+- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net)
+-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Ramble City (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=44)
+--- Thread: Earth-Sized Worlds (/showthread.php?tid=5893)
Earth-Sized Worlds - Darunia - 31st July 2010
100 Millions Earths in our Galaxy
This further solidifies my belief that today, more than ever before, we need to SLASH space exploration budgets and pour more money into social welfare programs. The more likely it is that every man who has ever looked at the stars and dreamed that we weren't alone was right, the angrier I get. There is nothing in space worth knowing or seeing. Just dead rocks. My life, and all the resources of humanity, are much better spent on projects on this Earth. Why, I'm furious that they even spent the money on this project... that's tax money that could have been better spent not winning the wars in the East, or not improving school test scores... or better yet, it could have been better spent on generous Federal bureacrat pensions! :cuss:
Ooh--sorry... I was channeling the Tendo City sentiment en masse for a minute there.
Post your counter-thrusts below.
Earth-Sized Worlds - EdenMaster - 31st July 2010
Once again you're generalizing. Definitively identifying life and striving to contact it? Hell yeah, I'm for that. I'd love to see advanced technology that can open up the heavens to us and allow us to explore.
What I'm against is pouring billions of dollars into sending people to a large red desert, simply to say we did.
That said, planet "size" is rather irrelevant. Existence of water, distance from stars, and several other factors are of much higher consequence than size.
Earth-Sized Worlds - Weltall - 31st July 2010
Actually, would the money not be best channeled into particle physics projects, so scientists can explore methods to circumvent the light-speed barrier? 'Cuz, if they could do that, and it can exist on the macro level, then we take a huge leap across almost all of the major obstacles impeding space colonization.
The space program, as it currently exists, is worthless for ever going to all those other planets, because with current propulsion methods, even the closest candidates would take centuries to reach. And, if faster-than-light travel is not possible, you better hope the Transhumanists are right, because otherwise, you're never going to see another Earth-like planet no matter what.
Earth-Sized Worlds - Darunia - 1st August 2010
That said, planet "size" is rather irrelevant. Existence of water, distance from stars, and several other factors are of much higher consequence than size.
"Size is not at all irrelevant." The only working model we have that definitely supports life is a planet with an equatorial radius of 6,378.1k, equatorial circumference of 40,075k, surface area of 510 million k, mass of 5.9736 × 1024 kg, and surface gravity comparale to 0.99732 g. Now, I'm not at all suggesting that all the world's astronomers, physicists and engineers know more about what to look for than you do--chances are, they don't---BUT if they're seeking an Eath-sized-planet because we know that an Earth-sized-planet, based upon the above criteria is the only concrete example of a model than can support life... well I hate to contradict you, because you know so much about astrobiology, but I'm going to go ahead and give them the nod to continue.
Dr. EdenMaster, we all know that life may exist on worlds larger or smaller than the Earth. The fact remains that our only empirical model of Life is the Earth. I think it is totally logical to begin a search for life on Earth-sized planets.
Planets much larger will be almost inevitably gas giants. And even if these gas giants do have life, it'd almost certainly be of a type that we have never seen and could not readily identify.
Planets much smaller, almost certainly rocky and solid, may or may not have the mass and gravity to maintain an atmosphere... and furthermore, they'd be harder to find.
Earth-sized planets are the totally logical place to look.
Earth-Sized Worlds - EdenMaster - 1st August 2010
By your logic, if were only assuming life can exist on a planet exactly like ours, then does there need to be 8 planets in it's system? Does it need to have one Moon? I wholly understand the logic of where they are looking but Earth-sized planets have just as much chance to be barren and worthless (See: Mars), and smaller bodies can have much higher chance of forming life (See: Europa).
Earth-Sized Worlds - Weltall - 1st August 2010
A gas giant probably cannot support life itself, but if the conditions are right, it could host moons which are capable of life to some, more recognizable, degree.
One thing, though, is that a planet probably does need to be roughly similar in many aspects to Earth if it is to resemble it in ways significant to us. Smaller planets are less capable of doing important things like generating sufficient gravity and magnetic fields capable of creating a useful atmosphere.
