Five earth size planets found

Are you suggesting that no scientific work should go forward until we have resolved whatever still remains of the "financial crisis" and it is completely resolved?

Work done on projects like the aforementioned is not done exlusively by NASA, but in collaboration with University Astronomy and Physics departments around the US and other countries.

Could nuclear energy and Einstein's relativity formula have been postulated had there been no prior development in the astronomical sciences?

Just saying to illustrate how new ideas come from research that seems to be without much useful purpose at the time it is done.

You do understand that if there is a major collapse, there will be no money for any science?

Looking at planets will not help now, nor in the near future. Cutting funds to something like this only puts them back the time that the funds were cut, or, god forbid, they get money from private people.

Money for medicine = great idea
Money for something that is 2000 light years away = waste

This is a non-sequitor. The Kepler space telescope is already in orbit and 23 months into it's planned 42 month mission. Time on the telescope is scheduled (timeshared) by universities, and wages paid to the university personnel doing the research is paid by the universities, not by NASA. The work we are discussing here is a small part of the daily work being done on Kepler; it is not its sole work. The scope is able to work 24-hours a day because it is beyond the earth's shadow.

If the work being done was halted the investment in the telescope would be lost, and the savings would only be the cost saved for administering the scope for the benefit of the scientific community.

TY, that's what I wanted to know.
 
Now that we have established that there are indeed planets circling their stars within habitable zones, the most brilliant minds across our planet need to work together and try and come up with some way to rapidly get there, before we destroy this planet.
 
Now that we have established that there are indeed planets circling their stars within habitable zones, the most brilliant minds across our planet need to work together and try and come up with some way to rapidly get there, before we destroy this planet.
how about we first work on finding out if they would be habitable by Human life before we make any attempts to "get there"
 
Now that we have established that there are indeed planets circling their stars within habitable zones, the most brilliant minds across our planet need to work together and try and come up with some way to rapidly get there, before we destroy this planet.
how about we first work on finding out if they would be habitable by Human life before we make any attempts to "get there"

Either way you solve part of the overpopulation problem.
 
agreed, but with one change

AGW crap
the earth is constantly in cycles of warming and cooling

Your opinion is crap, unless you can tell us what's going to happen, if GHGs keep going up.




You have that reversed my friend. Until you can account for the many, many times in the past where CO2 levels were much higher and the world didn't end, you will forever chasing your tail. You have to answer the basics first.

Who ever said anything about the world ending? Of course things changed in the past and the earth compensated, that's not in question. The concern is about human civilzation: the flooding of coastlines where a large portion of the world's population lives, an INCREASE in warm weather diseases affecting temperate areas, reduction in farmland through desertification, increasingly violent storms, etc. You'll be forever chasing YOUR tail, if you can't explain how a substance which is rising in concentration and traps energy, won't eventually lead to a warmer world. I'm not going to chase my tail on this one. I know the answer, IT'S IRRELEVANT and just a denier trick to distract the less sophisticated.
 
Who ever said anything about the world ending? Of course things changed in the past and the earth compensated, that's not in question. The concern is about human civilzation: the flooding of coastlines where a large portion of the world's population lives, an INCREASE in warm weather diseases affecting temperate areas, reduction in farmland through desertification, increasingly violent storms, etc. You'll be forever chasing YOUR tail, if you can't explain how a substance which is rising in concentration and traps energy, won't eventually lead to a warmer world. I'm not going to chase my tail on this one. I know the answer, IT'S IRRELEVANT and just a denier trick to distract the less sophisticated.

Crop yields are higher during warmer climactic periods than cooler ones. The greatest avancement of civilization and the most peaceful period was seen during the Roman Maximum, a thousand year warming period.

During that period, North Africa and Egypt were the Mediterranean’s breadbasket, and the part of Africa now desert flowered.
 
Last edited:
Here's a chart; I know there have been many, and another one does little to satisfy the "Warmists", and indeed the world is warming, and I accept that some significant part of that warming has human agency.

It must be taken into account from historical records that global warming periods have not been proven to be disastrous, but in fact beneficial to civilization and to human populations. The most "dangerous" periods to humanity and civization have been those which were the opposite; the cooler ones.

