NASA basically announced there's no doubt life exist on other planets Kepler 452-b

Very Good news indeed....
THis is and will be but the start of new planets popping up..tis a good thing.

We now should have some reason to try out bigger and better ways of getting there in less then 50 life times..

It is fascinating news, but not ground breaking. We knew this was coming based on the way we look for other planets. First you find the easy to see large planets and then with time you find the smaller ones. It's like finding a needle in a haystack but you have a metal detector.

As far a life on Keplar 452-B, that is anybody's guess. We have no idea of the atmosphere or chemical makeup of the planet. It's atmosphere could be methane or something instead of carbon dioxide and oxygen like earth. We just have no idea.

It is time to work on future-gen transportation and communication options now. Humanity has discovered there is much more out there than Earth. Explorers of old would be in awe at the possibilities out there. I would love for this to kick off a new golden age for space exploration.

originally posted by: TheAnarchist(....)
Whether or not we'll ever find them or make contact is another story. But I have no doubt anymore that they're out there. We ourselves are living proof that it's possible, so why are people so skeptical? What makes Earth and humanity so special in an infinitely large cosmos? It would seem a gigantic waste of space if we're the only beings using it, and nature is nothing if not efficient. I just can't see how nature would only propagate a single planet with intelligent life when it has so much room to work with. It makes more sense to me that nature would be trying to encourage life to evolve everywhere and anywhere, since reality depends upon life in order to be perceived.

Reality depends upon intelligent life in exactly the same way that life depends upon reality. So I don't think this is so far fetched, and discovering this planet has only provided more evidence to the logical theory that the universe is thriving with life - or at least trying to. And if it's trying to, then it will succeed - somewhere, sometime.
(...)

There is a theory about life having a purpose in the universe, but it has to do with thermodynamics:
www.quantamagazine.org - A New Physics Theory of Life...

From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.

I think we can't really answer whether reality needs life or life needs reality until we understand exactly what both of them are.

Some fun links about life from my favorites:
en.wikipedia.org - RNA world...
phys.org - Metabolism may have started in our early oceans before the origin of life...
www.mnn.com - Scientist creates lifelike cells out of metal...
www.newscientist.com - Plasma blobs hint at new form of life...
www.newscientist.com - First life: The search for the first replicator...

originally posted by: TheAnarchist
a reply to: neoholographic

I'm inclined to agree. If you find one planet even remotely similar to earth out there, then immediately the chances of life-sustaining planets existing sky-rockets. Where there's one, there's bound to be others - and in a universe filled with billions if not trillions of planets, you're right. This is like finding a needle in a haystack. If our planet exists, and we just discovered another one very similar to it, then the logical conclusion is that there are very likely more Earth-like planets out there. I mean, we've only searched a few hundred systems and we've already found promising results. That's pretty exciting for people who are fascinated with the question of our own significance. Finding life on other planets only makes life on this planet more special - because it means we're part of a cosmic family, and not just a lonely and isolated accidental apparition.

The question now becomes is that life intelligent? Probably, if we are. Why would we be so special? We're hardly a deserving species, so we weren't imbued with conscious awareness and intelligence for our merit. Which means we're probably just a result of natural processes. If we exist, and we just proved that other 'homes' like ours exist, then it's logical to assume that other beings like us exist.

Whether or not we'll ever find them or make contact is another story. But I have no doubt anymore that they're out there. We ourselves are living proof that it's possible, so why are people so skeptical? What makes Earth and humanity so special in an infinitely large cosmos? It would seem a gigantic waste of space if we're the only beings using it, and nature is nothing if not efficient. I just can't see how nature would only propagate a single planet with intelligent life when it has so much room to work with. It makes more sense to me that nature would be trying to encourage life to evolve everywhere and anywhere, since reality depends upon life in order to be perceived.

Reality depends upon intelligent life in exactly the same way that life depends upon reality. So I don't think this is so far fetched, and discovering this planet has only provided more evidence to the logical theory that the universe is thriving with life - or at least trying to. And if it's trying to, then it will succeed - somewhere, sometime.

How do we know that for certain? Because it happened here. It can and will (and probably already has) happen again. Count on it.

Good job NASA, that's all I have to say. This is (finally) a fresh discovery truly worth being excited over.

Excellent post!

This is exactly why you have bright minds like Stephen Hawking saying Aliens almost certainly exist and Dr. Kaku saying this:

“Some scientists say that perhaps we are the only life forms in the universe. Give me a break! I mean, how many stars are there out there in the universe, anyway? The Hubble Space Telescope can see about a hundred billion galaxies — that’s the visible universe,” Kaku says on the alien TV special.

“Each galaxy consists of a hundred billion stars. Do the math. A hundred billion times a hundred billion is 10 sextillion. That’s one with 22 zeros after it. There definitely are aliens in outer space — they’re out there!”

