Scientists Have Discovered Another Earth With Probable Life!

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness

originally posted by: crazyewok

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,

Sorry that was probably my bad thanks for your contribution to the thread, and the selling of more popcorn. Those kernels explode from the inside out due to microwave radiation... hmm perhaps one day I'll cross reference that against something else at random.

I never said the sun doesn't produce Microwaves.

But the FACT is most the energy from the sun comes in the EM range of Infer red and Ultraviolet range.

There are small amounts of Gamma/X-ray and Microwaves and even radio waves but the majority is in the above spectrum.

linky

Sorry that reply came from a conversation between yourself and another... just joining in not an assumption.

originally posted by: 2012newstart
It is a different planet from Gliese 581d promoted today on RT
rt.com...

Verrrry Niiice, though possibility that it is in the same boat as this one? Probable but not impossible, and that's the magic.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The word 'probable' has several distinct meanings; the definition you quote offers three, which are at variance with one another. Which one should we pick? It depends on the context. I reckon meaning #3 is the one applicable. Anyone who picks #1 is a fool; do you take me for one?

How can you ask that? I've already told you several times I think you're one of the best contributors on this site and how much I enjoy reading your posts, so you're quite the opposite of a fool, you're obviously very intelligent, but maybe I'm biased because I can only think of one post of yours I happen to disagree with and that's in this thread.

So let's take definition 3 of probable:
"likely to be or become true or real"
"Likely" translated to a probability range means something less than 100% (since that would be certain) and something more than 50% (which would be neither likely nor unlikely). I don't see any way to establish the probability is over 50% so the title of this thread seems wrong even using the definition of probable that you prefer.

Now let's say that the probability of life on the Kepler 186f is greater than the possibility of life on Jupiter as you suggest. We could still have a situation where the chance of life on Kepler 186F is less than 50%, yet still greater than the chance of Jupiter life. This is a relative comparison and it's what's meant by definition 2 of probable, but using probable in the context of the title of this thread infers a different meaning, (51-99% probability according to your chosen definition 3).

So I have to side with those who say the title of this thread is wrong. We don't know that life is "probable" on Kepler 186f and it would be much more accurate to say it's "possible" (which means the probability is something above 0% and less than 100%).

Look at it this way, can we even say the probability of life on Mars is from 51%-99%? We know far more about Mars than Kepler 186f and even on Mars I'd still say life is "possible" instead of "probable".

a reply to: wildespace

I looked up apollo hardware on the moon and got images of the lunar surface with circles and arrows pointing at stuff from miles high. Like I said, if they have the technological know how to put a camera on a spy satellite that can take a picture of my car in my driveway or, as I've heard, read the headlines on a newspaper, why don't they show some stuff the astronauts left behind from,say, 50 or 100 feet up? I'd like to see the same with those ruins or pyramids on Mars. Nothing like being close enough to maybe see some actual doorways or something from that distance. If you know of any websites with good clear pictures like that, please let me know.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

A bit of comedy is always good; yesterday in my horoscope I do not check often... "Jupiter will work directly with Uranus, planet of surprise" hence forth, I will think of Jupiter as the "Unexpected proctologist" who knows, perhaps thats where all the anal probes are coming from and that's not a red spot but sign they are open for bidness.

given I am an exit only type lemme exit with this:


Mars may or may not have life... but it certainly has a whole lot of heart.



take care I'm off to terminate some more threads in the philosophy... I won't be back. It's been fun have fun... star ya later.

originally posted by: ziplock9000
I agree 100% and why is it depicted as having oceans and an atmosphere like Earths?

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
Perhaps someone should direct this question to NASA? Whats with the artist renditions? Could look like mars

Sure -- matbe it does look more Mars-like rather then Earth-like...

...However, if the artist's rendition made it look more Mars-like, then people would have been saying "Why is it depicted as being dry and dusty when it's possible that it has water and a thick atmosphere?"

I suppose I'm saying that no matter what the artist's rendition looked like, someone would have asked "why is it depicted that way? Personally, I think they made it look Earth-like because it sparks more of the imagination in people if they show it as earth-like rather than looking barren.

I mean, why not show it as Earth-like if that is one of the possibilities?

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
Why do you think so?

Could you be a little more clear about what you're asking, why do I think what? ~$heopleNation

originally posted by: korath
a reply to: wildespace

I looked up apollo hardware on the moon and got images of the lunar surface with circles and arrows pointing at stuff from miles high.

Understandable, as the pics come from an orbiting spacecraft. However, the resolution is still very good, matching or rivalling spy satellites orbiting Earth.

Like I said, if they have the technological know how to put a camera on a spy satellite that can take a picture of my car in my driveway or, as I've heard, read the headlines on a newspaper, why don't they show some stuff the astronauts left behind from,say, 50 or 100 feet up?

Because an orbiting spacecraft can't get that low without a) using lots and lots of fuel to maneuver into such an extremely low orbit, and b) without the risk of crashing into a mountain. It woud be going too fast to take sharp images due to the motion blur, anyway. I'm not sure you understand the orbital mechanics. LRO can already spot car-sized objects on the Moon, same with MRO orbiting Mars. The "reading newspaper healines from orbit" is a myth, and is unachievable with our current technologies.

