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

It's times like these that I'm reminded of what the late, great Douglas Adams wrote about the population of the universe:

It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Sadly, a post filled with nonsense.

You said:

Are you trolling, or are you really just extraordinarily dense? Nobody (except for you) has even mentioned any silly idea that "Earth has some special ingredient that can't be duplicated anywhere else in the universe." Nobody.

Again, a lack of reading comprehension. I said unless earth has some special ingredient that can't be duplicated in the universe. When did I claim that you said this??

In other words, there's nothing prohibiting life from forming on other planets which goes to my point about the configurations that matter can be in.

You said:

I know that science isn't one of your strong points (you've made that abundantly clear), but this really isn't that hard to grasp...We have absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any life beyond Earth at this point.

You haven't mentioned one shred of Science on this thread to support anything you're saying.

You just make ASININE COMMENTS like NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER or ZERO EVIDENCE and you put them in bold letters like these IGNORANT statements mean anything beyond your own personal beliefs.

a reply to: Kojiro

Douglas Adams was a giant among men..
and his point...wrapped in humor may
well be quite cogent.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Hawking came to this conclusion based on the available evidence.

Which was...? What?

He even did an entire special on the Discovery Channel explaining the evidence that led him to this conclusion.

Oh, it was on TV and a cable station was involved?! THEN IT MUST BE TRUE!!!

Your entire post is basically bloviating about your opinion. You haven't presented a shred of evidence about anything.

Contrary sir, I believe that's you that you're referring to.

Again, this shows you have no understanding as to what you're talking about. The reason NASA had a press conference for this discovery because it wasn't like any exoplanet that was discovered before it.

There-in lies your contradiction, you postulate it was because they "basically said life exists", but they didn't.

Show me the discovery of:

EARTH SIZE PLANET
AROUND G2 STAR LIKE THE SUN
IN THE HABITABLE ZONE FOR AROUND 6 BILLION YEARS
385 DAY ORBIT AROUND STAR

Maybe not exact to those dimensions, but you'll find most planets are not going to be similar, but...you asked...
www.nasa.gov...
phl.upr.edu...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.space.com...
www.nasa.gov...
science.nasa.gov...

That's just from the first page of Google. All different shapes and sizes. All in the habitable zone. Some closer to Earth size than even this one and some even better candidates for life.

And JadeStar just made this wonderful post with a list of the planets found so far on this mission in the main Kepler thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So...you know...

It's ASININE to try and act like this is nothing and this news is just something we heard before.

Mmmm...but it kinda is. This one just happens to match our solar system more closely in configuration.

It's like finding a needle in a Haystack because this early in the process we have found a planet like this that fits our limited view of life. Just imagine if that view changes to something like Panspermia.

Assumptions again.

So again, it has nothing to do with leaps. Your hyperbole means nothing.

So I guess it's "one small step for man", then. Give me a break.

Hawking didn't say Aliens Almost Certainly exist out of the blue. He said it based on the EVIDENCE.

Dr. Kaku said this based on the EVIDENCE.

Yet you still haven't provided what that evidence was...

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.

I'd accept it if someone would show me what the damned evidence was, but you're so busy sitting there in your own personal blind belief that you insist is true, that you can't be bothered to provide information on said proof. The burden of that evidence is on you, sir. Not I nor anyone else in this thread. You are the one making the assumptions and putting words in everyone's mouth.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Your entire post is basically bloviating about your opinion. You haven't presented a shred of evidence about anything.

Pot, meet kettle.

Again, this shows you have no understanding as to what you're talking about. The reason NASA had a press conference for this discovery because it wasn't like any exoplanet that was discovered before it.

No two planets are identical, so it isn't exactly like any previously discovered exoplanets, but it's not much different from some. Kepler-186f and Kepler-62f, just to name a couple, are both Earth-like planets with orbits inside their stars' habitable zone. Kepler-186f was discovered last year, and Kepler-62f the year before. Had you any idea what you were actually talking about, you would have already known this.