GWSOLARCTY-rev-1.jpg

It is clear from the chart that the current warming period (Modern Maximum) began about the second or third decade of the nineteenth century, and fits neatly or seamlessly within a pattern going back about 50 centuries. Before that, going back 75 centuries, warmer climates absolutely dominated to a greater extent than any time since.

Going back before the Roman Maximum, acording to the chart, the earlier maximum correlated with much warmer climate. It was then that the first cities were founded. (Notice too, that a great retreat of worldwide glaciers occured during the Roman Maximum) Cities exhibit a higher level of civilization, and also they depend on the availability of foodstuffs being cultivated in sufficient quantities to support concentrations of human population most of whom are not dedicating their time to agricultural tasks.

Warmer periods should be damper/wetter periods, and colder periods should be dryer periods; whence desertification?

The above chart above was created back in the early 80's, before the Global Warming hysteria took hold in the public's mindset. It was created as a purely astronomical paradigm, as a tool to illustrate that the sun, unlike the theories of that current moment, was active and variable, and not inactive and of a constant state over long time periods.

Furthermore the solar cycles were correlated with warmer climactic periods as a way of tying data together to establish solar variation and not climactic variation; this was done by scientists (solar astronomers) without bias to any global political bias.

To sum up:
Global warming; yes or no – absolutely yes.
Human caused or cyclical and natural – a mix of both
Detrimental or beneficial – more the former than the latter.
 
Last edited:
Your opinion is crap, unless you can tell us what's going to happen, if GHGs keep going up.




You have that reversed my friend. Until you can account for the many, many times in the past where CO2 levels were much higher and the world didn't end, you will forever chasing your tail. You have to answer the basics first.

Who ever said anything about the world ending? Of course things changed in the past and the earth compensated, that's not in question. The concern is about human civilzation: the flooding of coastlines where a large portion of the world's population lives, an INCREASE in warm weather diseases affecting temperate areas, reduction in farmland through desertification, increasingly violent storms, etc. You'll be forever chasing YOUR tail, if you can't explain how a substance which is rising in concentration and traps energy, won't eventually lead to a warmer world. I'm not going to chase my tail on this one. I know the answer, IT'S IRRELEVANT and just a denier trick to distract the less sophisticated.




You alarmists are ALLWAYS telling us if the globe warms just two degrees the methane catastrophe is going to happen and life as we know it will end AHHHHHH! If ou would like I am happy to find one of the MANY links that olfraud has provided for the methane catastrophe.

We have been able to show that two times in mans recorded history(the RWP and the MWP) the temps HAVE been higher than that magical mystical 2 degrees and the methane catastrophe never seems to have occured. Or if it did it doesn't seem to have had any effect at all due to the widespread prosperity experienced by plant and animal life all over the globe.

We also know through the Vostock ice cores that 8000 years ago, warming occured and the CO2 levels rose 400 to 600 years after the temp increase. The CO2 levels then STAYED at that elevated level for 1000 years and lo and behold, there were still temperature drops and increases of multiple degrees even though the CO2 level stayed the same. Revealing yet again the CO2 has little if any impact on global temperatures.

Until you explain that simple fact, YOU are the one pissing up a rope dood.
 
CNN) -- Are we alone in the universe? Findings by NASA's Kepler space telescope are making that seem less likely.

NASA scientists have announced Kepler has spotted five planets about the size of Earth, orbiting stars in our galaxy.

These planets are orbiting in what is known as the habitable zone, which puts them at a distance from their suns where liquid water could exist. Liquid water is a key ingredient for life to form.

"In a generation we have gone from extraterrestrial planets being a mainstay of science fiction, to the present, where Kepler has helped turn science fiction into today's reality," said NASA Administrator Charles Bolden.

Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galaxy - CNN.com

i sometimes ask the question, will inteligent life be found on Earth?

My answer is this: When, not if we find it in the Universe, the answer will
be a resounding yes. Science is a grand thing, and helps define who we
are, our place in the world, our place in the Universe. The more we learn
out there, the more we see how special we are here.

Long time space nut here, growing up during the space race.
Carry on!
 