Honestly, if you sit back and really examine things, the fact that we exist is miraculous. If any one of literally hundreds (maybe thousands) of variables in temperature, magnetic field, atmosphere, &tc. were different, life would not be possible. And, for all the diversity life has displayed on this planet, for all the countless millions of species, only one tiny twig of the entire tree developed sapience, this itself a result of innumerable accidents which happened to go our way.
It's what makes me believe that intelligent, spacefaring life is exceedingly rare in this universe, on a per-capita basis, and why I hold the conceit that human beings are, in fact, a special grade of existence.
Earth-Sized Worlds - Darunia - 1st August 2010
By your logic, if were only assuming life can exist on a planet exactly like ours, then does there need to be 8 planets in it's system?
What the hell are you talking about? That's not at all my logic. I went very far out of my way to emphasize that there can be life on many sizes of worlds, but Earth is the most likely place to start. Don't put words in my mouth. Go back up and read my post. And at ANY rate, what the hell does this "8 planets" spiel mean? What are you rambling about?
Does it need to have one Moon?
No. Nor are they looking for planets with one moon. Nor did I suggest they are, or should be. That's arbitrary. Mass and size are not arbitrary.
I wholly understand the logic of where they are looking but Earth-sized planets have just as much chance to be barren and worthless
Wrong. They have an extraordinarily superior chance to be barren and worthless. NEVERTHELESS what you refuse to accept is that we have one template to go by, and that is planet Earth. If you think that NASA should be checking Jovian-sized bodies for life, or Martian-sized bodies... that's fine, but they ought not to take priority over Terrestrial-sized ones.
(See: Mars),
Mars is much smaller than the Earth.
and smaller bodies can have much higher chance of forming life
Smaller bodies may and may not harbor life. But again, the Earth is the only empirically-proven world to hold life. Thus, they are searching for similarly-sized worlds as the best candidates. It's totally logical. I don't know what your stubborn argument is here.
(See: Europa).
You're using Europa as an example of what... that smaller celestial bodies may hold life? Nobody knows if it does or not... it cannot be admitted as evidence. Or Titan, for that matter.
A gas giant probably cannot support life itself
I probably agree, but we don't know how life might evolve elsewhere. Airborne bacteria, what have you... we can only speculate, so I wouldn't entirely dismiss it.
Earth-Sized Worlds - Weltall - 1st August 2010
Honestly, I'm not convinced that finding some alien bacteria is worth generations of travel.
If we find radio signals that are clearly artificial in nature, that's one thing. That would justify an expedition made as soon as possible. Anything less than that is not important enough that it can't wait for us.
Earth-Sized Worlds - EdenMaster - 2nd August 2010
You spoke of attempting to find distant life by comparing it what we know. Where do the comparisons stop? Earth has a Moon, so should we only look at planets with one Moon. Earth is in a system with 8 planets, should we only look at similarly sized systems? I'm not "refusing to accept" anything, I even stated in no uncertain terms that I understand the logic of where they are looking. Now who's putting words in who's mouth?
And I have to agree with Weltall. I think general common sense dictates that with the enormity of the universe, even a microscopic chance has the ability to spawn life at least more than once. The difference is whether that life is really worth the trouble. Intelligent, spacefaring life is going to much, much harder to identify, but that is something worth pursuing, if found.
Earth-Sized Worlds - Darunia - 2nd August 2010
You spoke of attempting to find distant life by comparing it what we know. Where do the comparisons stop?
Sigh. Ask NASA. This was their conclusion as well.
Earth has a Moon, so should we only look at planets with one Moon. Earth is in a system with 8 planets, should we only look at similarly sized systems?
To the best of my knowledge, neither of those characteristics influence life on Earth. Mass does, as it effects gravity. None of the criteria are random and sarcastically chosen. Now, for the THIRD time: Astronomy 101: Planets that are much larger than the Earth and prone to be gas giants. No formula of life that we know of can take place there. So we're not looking there. Very small planets are likewise less likely to be inhabited, because they are, firstly, harder to find and therefore out of reach for the moment, and secondly, less likely to hold a tenable atmophere, or have the same gravitational and magnetic forces of Earth.
Since the early 90's, over 400* worlds have been found, but because of the primitive level of our search ability, most of them have been humongous Jupiter-like gas giants. AGAIN, bear with me now: these are unlikely suitable for life as we know it.