Show me the discovery of:

EARTH SIZE PLANET
AROUND G2 STAR LIKE THE SUN
IN THE HABITABLE ZONE FOR AROUND 6 BILLION YEARS
385 DAY ORBIT AROUND STAR

Venus (though the orbital period is slightly less).

It's ASININE to try and act like this is nothing and this news is just something we heard before.

No, this is exciting news that furthers our understanding of the universe in which we live. It is, however, asinine to claim that no markedly similar discoveries have been made prior to this particular one, and it's even more asinine to conclude that this new discovery somehow constitutes definitive evidence of extraterrestrial life, when there's absolutely no supporting data for such a conclusion.

It's like finding a needle in a Haystack because this early in the process we have found a planet like this that fits our limited view of life.

Perhaps, but if so, then this haystack seems to be full of needles, as this is far from the first one we've found.

So again, it has nothing to do with leaps. Your hyperbole means nothing.

I guess we can add 'hyperbole' to the list of things that you find meaningless. It'll fit nicely alongside 'logic' and 'science'.

Hawking didn't say Aliens Almost Certainly exist out of the blue. He said it based on the EVIDENCE.

No, his statements were made based on statistical probability. Professor Hawking is not stupid enough to make inane claims of evidence when no such thing exists.

Dr. Kaku said this based on the EVIDENCE.

Again, no, his statements are based on probability. Probability is not evidence. This is like elementary school level stuff here.

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.

The only person in this entire thread who has (repeatedly) demonstrated a remarkable level of blind, fervent belief is you.

Tell you what...I can give you the contact information for several doctors and professors in fields relevant to this discussion...Why don't you contact some of them, inquire as to whether or not they believe that we have EVIDENCE (look, I can use caps too!) of life beyond Earth, and then post their responses here...

a reply to: Shugo

Again, this is the closest plant to Earth that has been found and this is why NASA gave a press conference on this Discovery. Because of this:

EARTH SIZE PLANET
AROUND G2 STAR LIKE THE SUN
IN THE HABITABLE ZONE FOR AROUND 6 BILLION YEARS
385 DAY ORBIT AROUND STAR

Here's some of the stories about this Discovery:

Kepler-452b: What It Would Be Like to Live On Earth's 'Cousin'

A group of pioneers magically transported to the surface of Kepler-452b — which is the closest thing to an "Earth twin" yet discovered, researchers announced yesterday (July 23) — would instantly realize they weren't on their home planet anymore.

www.space.com...

Earth 2.0: What we know about Kepler 452b, the most Earth-like planet ever discovered

Nasa scientists have announced the discovery of Kepler 452b, also known as 'Earth 2.0', an earth-like planet in our galaxy.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com... 56.cms

THE MOST EARTH-LIKE ALIEN WORLD YET HAS BEEN FOUND: KEPLER 452B

"I would say it's definitely the most similar planet to Earth in terms of its size, temperature, and type of star it orbits," says Coughlin.

www.popsci.com...

This is the Most Earth-like Planet Ever Discovered

NASA’s Kepler Space telescope science team has just announced the discovery of the most Earth-like planet ever. Meet Kepler 452-b, the very first apparently rocky planet that orbits a sun-like star in the habitable zone.

Here's the kicker:

“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.”

gizmodo.com...

I can go on and on. This just shows your complete DISHONESTY.

To try and act like this discovery is no different than the ones before it is just a FLAT OUT LIE that you have to tell yourself in order for your BLIND BELIEFS to make any sense.

CAN you say - BORING???

Is it the first announced 'most like the Earth' planet to be ever discovered? Remember Gliese system? There was even another system (or it was Gliese) where they made just as much noise about the discovery. And while I agree that the initial observation - finding a planet around the star and probably determining some of its chemicals is crucial to decide whether a flyby is needed or not, without the latter it's just a big deal.

Can we have for 9 years a spacecraft there? It's probably 100 times the distance to Pluto if not thousands. So while they discover another bunch - without being able to do anything more, what's the excitement? Do we have at least via Hubble the ability to see it like Hubble saw Pluto?