I'd like to see the same with those ruins or pyramids on Mars. Nothing like being close enough to maybe see some actual doorways or something from that distance. If you know of any websites with good clear pictures like that, please let me know.

Same as with the LRO around the Moon, the MRO took many great high-rez images of Mars, in spme places down to 25 cm/pixel. I already gave you the links to the LRO and MRO imagery, so feel free to browse at your leasure.

originally posted by: korath
a reply to: wildespace

I looked up apollo hardware on the moon and got images of the lunar surface with circles and arrows pointing at stuff from miles high. Like I said, if they have the technological know how to put a camera on a spy satellite that can take a picture of my car in my driveway or, as I've heard, read the headlines on a newspaper,

I don't know about newspaper headlines, but I don't think the people who develop the technology for spy satellites would want to make that technology public knowledge by giving their latest and best spy satellites to NASA.

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) and the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) can take images virtually as good as any satellite image you will find on Google Earth. The really close Google Earth images in which you can make out you car in your driveway are not from satellites, but are aerial photography (i.e., taken from aircraft, not from space).

a reply to: rickymouse

25 years your having a look how long it took to complete the ISS .

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

Well. it's supposed to be biased isn't it?
After all, I've always seen this search as keeping up hopes for us a species and not so much to meet other people.

Seems the time is obviously getting closer... Ref to dulce and what's already known by the government. Get prepared folks... Within the next 14 yrs for something big is about to happen. This is just a way of gradually letting us in to the secret that has been around since 1950's. That we are not alone. In fact they're already here. Select few are already trying to buy their way in to the bunkers. 2029 sticks in my mind? The deal is over then. Hmmm ... Kepler.. Yeh, Just a way of announcing the time is nearing.. We are not alone!

originally posted by: UFGarvin
Life is not 'probable' there. It's statistically un-probable. Highly so.

You should research Extremophile's, then read about Saturn's Moon: Titan. Your idea of 'improbability' will be almost extinguished if you're intelligent enough to understand what you've read.

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 do not understand why so many posters here are so bitter and blunt to put down exciting new findings.

It is an obvious that for life to exist exactly like ours, then the world would have to be exactly like ours. However, it does not have to be exactly like ours for life like ours to exist, just the outcomes would be different. This notion that we must find or should find a planet exactly like ours with very similar compositions is absurd, life exsists elsewhere and I can gurantee its intelligent, if I was a millionaire id bet it all away on the notion we will find such life in the coming 20 years or so.

This is a beautiful finding and I can gurantee there has been very siilar findings swept under the rug. We still think as humans we are special, lucky or somehow important. We are just one of the many variations.

Good post.

a reply to: BlackProject

if I was a millionaire id bet it all away on the notion we will find such life in the coming 20 years or so.

If you're betting it all away why would you have to be a millionaire? Just go ahead and bet everything you've got.

Finding actual breathing (or its equivalent) life here in the Solar System (cause we won't be leaving it in the next 20 years or so)?

Or do you mean finding unequivocal evidence of intelligent life? Since, if it's not in the Solar System, it would pretty much have to be intelligent for us to find that evidence.

If it's the latter I'd take that bet. Not touching the former.

It's neat to know there's a planet out there that seems to be the right size at the right distance. But even in our own system both Mars and Venus fall within the bounds of the "goldilocks zone", but as we know neither is "just right". There's only one Earth with us critters living on it.

Earth being the one out the three also has to do with other factors such as atmospheric density, an active lithosphere, and magnetic fields which you can't really tell from interstellar distances. However the atmosphere's chemistry still tells that life is here, whether that life is smart enough to use radio or not.

So now that we can tell when one major criteria is crossed, what we need is to find if any of those candidates may pass between their stars and us with just enough information to do a spectograpy anaysis on its atmosphere. Ozone or other chemistry showing presence of free oxygen would be a pretty big one. Only thing bigger than finding that would be something like various flourocarbons or other chemicals that we only know to have synthetic non-natural origins.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

If you have at least two spy-sat cams within a certain arc distance observing the same location, and if imagery time for both is synchronous (time-stamped with atomic clock precision), and if the sats have things like polarization filters... A bit of computing power could run interfereometry, and boost the effective resolution by quite a bit. In some ways it may be considered a noisier image, but it gets a lot of details a single sat would miss.

Not saying it is used, but I wouldn't be that surprised. (And there are articles/discussions on that.) Would be neat if that could be tested out in public domain level sometime in the future, to see just how good it is.

a reply to: pauljs75
Works at radio frequencies.
Not sure it works for light. In theory, of course. But practically, problematic.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness


You realize this story is not news right? Did you do a search for Kepler 186f before you posted? I think not.

Hello and welcome to LAST SPRING:

NASA Announces First Earth Twin in Habitable Zone Discovered by Kepler - posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 01:10 PM

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: crazyewok

Who said anything about high or low probability?

The title of the op

I believe your lack of comprehension is at fault evidence for this? your usage of percents beyond 100%
.

Based on the thread title and the probability of there being life on Kepler 186-f, I've purchased both a spaceship and a time machine. I travelled for 500 years at the speed of light to reach the planet, although unfortunately its just a baron rock.

On a plus though, my spaceship cost 10 billions and when I returned home I sold it to an old lady for 30 billions, 30 billions!!! That's 200% profit

I'm probably talking crap