Now I know this is hard for you, so we'll review.
NASA should look for life:
a. On Earth-sized planets
b. On gas giants
c. On tiny, under-sized worlds.
{For the sake of this argument, we'll say Earth-sized is anywhere from .5 to 10x Terrestrial masses; the upper limite being that of Super-Earths )
Now, take a minute. Go get a drink, and come back. Ready to resume? I'll walk you through it.
A. The only working model we have for life is that of Earth. Therefore, we might start looking for life on worlds either a bit smaller or several times larger than the Earth. These are Earth-like worlds, and they are the focus of, amongst others, the Kepler mission.
B. We may start looking for life on gas-giants. This is impractical because even if it were possible here, we'd have no idea how to recognize it.
C. We may start looking on tiny, smaller-than-Earth-worlds. This would be tougher still, because smaller worlds are much harder to find than even the elusive Earth-sized worlds. Furthermore, more factors like gravity make these less likely (than Earth-sized worlds) to be able to sustain life.
I'm not "refusing to accept" anything, I even stated in no uncertain terms that I understand the logic of where they are looking.
If you understand, then why are you arguing with me over it? Now who was it who said... let me see here... "That said, planet "size" is rather irrelevant." You said that. Now you say, that you understand the logic of their search. THEY LOGIC OF THE KEPLER SEARCH IS FOR PLANETS SIMILARLY SIZED TO EARTH, thus size is NOT IRRELEVANT. This argument started because you picked a fight with me, spitting "That said, planet "size" is rather irrelevant." And you were wrong. And I corrected you. And now that the fight if over, you're seeking some sort of asylum with Weltall? The long-arm of Goron justice will catch you wherever you flee. He shall afford unto you no protection that I cannot repel.
And I have to agree with Weltall.
Well shit, obviously you agree with Weltall. You're cornered and he's the only alternative.
I think general common sense dictates that with the enormity of the universe, even a microscopic chance has the ability to spawn life at least more than once.
Absolutely! Very true! Which is why they're scanning many worlds even as we speak. BUT that's not what we were arguing about. (See above.) Changing the topic of admission of defeat.
The difference is whether that life is really worth the trouble. Intelligent, spacefaring life is going to much, much harder to identify, but that is something worth pursuing, if found.
And again, this is not what we were arguing about.
NOW LET'S REVIEW THE FIGHT:
I said, they're looking for worlds that are, amongst other criteria, Earth-sized. You countered, rather haughtily:
"That said, planet "size" is rather irrelevant."
Which, as you intended, was meant as a slight on the accuracy of my reporting. I then countered with some technical data of the specifics regarding the Earth. To which you responded, in a flagrantly sarcastic way:
"By your logic, if were only assuming life can exist on a planet exactly like ours, then does there need to be 8 planets in it's system? Does it need to have one Moon?"
Firstly, I never at all asserted that life can only exist on a world 'exactly' like ours. I have never in my life said this; here you put words in my mouth. But anyway, by this, you are snootishly asserting that the size of a planet should have no impact on the likelihood for there being life on it, and you appear to refer to its size as being no less arbitrary than the presence of a moon.
I then went on to repeat my argument.
To which you callously roared, "You spoke of attempting to find distant life by comparing it what we know. Where do the comparisons stop? Earth has a Moon, so should we only look at planets with one Moon. Earth is in a system with 8 planets, should we only look at similarly sized systems?"
Thus, reiterating your argument that size has nothing at all to do with the likelihood of a world bearing life. (And it does.)
NOW, WE HAVE TWO WAYS TO GO FROM HERE:
A.) You admit that size does have a great deal to do with how likely a world is to support life,
or
B.) You continue to dig in.
Changing the topic or invoking the sanctuary protection of Weltall will make no differenece.
Earth-Sized Worlds - Dark Jaguar - 2nd August 2010
Read this.
http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/kepler/posts/post_1280268721769.html
Okay we're done here.
Earth-Sized Worlds - Weltall - 2nd August 2010
It's cool that my input was totally not worth Darunia's fury.
So, all I have to say is that it requires an idealist to prove that going to other worlds is possible, and it requires realists to keep the idealists from trying to reach them using really tall ladders.