Last edited:
Who ever said anything about the world ending? Of course things changed in the past and the earth compensated, that's not in question. The concern is about human civilzation: the flooding of coastlines where a large portion of the world's population lives, an INCREASE in warm weather diseases affecting temperate areas, reduction in farmland through desertification, increasingly violent storms, etc. You'll be forever chasing YOUR tail, if you can't explain how a substance which is rising in concentration and traps energy, won't eventually lead to a warmer world. I'm not going to chase my tail on this one. I know the answer, IT'S IRRELEVANT and just a denier trick to distract the less sophisticated.

Crop yields are higher during warmer climactic periods than cooler ones. The greatest avancement of civilization and the most peaceful period was seen during the Roman Maximum, a thousand year warming period.

During that period, North Africa and Egypt were the Mediterranean’s breadbasket, and the part of Africa now desert flowered.



The Medieval Warm period also resulted in much improved standards of living after the dismal Dark Ages of Europe.
 
Who ever said anything about the world ending? Of course things changed in the past and the earth compensated, that's not in question. The concern is about human civilzation: the flooding of coastlines where a large portion of the world's population lives, an INCREASE in warm weather diseases affecting temperate areas, reduction in farmland through desertification, increasingly violent storms, etc. You'll be forever chasing YOUR tail, if you can't explain how a substance which is rising in concentration and traps energy, won't eventually lead to a warmer world. I'm not going to chase my tail on this one. I know the answer, IT'S IRRELEVANT and just a denier trick to distract the less sophisticated.

Crop yields are higher during warmer climactic periods than cooler ones. The greatest avancement of civilization and the most peaceful period was seen during the Roman Maximum, a thousand year warming period.

During that period, North Africa and Egypt were the Mediterranean’s breadbasket, and the part of Africa now desert flowered.



The Medieval Warm period also resulted in much improved standards of living after the dismal Dark Ages of Europe.

Cause and effect has been completely misconstrued. Also the amount of flooding of coastal areas has been greatly exaggerated, but that has been exacerbated by the overpopulation right up to the seashore on the coasts, at least for the perceived threat from hurricanes.

The great plagues were rampant in the cool periods beginning early in the 14th century with both the plague and the cooling periods ending with the beginning of the modern warming period. The earlier, and first of the great plagues, the Justinian Plague, corresponded with the Medieval cooling period, from about 540 to 750 AD.
 
Last edited:
Who ever said anything about the world ending? Of course things changed in the past and the earth compensated, that's not in question. The concern is about human civilzation: the flooding of coastlines where a large portion of the world's population lives, an INCREASE in warm weather diseases affecting temperate areas, reduction in farmland through desertification, increasingly violent storms, etc. You'll be forever chasing YOUR tail, if you can't explain how a substance which is rising in concentration and traps energy, won't eventually lead to a warmer world. I'm not going to chase my tail on this one. I know the answer, IT'S IRRELEVANT and just a denier trick to distract the less sophisticated.

Crop yields are higher during warmer climactic periods than cooler ones. The greatest avancement of civilization and the most peaceful period was seen during the Roman Maximum, a thousand year warming period.

During that period, North Africa and Egypt were the Mediterranean’s breadbasket, and the part of Africa now desert flowered.

But that was a limited natural phenomenon. What happens when we create an unnatural rise in temps? How do you know it will be the same as other warm periods? What if temps keep going up? You can't take the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed, like humans emitting more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. This constant looking into the past isn't logical, because back then we weren't emitting nearly the amount of CO2 we do today. That's why scientists have to use "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" from other sources and winnow out the contribution of man.
 
Crop yields are higher during warmer climactic periods than cooler ones. The greatest avancement of civilization and the most peaceful period was seen during the Roman Maximum, a thousand year warming period.

During that period, North Africa and Egypt were the Mediterranean’s breadbasket, and the part of Africa now desert flowered.

But that was a limited natural phenomenon. What happens when we create an unnatural rise in temps? How do you know it will be the same as other warm periods? What if temps keep going up? You can't take the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed, like humans emitting more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year. This constant looking into the past isn't logical, because back then we weren't emitting nearly the amount of CO2 we do today. That's why scientists have to use "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" from other sources and winnow out the contribution of man.