The confusion occurs because people think life occurred by some accident or that life is random. This just isn't the case. Our observable universe had no choice but to have life, planets and stars in it because of the constants of nature which gives us the laws of physics for our observable universe.

It goes back to the deck of cards. If you had a hypothetical Poker universe there would be 52(microstates) and 2,598,960(macrostates). So as space expands in this hypothetical universe some of the Poker universes will start to repeat because there's only so many configurations that they can be in.

You would have more three of a kind universes over full house universes.

This is why we see things repeating in our universe. Earth like planets are "quite common", solar systems and galaxies form. So the question is, how frequently does life occur? Is it a full house or is it more common like three of a kind.

The fact that we have found a planet like this so early in the process is HUGE NEWS and it's like finding a needle in a haystack and this is why NASA said this:

“Today, we’re pleased to announce the discovery of Kepler 452b: the first small planet in the habitable zone of a G type star like our sun,” said Kepler data analyst Jon Jenkins in a NASA teleconference this afternoon. “The Earth is a little less lonely, because there’s a new kid on the block who moved in right next door.”

You copy and paste the same post over and over again without addressing any other posts. You're an echo.

originally posted by: 321Go
You copy and paste the same post over and over again without addressing any other posts. You're an echo.

An incorrect echo, at that.

In fairness to any possible civilisation on this newly discovered planet,
If they Discovered Earth Today on their planet, and pointed their radio telescopes, Today, at Earth......
All they would hear is Silence, for another...oh what??
1,350 Earth YEARS !!!!!!!

Earth, would appear a Dead Planet to them.....at our level of technology anyway.

Something to think about, when talking about listening to other planets, Seti etc.
We may only be looking in a Very short time frame, that May just miss us by as little as 100 years.
In 100 years time on Earth, our civilisation may not even use radio, tv transmissions etc as a medium, so We may go silent Again, to the rest of the Universe......by then hopefully we should at least have explored our other planets in the SS.

originally posted by: neoholographic
This is why we see things repeating in our universe.

Well, it's certainly true that something is repeating in our universe. It appears to be a phenomenon local to this message board, however.

originally posted by: neoholographic

“Each galaxy consists of a hundred billion stars. Do the math. A hundred billion times a hundred billion is 10 sextillion. That’s one with 22 zeros after it. There definitely are aliens in outer space — they’re out there!”

The fact that you and others can't accept that people are reaching these conclusions based on EVIDENCE shows how insecure you are about your BLIND PERSONAL BELIEF.

Those numbers still only amount to circumstantial evidence, not hard proof.

It's really really good circumstantial evidence, and it is enough for a layman such as myself to personally believe that it is a virtual certainty that other life exists. However, I'm not a scientist, and a scientist (at least a good one) cannot professionally rely on circumstantial evidence as proof of something being a 100% certainty.

This circumstantial evidence might be enough for a scientist to personally believe other life exists, but they would be doing a disservice to their profession if they use this circumstantial evince to make a professional scientific claim that life 100% surely exists elsewhere. They would need hard proof of that life before they could make that claim.

Until they have that proof, their professional belief must remain less than 100%. That doesn't stop them from personally believing it, but to be a good scientist, they need to separate their personal beliefs from their professional claims.

a reply to: Box of Rain

What you're saying has NOTHING to do with Science.

Who said anything about 100% certainty? When has 100% certainty been a requirement in Science?

Most things are not known with 100% certainty. Is the universe a simulation or a hologram?

Scientist don't know if Hawking Radiation exists with 100% certainty. Scientist don't know if extra dimensions exists with 100% certainty. Scientist don't have 100% certainty on string theory or inflation.

Yet many Scientist accept some of these things because it's the best explanation of the observed evidence. Scientist don't just stick their heads in the sand and have a 100% certainty standard. Science would never advance.

Science doesn't know with 100% certainty if gravity is a fundamental force. Science doesn't know with 100% certainty about the origin of life but there's still Scientist who accept Abiogenesis while others look to Panspermia.

Here's a little bit on Science:

Thus, a central tenet of the scientific method--science cannot prove anything with 100% certainty. Rather, scientists use statistical methods to say that, with a specific degree of confidence -- for example with 95% certainty -- our study results "are not due to chance." The research team is then left to describe what the results "are due to" through a credible and logical discussion of their methods and reasoning.

So, when scrutinizing scientific statements, it is always wise to ask: "How certain are you of the results? Is there a large margin of possible error? Have other scientists replicated the results? Did the study have adequate controls that ruled out other factors that might be responsible for your result?"

www.cacaponinstitute.org...

Einstein said he's convinced the only theory that will not be overthrown is Classical thermodynamics.

