the later to be true.

Patiently waiting for your ewok hoards or other account. Not. Have a good day thanks for your time.

originally posted by: Elementalist
Basically this logic of seeking for another life-supporting planet is bias and flawed IMO.

"Look for planets that look like earth, hold water en mass, and carbon-5-based beings with semi or more intelligence.

Your looking for only what you belive humans can be supported, in terms of planetary environment.

God forbid their may be beings made of different biology systems and chemicals/elements. Who could survive or FLOURISH in enviromental conditions Man cannot.

That # is just scary and unbelievable!

Regardless of the flaw and bias search, it's great that earth is not the only planet like itself in yhe entire universe creation. But I had a feeling all along

Why would we not focus on where we KNOW life could be and where we KNOW what it would look like? It's great to be all "Man, we know nothing!" and all that, but the Universe is a REALLY BIG PLACE and just randomly looking at planets that in our own Solar System have ZERO life would be an enormous waste of time. Don't try and out think the room. We KNOW life can exist on a planet like Earth...so we look for it on planets LIKE EARTH. Because, again, the Universe is REALLY BIG and looking at planets like others in our Solar System that we know do not exhibit signs of life would be an enormously silly waste of time. Stick with what you know and keep the search focused on places where we would ostensibly have even a vague idea of what to look for, would be the rationale here...

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness

Try making a valid argument...

I have.

What illogical about the stance of wanting more data before I decide if life is probable?

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
if you want to debate I answered all of yours but failed to answer any I have handed,

No you haven't

I have asked you numerous times to show the evidence of why you think life is likley.

You have only provided word games and attacks on my avatar.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
so who is off topic and too blind to see it... reply he must reply he shall, thinking he won is why lost he has.

Your the one fixated on my avatar and not the topic in question.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
Seeking approval is the problem, you need it not from me, and I need it not from you what you must insist shows the former and not the later to be true.

Im not seeing any approval.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
Patiently waiting for your ewok hoards or other account. Not. Have a good day thanks for your time.

Again your fixated on my screen name and avatar? O and I only have one account.

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Elementalist
Basically this logic of seeking for another life-supporting planet is bias and flawed IMO.

"Look for planets that look like earth, hold water en mass, and carbon-5-based beings with semi or more intelligence.

Your looking for only what you belive humans can be supported, in terms of planetary environment.

God forbid their may be beings made of different biology systems and chemicals/elements. Who could survive or FLOURISH in enviromental conditions Man cannot.

That # is just scary and unbelievable!

Regardless of the flaw and bias search, it's great that earth is not the only planet like itself in yhe entire universe creation. But I had a feeling all along

Why would we not focus on where we KNOW life could be and where we KNOW what it would look like? It's great to be all "Man, we know nothing!" and all that, but the Universe is a REALLY BIG PLACE and just randomly looking at planets that in our own Solar System have ZERO life would be an enormous waste of time. Don't try and out think the room. We KNOW life can exist on a planet like Earth...so we look for it on planets LIKE EARTH. Because, again, the Universe is REALLY BIG and looking at planets like others in our Solar System that we know do not exhibit signs of life would be an enormously silly waste of time. Stick with what you know and keep the search focused on places where we would ostensibly have even a vague idea of what to look for, would be the rationale here...

NASA and other space organizations do, Kepler is specifically designed to seek out planets that are "twins" to earth this one is 1 in over 1000. It is the newest located and that is why I have shared it... as a thank you and memorial to a man, that helped our mind consider the possibility of boldly going where no man has gone before.

R.I.P Leonard, may Spock live long and prosper.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

I don't see were the "probable" life comes in.

There are still many factors apart form being in the Goldilocks zones and being the right size.


Its a candidate for life. Sure enough.

But unless we get data on exact chemical composition of its atmosphere ect there no way to know.


It could just be a large barren rock, a volcanic hell hole or a irradiated mess.

I read somewhere that the planets distance from its star is not entirely relevant for its temperature. An atmosphere with the proper gasses is more significant for the tempreture on a planet. The temprature of a planet relies on the abillity to warm up through microwaves and not because of the heat a star is delivering to a planet. Very interesting concept...

originally posted by: zatara

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

I don't see were the "probable" life comes in.

There are still many factors apart form being in the Goldilocks zones and being the right size.


Its a candidate for life. Sure enough.

But unless we get data on exact chemical composition of its atmosphere ect there no way to know.


It could just be a large barren rock, a volcanic hell hole or a irradiated mess.

I read somewhere that the planets distance from its star is not entirely relevant for its temperature. An atmosphere with the proper gasses is more significant for the tempreture on a planet. The temprature of a planet relies on the abillity to warm up through microwaves and not because of the heat a star is delivering to a planet. Very interesting concept...

Exactly. Well not exactly as just read the microwave bit, thats bits wrong. But the atmosphere does play a big role in a planets ability to maintain temperature.

The atmophere needs to be the right chemical mix.

Why I cant wsit for future space telescope plans that could give us a clue to atmosphere composition and maybe even weather.

originally posted by: zatara

The temprature of a planet relies on the abillity to warm up through microwaves and not because of the heat a star is delivering to a planet. Very interesting concept...

And a very wrong one, I'm afraid.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: zatara

The temprature of a planet relies on the abillity to warm up through microwaves and not because of the heat a star is delivering to a planet. Very interesting concept...

And a very wrong one, I'm afraid.

Yes,... and?

I do not know much about it so... enlighten us why it is a very wrong one.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: crazyewok

It says 'probable life'. It doesn't say high or low.

If you look at the definition of "probable", high is already built into the definition:

www.merriam-webster.com...

Full Definition of PROBABLE
1
: supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not proof
2
: establishing a probability
3
: likely to be or become true or real

The evidence is nowhere near strong enough to support definitions 1 or 3 and definition 2 isn't really applicable. "possible life" would be much more apt than "probable life".

originally posted by: zatara

Yes,... and?

I do not know much about it so... enlighten us why it is a very wrong one.

Unless the planet in question is hellaciously volcanic, the surface temperature will scale as the inverse square of the distance from the star.

What do you see as being the source for "warming microwaves" that replace insolation?

originally posted by: zatara

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: zatara

The temprature of a planet relies on the abillity to warm up through microwaves and not because of the heat a star is delivering to a planet. Very interesting concept...

And a very wrong one, I'm afraid.

Yes,... and?

I do not know much about it so... enlighten us why it is a very wrong one.

Heat is transfered to a planet through radiation from the star ranging across the EM spectrum.


But your right in that the ability to maintain that heat is down to the atmosphere.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: zatara

Yes,... and?

I do not know much about it so... enlighten us why it is a very wrong one.

Unless the planet in question is hellaciously volcanic, the surface temperature will scale as the inverse square of the distance from the star.

What do you see as being the source for "warming microwaves" that replace insolation?

Bleh you beat me too it by 1 minute,

That would make this planet have one season every month depending on how the tilting and rotation of the planet would be and many other things I guess?

Isn't that a little short for plant life to properly grow ? I rather see them looking to find planets with a five months season then I could better plan my summer vacations. .

originally posted by: 0bserver1
That would make this planet have one season every month depending on how the tilting and rotation of the planet would be and many other things I guess?

Isn't that a little short for plant life to properly grow ? I rather see them looking to find planets with a five months season then I could better plan my summer vacations. .

For plants evolved on earth. Plants evolved in another enviroment could be diffrent.

Again its something we dont know.

Maybe earth live season are needed maybe not.

Unfortunatly we only have earth as a working example for life.