Earth-Sized Worlds - lazyfatbum - 2nd August 2010
1.) They found a planet a few years ago 8 times larger than earth that is proposed to hold life based on its relative distance from the sun and the sun's output. It takes 3 earth-years to make one orbit around its sun and its so big it could nearly hold the contempt of Darunia across it surface.
2.) Life does not need to match set conditions. Our own planet has the x-treme sports family of species, the insects that can only live in the deadly gases and compost of a bat caves bathroom, the animals that gleefully accept the pounds of pressure per square inch that would make a human being the size of a can of tomato soup within seconds at the bottom of an ocean that has more depth than we have atmosphere. Things like that tell me the condition of the planet means very little when it comes to the possibility of life.
3.) Seeding theorists believe that when we do discover life on another world, it will mirror ours since all life is based on the same principals of certain elements and design. This theory comes hot off the heels of ideas like space-borne bacteria or more extreme ideas like one planet that originally held life, exploded, and seeded planets across the universe (that meteor found in Wisconsin or whatever it was that had mummified single celled organisms was thought to be proof of that). But there is no scientific reason that life has to abide by any particular set of rules planet to planet. For example, the size of microscopic bacteria could be relative to our planet's size and the ceiling for physical size based on gravity. If a planet with less gravity held life, is it possible that the evolution could allow for microbes to have more mass or size, to be visible to the eye? With conditions that literally range from every extreme you can think of in infinite variables, it would be sad to think that ONLY planets with our particular mix of gases could support life and that the life that exists there would have to mirror our own. I think the discovery of life on other planets would give seed-theorists a double take, completely different cognitive and overall brain function and design, organ design and use, cell design, everything becomes up in the air because only this planet had to abide by its own rules.
4.) Everything said and done there needs to be a permanent space station where experiments can be done to create fast-as-or-faster-than light travel and a ship can be made that is based on space-flight only with the ability to act as a mother ship and release individual ships capable of actual flight to explore planets. Captain Archer would have a 12 year mission of exploring outside our galaxy until 60 years later or so and James T. Kirk takes over after a failed mission to rescue his superior ranking officer. Decades later an even more advanced ship will explore more uncharted territory and make contact with a race of omnipotent beings who normally avoid contact with humans and other humanoids. Through this friendship the echo of my extreme thought patterns will guide one of these omnipotent beings who will travel back to 1999 and create a multi-verse, kill ice-9 and completely remove the ignorance and argumentative nature of ABF and Great Rumbler causing them to eventually kill themselves as they realize their lack of purpose. The multi-verse is formed allowing human beings to enter Tendo City which acts as a real-life holodeck where every important discovery is made for the next 14 million years, ushering in a golden age where films dont suck, bad food is good for you and Darunia is always right. So, it's extremely important that a consistent and wealthy budget is created for the space program. I dunno how much longer I can stand ABF and GR masturbating each other.
Earth-Sized Worlds - EdenMaster - 2nd August 2010
The moon is not at all irrelevant to life on Earth. Without it the Earth would likely be a very different place, and not necessarily one which could breed life.
I'm not seeking any protection. He made a statement and I agreed.
If you understand, then why are you arguing with me over it?
Because it's fun to nitpick and watch you rage :D
Besides, you started the thread with a snarky tone, what did you expect to come of it? Regardless, I'll leave you now to argue with lazy. Consider it a victory if you must, as I consider our last spacefaring argument a win for me since you abandoned it. We'll call it all a draw :p
Earth-Sized Worlds - Weltall - 2nd August 2010
Quote:2.) Life does not need to match set conditions. Our own planet has the x-treme sports family of species, the insects that can only live in the deadly gases and compost of a bat caves bathroom, the animals that gleefully accept the pounds of pressure per square inch that would make a human being the size of a can of tomato soup within seconds at the bottom of an ocean that has more depth than we have atmosphere. Things like that tell me the condition of the planet means very little when it comes to the possibility of life.
Life, as we know it, does need a certain series of variables to be within a certain range to begin. The fact that there are creatures now that have adapted to all sorts of environments only means that we have life and it is adaptable. It does not mean that life can begin in these same environments. Certainly, conditions other than what we have experienced on Earth would make the evolution of complex life much less likely. Any evolutionary biologist will tell you that earth won a rather tremendous series of lotteries when it came to the circumstances best suited to not just form life from lifeless material, but to allow that life to evolve to the point where it becomes self-aware and can dictate its own destiny.