Nature or whoever made the universe, what we see on Earth looks overall well thought, nothing seems casual. Was all the vast space made to exist without finding some ways to go between them? Yes, the movie Interstellar.

i.imgur.com...

originally posted by: TheChrome
a reply to: JadeStar

I love the new discoveries, they are very interesting.

Yes. And the best stuff is yet to come!

Beyond that science has zero evidence of life other than our own.

I would preface that with "for now."

As a believer in the Bible, there is evidence within it that Humans are the only life in the universe. Unless science finds anything to the contrary, the bible stands to tell us the truth. Anything else is conjecture.

The search for life in the universe right now is sort of like where the search for extrasolar planets was in the 1960s. If you look at the Exoplanet Timeline I linked at the bottom of my post and scroll back on it, you'll see that back in the 1960s there began a lot of work looking for planets around other nearby stars. They knew what they were looking for and even how to look for it. There were even some false detections, false alarms (not too dissimilar from the 1990s Martian Meteorite controversy).

This lead everyone to be more cautious about announcing they had found a planet around another star though the 1970s-1980s.

As it turned out the technique they were using to look for planets (astrometry) happens to be the most difficult way to look for planets!

It was only when other techniques to look for planets (radial velocity and transit photometry) became possible through the development of CCDs, faster computers and advanced optics in the late 1980s did the search for planets around other stars like our Sun, have the tools necessary to easily find them.

And in 1995 the first one was announced. A Jupiter sized planet orbiting close to its star. Something no one expected but there it was, found and confirmed.

Today anyone with a Digital SLR camera and the right software can make such detections of exoplanets in their backyard. No telescope necessary.

I tell this story because it shows that once the right tools had been invented or developed the thing which had eluded astronomers for centuries, evidence of another planet circling a star other than our Sun, was not just found but turned out to be all around us.

Today we now know that there is, on average, a planet for every star.

20 years ago, that was conjecture.

When we have the sensitive tools to properly look for life, via spectroscopy, on exoplanets, we may find that we're surrounded by at least simple life. Or we may find that life is somewhat rare but still plentiful enough that we found it elsewhere after a long exhaustive search. Or something in the middle.

Until recently our attempts to look for life on other planets has been very limited to perhaps what might be the most difficult ways to find it: SETI and space probes to Mars just as astrometry was the most difficult way to look for planets around other stars.

Right now the first tools necessary to seriously conduct this search for life are just being finished and will be put into use or launched in the next 5 years. In the next 10-20 even more advancements will be made in this field.

The fact is that it is too early to make any proclamations one way or the other.

As far as the Bible, I do not see how evidence of extraterrestrial life would matter to you as a believer in that book. It is a book of faith, not a book of science so a scientific discovery should not affect your faith at all.

Finding this information about Kepler 452-B is scientifically interesting, but it does not constitute a paradigm shift. But that's only because the paradigm shift already happened (although it happened so slow that it probably wasn't noticed). Science already felt that planets such as Kepler 452-B were common in the universe (and galaxy), and that life probably is relatively common in the universe/galaxy. Finding this planet is a nice confirmation that these planets exist, but it isn't a huge surprise, nor will it mark a major change in the science of finding other life in the universe.

Put it this way: I don't think that just because Kepler 452-b was found does not suddenly make life elsewhere more real. If life elsewhere really does exist (and I think it does), it was just as real before they found this planet as it is now that they found this planet.

It seems a bit that the OP's message is "this makes the idea life elsewhere more real", when I don't think the idea of life elsewhere is really a question to begin with among most scientists and people in general.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: JadeStar

James Webb for the win?

*maybe*

As Sara Seager put it, James Webb could possibly find life if nature is kind and we are very lucky.

It certainly will be the first tool that we've built which has a chance at doing it.

I am looking forward to getting the first images back from that bad boy, let me tell you! I can feel my saliva glands wiggle in anticipation!

Well I am looking forward to getting the first detailed spectra back from SuperEarth type planets because not much is known about these kinds of planets since none like them exist in our solar system. And the chance that such spectra could reveal life!? Priceless!