I think you ask good questions; I would like to see some actual scientific curiosity about what does happen when climates return to conditions like back about 7,000 BP.
Warmer conditions mean higher relative humidity and greater amounts of water vapor, more rainfall, while lower temps result in the opposite. I'm disturbed when I hear the reverse of this formula espoused as gospel. We hear about a 20-foot rise in sea level, but in the worse case it will very possibly not be more than a foot or two.

New Orleans is used as an example of the type of disaster we can look forward to in the immediate future, but it is below sea level and sinking lower fast. Katrina could be the best thing that will have happened to New Orleans if we were to heed it as the warning it actually is; do we want to persist in the use of land below sea level as habitat for a dense and relatively poor population?

I'm not so sure of your assertions about "humans emitting more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year;" being even close to factual. If it was actually true, then that would seem to be a problem of disastrous proportions. But I'd like to see that documented by unbiased scientific evidence. One problem with the skewing of data we have seen through all this, is that "science" has been discredited, because people who are believed to be scientists have made assertions that have been found wanting.
 
What's interesting is that they found 5 earth like planets in 1/400 of the sky in our galaxy.

5 x 400 = 2,000 earth like planets in our galaxy.

And the Hubble telescope has detected 80 billion galaxies.
 
What's interesting is that they found 5 earth like planets in 1/400 of the sky in our galaxy.

5 x 400 = 2,000 earth like planets in our galaxy.

And the Hubble telescope has detected 80 billion galaxies.
not "earth like" dipshit
they claimed "earth sized"
and all of them are exponentially larger than earth
even the smallest one
 
What's interesting is that they found 5 earth like planets in 1/400 of the sky in our galaxy.

5 x 400 = 2,000 earth like planets in our galaxy.

And the Hubble telescope has detected 80 billion galaxies.
It is an order of magnitude more difficult to detect Earth like planets than say hot-Jupiters; harder still to find any planets at all out in Goldilocks orbits. When we look at our solar system we see that the two largest planets have the most large moons, which could be considered to have the same relationship of a primary to its orbiting satellites; earth is a satellite of the sun.

in that schematic jupiter has 63 moons with 4 around the size of our moon, and Saturn has 18 moons also with 4 moons close to the size of our own, Luna, which is an out-sized satellite. Uranus has 21 and Neptune 13 - all together the outer planets have 115 moons

Probably the great majority of suns/stars have planets except those which have had them stripped away by other stars in close proximity.

If not for the collision of a Mars sized body Earth would have none, Venus none, and Mars has only asteroids captured as its two moons Phobos and Deimos.
 
Last edited:
What's interesting is that they found 5 earth like planets in 1/400 of the sky in our galaxy.

5 x 400 = 2,000 earth like planets in our galaxy.

And the Hubble telescope has detected 80 billion galaxies.


Correct, with a few addons; HST has detected roughly enough exoplanets to extrapolate there are somewhere around 100,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 Class Class C planets (Earth like) in our Milky Way Galaxy alone and most are in the Gliese 581g type, or ones that lie within the "Goldilocks Zone", planets that would have liquid water on the planet's surface.

This is exciting news, of course.

If more of these class C planets can be verified it infers O2 breathing life is a fairly common occurance and that the Drake Formula can be adjusted much more favorably to possible life in the Galaxy and Universe, outside of our own.

1 billion possible earth like planets is a fair amount. Something to ponder in some degree of awe.

Here is the Drake Formula, which can be applied to any planet body:

N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL

The equation can really be looked at as a number of questions:

N* represents the number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy
Question: How many stars are in the Milky Way Galaxy?
Answer: Current estimates are 100 billion.

fp is the fraction of stars that have planets around them
Question: What percentage of stars have planetary systems?
Answer: Current estimates range from 20% to 50%.

ne is the number of planets per star that are capable of sustaining life
Question: For each star that does have a planetary system, how many planets are capable of sustaining life?
Answer: Current estimates range from 1 to 5.

fl is the fraction of planets in ne where life evolves
Question: On what percentage of the planets that are capable of sustaining life does life actually evolve?
Answer: Current estimates range from 100% (where life can evolve it will) down to close to 0%.

fi is the fraction of fl where intelligent life evolves
Question: On the planets where life does evolve, what percentage evolves intelligent life?
Answer: Estimates range from 100% (intelligence is such a survival advantage that it will certainly evolve) down to near 0%.