That's why the seeding theory is not a very good one. Unless the seeds were spread all throughout the universe, the chance that this primal life material could take root anywhere and flourish is stupendously low. Lower still is the chance that the same seed material responsible for our existence landed on another suitable planet and developed into intelligence at the same rate or faster than we did.
See: Fermi's Paradox and the Rare Earth Hypothesis.
Earth-Sized Worlds - lazyfatbum - 2nd August 2010
So because life evolved in what you consider good conditions, it was then able to evolve in to bad conditions? I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way. The bacterias and insects in bat caves evolved there specifically, they cant live anywhere else except to travel and migrate from one fecal farm to the next. Hundreds of millions of years ago life faced nothing but extremes one after the other and had no set standards to go by, even the atmosphere was poisonous by today's life-form's standards.
I dont subscribe to seeding either, but that's what I was getting at. That a planet has to be 'earth-like' in order to have life. Its very well possible that gas giants have life, we just lack the tools to examine it remotely. Based on what I understand a planet with zero oxygen has as much chance of harboring life-forms than a planet with oxygen.
Earth-Sized Worlds - Weltall - 3rd August 2010
Quote:So because life evolved in what you consider good conditions, it was then able to evolve in to bad conditions? I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way.
lol? that's precisely how evolution works. Dry land was, for billions of years, 'bad conditions' for life on earth.
Earth-Sized Worlds - Darunia - 3rd August 2010
I'll leave you now to argue with lazy
No tag-teaming.
I consider our last spacefaring argument a win for me since you abandoned it.
Did I abandon that? Well... I certainly didn't lose it, so since you feel that I've abandoned it, I'll go open a second front on that thread and revisit it after this post
VICTORY!
*Darunia and his Legions parade through the Arc de Triomphe in Goron City, atop a gallant, flower-laden motorcade. The sides of the streets are laced with thousands of adoring subjects, who toss rose petals towards their triumphant heroes*
*Dragged at the back of the military processions are thousands of captured EM infantry, and EM himself, in chains... pelted with tomatoes, spit, boos, cusses, and profanity*
*Darunia reaches a forum and addresses the crowds, who fall silent*
DARUNIA: Thank you, my adoring multitudes! This has been a tremendous victory for all Goron-kind! We have smitten the condsnending wretched mulitutude... brought light where there was none, and brought truth where there was only ignorance. This is a great victory indeed!
CROWD: HURRAH! HURRAH! HURRAH!
DARUNIA: But our work is not done! As complete as this victory was... as rich are the spoils that we have brought home from our enemy... in slaves, satins, silks, gold and jewels and all booty... and in conquered land, which will soon be open to Goron colonization... we have a new front to conquer... a front long-stagnant... but, personally invited by our enemies to lower them in righteous slaughter, we shall prevail! A brief respite for our victorious boys, and then on! On! March on! Back to the Space Exploration front!
CROWD: Hurrah! Hurrah! Hurrah!
Earth-Sized Worlds - lazyfatbum - 3rd August 2010
Weltall/ Then I'm not understanding what you're saying. The first amino acids are theorized to have come from ye olde primordial goo that would kill anything alive today and vice versa. Our specific planet had an abundance of oceans and is theorized to have been 100% water, so doesn't it make sense that the sun heating the water would have an excellent place for those first building blocks of life to begin forming legions there? Right, but not every planet works that way. Not every planet is water-centric where every life form needs water, it's accepted among scientific circles that forms of space bacteria exist as one example or planets that are hundreds of degrees below freezing, etc etc. Think about it: Where penguins live and thrive would kill you and I within minutes, even seconds.
Dinosaurs came on the scene in a world that would kill a human being, the atmosphere would have made us dizzy, then sleepy then lay down and die in our sleep. Those conditions were fantastic for particular designs in evolution - its like playing with the settings on a video card to get each game to work at optimum levels. Those settings yielded that type of creation, as the settings change those creations lose FPS and evolve or die, so a new game can be played with new creations.