Do not expect spectacular, Hubble-like images from the JWST. It is not an optical telescope, it works in the infrared so what images you will see will be false color by nature.

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: TheChrome
Sorry my friend there is no life on other Planets. Humans are the first creation, the other planets are for us to inhabit when we "get right." If you think I am wrong, prove there is life on other Planets lol.

20 years ago there were people who said the same thing about planets around other stars like our Sun. In october of that year (same year i was born) the first one was discovered.

No kidding? I would have guessed you were older than that. You're truly wise beyond your years...

Thanks! A lot of people have been telling me that lately.
My avi to the left is me.

originally posted by: Kratos40
a reply to: neoholographic

Is that your statement...or NASAs?
Second line because I had fried chicken from Popeyes tonight.

OMG! *craving* *now*

a reply to: Box of Rain

You said:

Put it this way: I don't think that just because Kepler 452-b was found does not suddenly make life elsewhere more real. If life elsewhere really does exist (and I think it does), it was just as real before they found this planet as it is now that they found this planet.

That makes no sense.

That's like saying the discovery of the Higgs Boson at the LHC doesn't make it more real.

Finding a planet like this is HUGE this early in our exploration and this is what they talked about in the press conference.

“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.”

When people try to say, it's nothing or it isn't a big deal they either don't know what a discovery like this means or they're blinded by a personal belief.

Again:

EARTH SIZE PLANET
AROUND G2 STAR LIKE THE SUN
IN THE HABITABLE ZONE FOR AROUND 6 BILLION YEARS
385 DAY ORBIT AROUND STAR

Again, HUGE NEWS this early in the process as NASA stated at the press conference.

a reply to: neoholographic

Except it's not the huge news that you want to believe it is. The only real difference between this latest discovery and a number of previous ones is the type of star the planet orbits. Other rocky, Earth-like worlds, with similar orbital periods and mass to Earth have been found within the habitable zones of their stars. You seem to ignore that fact.

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Nope, I don't ignore it but it has no relevance to this discussion because none of the previous planets discovered are like this one.

“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.”

For those who either don't understand why NASA said these things or are blinded by their belief will want to bring up things that have nothing to do with this discovery.

All of these things are interesting in there own right and I acknowledge that but for head in the sand blind believers not to recognize or to refuse to acknowledge that this discovery is very different than previous studies, are just not being honest. They're only lying to themselves though.

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
Other rocky, Earth-like worlds, with similar orbital periods and mass to Earth have been found within the habitable zones of their stars. You seem to ignore that fact.

Exactly. The statement missing from the announcement that would turn it from "interesting" to "monumental" is:

"And after repeated and confirmed independent spectrographic analysis of the planet's atmosphere, we can say without a doubt that the planet harbors some type of active, carbon-based life, unlikely to be of Earth origin."

That would be a big deal.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Again, there hasn't been any exoplanets found like this one that has these features:

EARTH SIZE PLANET
AROUND G2 STAR LIKE THE SUN
IN THE HABITABLE ZONE FOR AROUND 6 BILLION YEARS
385 DAY ORBIT AROUND STAR

“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 guys keep making the same statements in a vacuum without a shred of evidence to support anything you're saying.

Okay, this is starting to grow tiresome. It's like I'm listening to a piece of scratched vinyl in here.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: JadeStar

I take it, that by evidence in the atmospheres of these planets, you are referring to methanes and volatile organic compounds? Basically products of some respiratory process?

Yes.

I talked about it in the news thread but from the standpoint of what an alien astronomer 300 light years away would be able to tell about our Earth with the equivalent of the instruments are in the advanced planning stage or which we're due to complete, launch. Here is an excerpt:

So for the last 2 billion years, an alien astronomer within that 300 light year sphere with technology no greater than our own, looking at our planet with a sufficiently large space telescope would notice that something was filling our atmosphere with free oxygen.

That would stand out to any alien astronomers because oxygen is highly reactive and likes to combine with other elements to form things like carbon monoxide aka smog (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), water vapor (H2O) and formaldehyde (CH2O).