Classical thermodynamics ... is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced ... will never be overthrown.

This is because there's no such thing as 100% certainty in science. You can just reduce the uncertainty and be say 95 or 98% certain that this theory agrees with observations but there can always be a theory that can come along and explain things in a different way or there can be observations that contradict what the theory predicts so there's no 100% certainty.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Box of Rain

What you're saying has NOTHING to do with Science.

Who said anything about 100% certainty? When has 100% certainty been a requirement in Science?

Most things are not known with 100% certainty. Is the universe a simulation or a hologram?

Scientist don't know if Hawking Radiation exists with 100% certainty. Scientist don't know if extra dimensions exists with 100% certainty. Scientist don't have 100% certainty on string theory or inflation.

Yet many Scientist accept some of these things because it's the best explanation of the observed evidence. Scientist don't just stick their heads in the sand and have a 100% certainty standard. Science would never advance.

Science doesn't know with 100% certainty if gravity is a fundamental force. Science doesn't know with 100% certainty about the origin of life but there's still Scientist who accept Abiogenesis while others look to Panspermia.

Here's a little bit on Science:

Thus, a central tenet of the scientific method--science cannot prove anything with 100% certainty. Rather, scientists use statistical methods to say that, with a specific degree of confidence -- for example with 95% certainty -- our study results "are not due to chance." The research team is then left to describe what the results "are due to" through a credible and logical discussion of their methods and reasoning.

So, when scrutinizing scientific statements, it is always wise to ask: "How certain are you of the results? Is there a large margin of possible error? Have other scientists replicated the results? Did the study have adequate controls that ruled out other factors that might be responsible for your result?"

www.cacaponinstitute.org...

Einstein said he's convinced the only theory that will not be overthrown is Classical thermodynamics.

Classical thermodynamics ... is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced ... will never be overthrown.

This is because there's no such thing as 100% certainty in science. You can just reduce the uncertainty and be say 95 or 98% certain that this theory agrees with observations but there can always be a theory that can come along and explain things in a different way or there can be observations that contradict what the theory predicts so there's no 100% certainty.

And yet you are certain that life exists on this newly-found planet without any evidence at all...

originally posted by: 321Go

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Box of Rain

What you're saying has NOTHING to do with Science.

Who said anything about 100% certainty? When has 100% certainty been a requirement in Science?

Most things are not known with 100% certainty. Is the universe a simulation or a hologram?

Scientist don't know if Hawking Radiation exists with 100% certainty. Scientist don't know if extra dimensions exists with 100% certainty. Scientist don't have 100% certainty on string theory or inflation.

Yet many Scientist accept some of these things because it's the best explanation of the observed evidence. Scientist don't just stick their heads in the sand and have a 100% certainty standard. Science would never advance.

Science doesn't know with 100% certainty if gravity is a fundamental force. Science doesn't know with 100% certainty about the origin of life but there's still Scientist who accept Abiogenesis while others look to Panspermia.

Here's a little bit on Science:

Thus, a central tenet of the scientific method--science cannot prove anything with 100% certainty. Rather, scientists use statistical methods to say that, with a specific degree of confidence -- for example with 95% certainty -- our study results "are not due to chance." The research team is then left to describe what the results "are due to" through a credible and logical discussion of their methods and reasoning.

So, when scrutinizing scientific statements, it is always wise to ask: "How certain are you of the results? Is there a large margin of possible error? Have other scientists replicated the results? Did the study have adequate controls that ruled out other factors that might be responsible for your result?"

www.cacaponinstitute.org...

Einstein said he's convinced the only theory that will not be overthrown is Classical thermodynamics.

Classical thermodynamics ... is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced ... will never be overthrown.

This is because there's no such thing as 100% certainty in science. You can just reduce the uncertainty and be say 95 or 98% certain that this theory agrees with observations but there can always be a theory that can come along and explain things in a different way or there can be observations that contradict what the theory predicts so there's no 100% certainty.

And yet you are certain that life exists on this newly-found planet without any evidence at all...

Where did I say I was certain life existed on this planet?

Quote me.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Who said anything about 100% certainty?

You did in the part of your thread title that reads "NASA basically announced there's no doubt life exist on other planets".

To me "no doubt" = 100% certainty.

I suppose that you could argue that the addition of the word "basically" gives you some wiggle room, but even then Kepler 452-B still isn't an uncommon enough discovery to change the way science perceives life elsewhere --

-- and the way science perceives life elsewhere is that science thinks ET life does exist. So science doesn't really need the circumstantial evidence that Kepler 452-B provides to make them think life most likely exists. They have all of the circumstantial evidence they need to think ET life most likely exists. The next step is to find direct evidence of that life.