There is no such thing as 'good conditions' for life since everything is relative. The catalyst is whether or not the building blocks exist on that planet but again, those building blocks can be anything, it doesn;t have to be replicating RNA bits and pieces because that's just OUR path, another path could be protozoans that can only function with absolutely no light - that happens on earth too. Life that evolved specifically underground and never hit the surface, has no traces to ancestors above ground and can only function in absolute dark to the point that a scientists flashlight can harm it. That is not good conditions for life, that is good conditions for that particular life form.
This planet's life forms need water and sun, but to think every planet needs that is ridiculous. It's like assuming that everyone is christian. Now if the debate was intelligent life, the levels of holy god what ifs is too much for me because intelligence as we know it is actually a rooted safety measure, an instinct that we used to survive. Art for example comes from nomads during ice ages, forced to cramp conditions, seeing the same 8/12 people day in and day out, so telling stories, building with the hands was a way to ease stress. So the catalyst there was extreme conditions where without the ability to 'imagine' we would have showed symptoms of desolation disorder. Even our cousins get in on the act and other animals as well. A bear with a stick, a wolf chasing a butterfly, gorillas throwing rocks at birds etc but for us we had to take that behavior and pump it up a million times over because we had to think outside the proverbial box to create things like mammoth traps, armor to protect the forearms against meat eating animals just like a cop training his K-9 unit, we had to imagine or die. The endless and infinite puzzle of specific actions that happened to get to that point and carry it through is so wily I usually find myself doubting that intelligent life exists anywhere but here. To make it even more profound we probably had 4 or 5 species of primitive mankind at some point (at least one other that we know of) but they all died out except us.
Earth-Sized Worlds - Weltall - 3rd August 2010
"Good conditions" are relative now, but that's only because life has evolved to adapt to so many conditions.
Life evolved from a certain, specific set of consequences. Anything else would have almost certainly been bad for that initial life. As you mentioned, dinosaurs lived in a world we would consider hostile--but that works both ways, and our genetic ancestors were able to adapt to the awful conditions that destroyed the dinosaurs. Now, in our colder, more oxygen-rich environment, the dinosaurs would have a hard time existing, ignoring every other difference. Our world would be 'bad conditions' for them.
Life as we know it could never have begun on Earth in the conditions we have today. It needed the conditions present 4 billion years ago--conditions which would be entirely awful for living things today, but vital for living things at that time.
Earth-Sized Worlds - lazyfatbum - 3rd August 2010
nuuuuuu But it doesn't work that way, the building blocks present at that time will attempt to form stronger and more survivable builds regardless of the environment. The only catalyst is that the building blocks exist but what those building blocks are will vary planet to planet in whatever shape its in. We can even re-create that and on accident sometimes, put a shit load of chickens in a craped room with a shit load of shit and it gives a catalyst to mutate microbes in to new strains of flu.
Earth-Sized Worlds - Weltall - 3rd August 2010
That's not the point, though. Life can only adapt because a precise set of circumstances allowed life to happen in the first place. That the building blocks must exist first is the major issue, not what happens after they do exist.
I have not been arguing that life cannot adapt to some radically different environments, but that it needs certain conditions to begin at all. The reason we still don't know precisely what the initial process was is because we can't find evidence of the process of dead material taking on the characteristics of living matter spontaneously in nature, and thus, we can't observe it taking place. The conditions aren't right for it anymore. The planet is vastly different, now, and the sun is bigger and much brighter now than it was back then. And, while we have an understanding of what those conditions were, we can't reproduce them accurately because there's no reliable way to measure those conditions with accuracy. We can only make educated guesses.
A metaphor would be us. We spent the first nine months of our physical development inside of a womb. For most of those nine months, this was entirely necessary, because if we were disconnected and placed outside of that womb (or some very close equivalent), survival would be impossible. The womb's environment must be very precise, compared to the world at large. Even minor alterations to these settings place a developing child at signficant risk.
Likewise, even if you imagine a womb exactly like a real one only adjusted to fit an adult, we would not be able to survive in that environment, as we must now breathe air, consume food, &tc. The body develops so radically that the environment which was once necessary for our creation is now poisonous to us, and the environment necessary to our survival as adults would be fatal to us when we were in the fetal stage.
Without the conditions provided by the human reproductive systems working together, human life could never begin, and its ability to develop and adapt to this environment would be entirely moot.