So anyone with a sufficiently large space telescope looking at the Earth and seeing a huge spike of O2 (free oxygen) would know something is replenishing it and the only something which does that efficiently for planets like ours, as far as we know, is life. Specifically photosynthetic life (plants, trees, etc).

They'd see something like these:

How would these be distinguished from volcanic and other geological expulsions?

It depends. If for instance we found abundant oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3) in combination with other gasses like methane (CH4) then it would strongly indicate life and an ocean.

If we found only something like carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) with a tiny hint of water vapor (H20) it would be a lot more ambiguous.

In that case we might be looking at a planet like our primitive, lifeless Earth but it could just as well be a living planet with a different atmospheric composition.

There are a whole host of other atmospheric combinations which would either lean towards life or lean towards abiotic atmospheric disequilibrium due to geologic or astrophysical processes.

One we just recently learned about would be planets in habitable zones of M-class stars which might have plentiful oxygen atmospheres as a result of the star's conditions causing water vapor electrolysis (H2O breaking down to Hydrogen and Oxygen) rather than life.

Furthermore, how can we confirm anything without setting foot on these worlds?

Yes. If we can take an image of it. A lot of research has gone into the colors of different forms of life, there's even been a whole catalog created of the combinations of colors of different types of bacteria colonies so if we spot that on an exoplanet in combination with atmospheric data we would know it's covered with such life.

Check out instituteforpalebluedots.com...

Also at UW's Virtual Planetary Laboratory here in Seattle, they've done research into what the colors of photosynthetic (plant) life on alien planets circling stars quite different from our own.

And there is also research from VPL into how volcanic activity on an exoplanet could help in the investigation of life.


All of this is pre-planning for something like a starshade / high resolution telescope combination which will actually be able to take images of planets like earth around other stars.

I firmly believe that although astronomy is one of the most appealing and important sciences, that landing human beings on these worlds should be the focus of as many dollars and pounds as can possibly be spared, or taken from other areas.

With the distances involved such journeys aren't likely to take place any time soon and certainly not with anything even imagined for the next 100 years of space travel so isn't it better to find out as much as we can about these planets before we're able to even think about reaching them? I mean it's kinda useful to have a map of continents, oceans, and perhaps know if life is there before saying "Warp 6! Engage!".

We know there are places to go, and we need to come up with ways of getting to these places!

That's a lot harder and more costly than building telescopes which could give us even better pictures and ideas of what is there though.

We can't even get a humans to Mars mission off the ground, going to Alpha Centauri B b or beyond with a human mission is a whole other 10 levels of difficulty.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Blue Shift

Again, there hasn't been any exoplanets found like this one that has these features:

EARTH SIZE PLANET
AROUND G2 STAR LIKE THE SUN
IN THE HABITABLE ZONE FOR AROUND 6 BILLION YEARS
385 DAY ORBIT AROUND STAR

“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 guys keep making the same statements in a vacuum without a shred of evidence to support anything you're saying.

As I said, I admire your enthusiasm but those are just the very basic parameters of this planet. It could be identical to Earth or it could be a hellish place like Venus, or something in between.

The main thing you have to accept is that we do not know for sure what Kepler-452b is like.

As I showed earlier, it is right on the line between the conservative habitable zone and the optimistic habitable zone. If it has one type of atmosphere it could very well be a lush blue/green world like our Earth, if it has another it could actually be worse than Venus.

One thing to note, which we DO know is it's size: 1.6 Earth radii

That is 1.6 times larger than Earth, so it's not an exact match. Close but not exactly.

At one time Earth had a poisonous Helium and Hydrogen atmosphere. It lost that because of it's small size. As terrestrial planets get bigger in size the chances that they hold on to that noxious atmosphere increases.

Now because this planet is mature and 1.5 billion years older than Earth I'd suspect it probably no longer has such a primitive atmosphere but there is no way of knowing for sure because we haven't the tools necessary to check yet.

Science is as much about admitting what we don't know as championing what we do.