Here's a little bit on Science:

"Thus, a central tenet of the scientific method--science cannot prove anything with 100% certainty. Rather, scientists use statistical methods to say that, with a specific degree of confidence -- for example with 95% certainty -- our study results "are not due to chance." The research team is then left to describe what the results "are due to" through a credible and logical discussion of their methods and reasoning.

So, when scrutinizing scientific statements, it is always wise to ask: "How certain are you of the results? Is there a large margin of possible error? Have other scientists replicated the results? Did the study have adequate controls that ruled out other factors that might be responsible for your result?"

www.cacaponinstitute.org...

This is true, and this is why I and others had disagreed with your assertion that the discovery of the characteristics of Kepler 452-B and planets like it does NOT give NASA the evidence it needs to say "There is no doubt life exists on other planets"

You are absolutely correct in saying that until life on other planets is actually found,there will still be doubts; it would not be 100% positive.

This is because there's no such thing as 100% certainty in science. You can just reduce the uncertainty and be say 95 or 98% certain that this theory agrees with observations but there can always be a theory that can come along and explain things in a different way or there can be observations that contradict what the theory predicts so there's no 100% certainty.

I have to disagree with you here. If science ever directly observes life on another planet, then science could state that it is a 100% certainty that life exists on other planets.

Granted, they could get closer to 100% if they find direct evidence of life, such as ratios atmospheric gases seen in the spectrum of an atmosphere that is thought to only be possible if life exists, but even then there would be uncertainties, although the certainty level would rise. The only way to get 100% certainty of ET life is to directly observe it.

What if we find a place within' reach' that does support life. We observe the the area, the land, the behavior of the beings, and it just so happens they have some valuable resources for us humans. And they are destroying our resources, looking hostile, torture, killing masses of each other from distance, all while each having a unique look, just like here on earth with people and animals looking completely different. Also they are clearly weaker than us.

Would yu agree that we take over the land?

a reply to: Box of Rain

Again, you need to read my posts.

I said there's no doubt that life on other planets exists based on the available evidence. Ten years from now, you can find evidence that contradicts this conclusion.

Science always reaches conclusions based on the available evidence.

Here's some things I said:

Again, it changes everything. It's like finding a needle in a haystack and we're just starting. Like they said in the press conference, this is just the beginning. This is like going up 20-0 in the 1st inning of a 9 inning baseball game.

Science always reaches conclusions based on the available evidence. With this latest discovery of a planet that's been in it's habitable zone for around 6 billions years around a G2 star like the sun is just another piece of evidence that's just HUGE.

BASED ON THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE!!

Ten years from now the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE could be different.

Scientist look at the available evidence and then they ask is there a better theory to explain the available evidence.

Again, AVAILABLE EVIDENCE!

The fact that you and others can't accept that people are reaching these conclusions based on EVIDENCE shows how insecure you are about your BLIND PERSONAL BELIEF.

This why I keep asking you did you even read what I said. Your notion of 100% certainty in science is just NONSENSE. Science would never advance if it had a standard of 100% certainty!

a reply to: neoholographic

There is no "available evidence" of life on other planets. None.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

LOL, of course there's none. Hawking, Kaku, Morris and others reach their conclusions about extraterrestrial life because there isn't any evidence. They just woke up one morning out of the blue and said I think life exist on other planets for no reason.

To me, this is just silly. People who have to convince themselves that there's no evidence are just blinded by belief. You may not agree that there's enough evidence to come to the conclusion that extraterrestrial life exists in the universe, but it's just blind, personal belief to say there's no evidence.

originally posted by: neoholographic
but it's just blind, personal belief to say there's no evidence.

Regardless of how many times you tell yourself that, it still isn't true.

a reply to: neoholographic
There is available circumstantial evidence that points to there being life on other planets in general. However, there is no direct evidence for life on any particular planet (or moon).

Using out own solar system as an example, which we can study in relative detail and relatively directly, we can say that places such as Europa, Enceladus and Titan are good indications that there are planets and Moons out there in the galaxy that may have the necessary ingredients for life - but that still doesn't mean have no solid evidence for there being life on Europa, Enceladus, and Titan.

Yes, worlds such as those moons I mentioned (and maybe Kepler 452-B) as examples of places that have the ingredients to support life provide enticing general evidence for life in the galaxy, but there is no evidence that those specific places actually have life.

Just because your blind personal belief wants those places to have evidence for life, that doesn't mean it they do. They are still simply places that could possibly be hospitable for life, but that in itself is not evidence of life.

Another one of neoholographic's "Everyone is wrong but me!" threads with the usual factually-incorrect headline and grand leaps of logic to predetermined conclusions. Now with 20% more angry caps and bolded text!

This is a fantastic discovery but absolutely does not in any way, shape or form mean "NASA basically announced there's no doubt life exist on other planets Kepler 452-b".