fc is the fraction of fi that communicate
Question: What percentage of intelligent races have the means and the desire to communicate?
Answer: 10% to 20%

fL is fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live
Question: For each civilization that does communicate, for what fraction of the planet's life does the civilization survive?
Answer: This is the toughest of the questions. If we take Earth as an example, the expected lifetime of our Sun and the Earth is roughly 10 billion years. So far we've been communicating with radio waves for less than 100 years. How long will our civilization survive? Will we destroy ourselves in a few years like some predict or will we overcome our problems and survive for millennia? If we were destroyed tomorrow the answer to this question would be 1/100,000,000th. If we survive for 10,000 years the answer will be 1/1,000,000th.
When all of these variables are multiplied together when come up with:

N, the number of communicating civilizations in the galaxy.

Hope this is helpful. Great post by the way.

Robert
 
Last edited:
What's interesting is that they found 5 earth like planets in 1/400 of the sky in our galaxy.

5 x 400 = 2,000 earth like planets in our galaxy.

And the Hubble telescope has detected 80 billion galaxies.


Correct, with a few addons; HST has detected roughly enough exoplanets to extrapolate there are somewhere around 100,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 Class Class C planets (Earth like) in our Milky Way Galaxy alone and most are in the Gliese 581g type, or ones that lie within the "Goldilocks Zone", planets that would have liquid water on the planet's surface.

This is exciting news, of course.

If more of these class C planets can be verified it infers O2 breathing life is a fairly common occurance and that the Drake Formula can be adjusted much more favorably to possible life in the Galaxy and Universe, outside of our own.

1 billion possible earth like planets is a fair amount. Something to ponder in some degree of awe.

Here is the Drake Formula, which can be applied to any planet body:

N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL

The equation can really be looked at as a number of questions:

N* represents the number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy
Question: How many stars are in the Milky Way Galaxy?
Answer: Current estimates are 100 billion.

fp is the fraction of stars that have planets around them
Question: What percentage of stars have planetary systems?
Answer: Current estimates range from 20% to 50%.

ne is the number of planets per star that are capable of sustaining life
Question: For each star that does have a planetary system, how many planets are capable of sustaining life?
Answer: Current estimates range from 1 to 5.

fl is the fraction of planets in ne where life evolves
Question: On what percentage of the planets that are capable of sustaining life does life actually evolve?
Answer: Current estimates range from 100% (where life can evolve it will) down to close to 0%.

fi is the fraction of fl where intelligent life evolves
Question: On the planets where life does evolve, what percentage evolves intelligent life?
Answer: Estimates range from 100% (intelligence is such a survival advantage that it will certainly evolve) down to near 0%.

fc is the fraction of fi that communicate
Question: What percentage of intelligent races have the means and the desire to communicate?
Answer: 10% to 20%

fL is fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live
Question: For each civilization that does communicate, for what fraction of the planet's life does the civilization survive?
Answer: This is the toughest of the questions. If we take Earth as an example, the expected lifetime of our Sun and the Earth is roughly 10 billion years. So far we've been communicating with radio waves for less than 100 years. How long will our civilization survive? Will we destroy ourselves in a few years like some predict or will we overcome our problems and survive for millennia? If we were destroyed tomorrow the answer to this question would be 1/100,000,000th. If we survive for 10,000 years the answer will be 1/1,000,000th.
When all of these variables are multiplied together when come up with:

N, the number of communicating civilizations in the galaxy.

Hope this is helpful. Great post by the way.

Robert

so "earth sized" is the same as "earth like"?
 
so "earth sized" is the same as "earth like"?
Not necessarily, but generally speaking. Earth like planets are "rocky" not gaseous planets, but also, and I'm only giving an opinion, Earth like planets are also planets in orbits conducive to supporting life. Earth like planets might be 10 times more massive than Earth, but probably not much smaller; vis-a-vis Mars.
 
Last edited:
When will learn to get around the 'C' limitation? I don't know. Some young genius may be right now penning the math that will allow us to do this. We know so litttle yet of how the universe works.

Math ain't physics and we have a hard time getting out of this gravity well.

Right now I would be more interested in anti-gravity than FTL. :lol:

psik
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top