Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

brooklynite

(93,851 posts)
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 02:32 PM Apr 2013

3 new planets could host life

Source: CNN

In the midst of chaos here on Earth, scientists are finding hope for life on other planets.

Scientists announced Thursday the discovery of three planets that are some of the best candidates so far for habitable worlds outside our own solar system -- and they're very far away.

NASA's Kepler satellite, which is keeping an eye on more than 150,000 stars in hopes of identifying Earth-like planets, found the trio.

Two of the planets -- Kepler-62e and Kepler-62f -- are described in a study released Thursday in the journal, Science. They are part of a five-planet system in which the candidates for life are the farthest from the host star.



Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/18/us/planet-discovery/index.html

80 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
3 new planets could host life (Original Post) brooklynite Apr 2013 OP
Yo CNN, they are not "new" planets snooper2 Apr 2013 #1
probably last longer, too. ChairmanAgnostic Apr 2013 #3
That's common usage, though DavidDvorkin Apr 2013 #4
LOL. Good point. Cool findings, though. pinto Apr 2013 #5
It could be Wolfie AAO Apr 2013 #66
This is exciting!!!! hamsterjill Apr 2013 #2
Walking around would make you feel like you have lead in your boots... Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #6
not faster Trajan Apr 2013 #7
Gravitational pull is an acceleration so it would be faster.... Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #9
Not necessarily. jeff47 Apr 2013 #27
By "people" I assume you mean humans used to 1G at sea level... Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #34
Not necessarily. longship Apr 2013 #21
Good point. Some of these planets could have the density of Styrofoam. Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #31
Well, maybe not styrofoam, but maybe not so much iron. longship Apr 2013 #38
....pssst.... Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #40
We have one of our own. Saturn is less dense than water. longship Apr 2013 #41
I can picture a planet composed of a large amount of pumice... Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #42
Well, you're thinking statically. longship Apr 2013 #44
Picture a large volcanic planet hit by a large asteroid tossing out a huge volume of lava. Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #46
The moon most likely formed that way and that didn't result. (nt) Posteritatis Apr 2013 #47
I know but the earth was composed of dense material. Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #50
Or it would likely spin out of the star system. longship Apr 2013 #48
We don't know what goes on in nebulas. Just about anything is possible.... Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #53
Well, still, the universe obeys the laws of nature. longship Apr 2013 #58
"One doesn't get to make stuff up." Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #59
Ahem. Your link led to a gas giant planet. longship Apr 2013 #60
"I really am not trying to malign you." Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #61
Let me put it this way. longship Apr 2013 #63
"its self gravity could not hold it together." Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #64
Good pun, my friend. longship Apr 2013 #65
I don't believe you could have a super lightweight planet in the Goldylocks Zone. Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #67
But no homogeneous matter is likely to exist in any primordial system. longship Apr 2013 #68
Okay, but keep in mind that Earth has the highest density in the solar system. Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #69
No problem there. nt longship Apr 2013 #70
Just look at the Tea Party. Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #72
That might be the case with 253 Mathilde sofa king Apr 2013 #71
I can picture a collection of gasses forming in a nebula liquifying, bubbling and solidifying. Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #73
The smaller one's 1.4 Earth masses, which wouldn't be that bad Posteritatis Apr 2013 #45
Don't fret over not having the equation.... Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #49
Ooh! Thanks! Posteritatis Apr 2013 #51
This message was self-deleted by its author GliderGuider Apr 2013 #56
at 2700 light years away they may not exist anymore leftyohiolib Apr 2013 #8
That's a blip in geologic time.... Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #10
That really isn't that far away to speculate that it may not exist anymore.... cbdo2007 Apr 2013 #12
A rocket traveling at light speed would take 2,700 years arcane1 Apr 2013 #14
Hahahaha, sorry. Figured my math would be off by a lot..... cbdo2007 Apr 2013 #20
The relative time on the rocket would be much less, at least arcane1 Apr 2013 #32
At the speed of light the aging rate of the rocket passengers would be 0 MillennialDem Apr 2013 #33
Correct :) arcane1 Apr 2013 #36
And since time stands still it would become a trap as there would be no way to shut it off. Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #54
Of course, even if we could send probes to something 2700 light years away, Art_from_Ark Apr 2013 #75
if we could travel at the speed of light it would take 2700 years to get there. but we cant travel leftyohiolib Apr 2013 #16
The Shuttle and "Fearless Felix" did! Liberalagogo Apr 2013 #24
I'm outta here. The Stranger Apr 2013 #11
Me. spiderpig Apr 2013 #25
I have a list of people that should live there.lol SummerSnow Apr 2013 #13
Well... If CNN says so it must be true Blue Owl Apr 2013 #15
CNN's hardly the only station reporting this. (nt) Posteritatis Apr 2013 #43
Fascinating Joshua Pistachio Apr 2013 #17
I believe CNN is reporting that the middle one is wanted for questioning in Boston. n/t eggplant Apr 2013 #18
The middle one cnn reporting? walkerbait41 Apr 2013 #29
Actually, I think it is slightly east of the middle one. eggplant Apr 2013 #35
I, for one, welcome our new Kepler 22 through Kepler 69 overlords! Hassin Bin Sober Apr 2013 #19
Great. Can we round up all the Republicans and send them to one of them? Arkana Apr 2013 #22
+1 walkerbait41 Apr 2013 #30
Trying to start an intergalactic war? Hassin Bin Sober Apr 2013 #37
We'd win--they don't believe in science, remember? Arkana Apr 2013 #62
No. I mean a war with the Keplarians. Hassin Bin Sober Apr 2013 #74
Hee hee hee... Arkana Apr 2013 #77
They would call themselves god Eksynyt Apr 2013 #76
Will those names always be their names? Jamastiene Apr 2013 #23
Astronomers usually do not name things. longship Apr 2013 #39
Thank you for that detailed information. Jamastiene Apr 2013 #52
You are most welcome. Glad my post made sense to somebody. ;-) longship Apr 2013 #55
they should seed some of the close planets/moons with any life that survives in like conditions Sunlei Apr 2013 #26
Dibs on the one on the left! Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #28
If they can host life, then they probably do. GliderGuider Apr 2013 #57
Depends on whether or not the Alien overlords have populated them yet.... cbdo2007 Apr 2013 #78
Problem with the Fermi paradox no one thinks about is the time for a civilization to rise up MillennialDem Apr 2013 #79
But if civilizations last for a very long time... GliderGuider Apr 2013 #80

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
27. Not necessarily.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:56 PM
Apr 2013

And our atmosphere determines the speed of falling objects after a very short time period, capped at terminal velocity. A denser atmosphere could result in slower acceleration and a lower terminal velocity - but that's just one of the factors.

There's a ton of factors involved, such as the density of the planet, the distribution of it's mass, the atmosphere on the planet and so on. We can't say, at this point, what people on that planet would feel.

 

Spitfire of ATJ

(32,723 posts)
34. By "people" I assume you mean humans used to 1G at sea level...
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 04:27 PM
Apr 2013

Any indigenous life would literally feel at home in it's environment.

longship

(40,416 posts)
21. Not necessarily.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:40 PM
Apr 2013

Radius alone does not determine gravity. It's also mass. Although it's likely that these planets are more massive, the difference in gravity may not be significant if the planets are less dense than the earth.

Kepler planets do not automatically have a determined mass. For that, it would take a different measurement. E.G., the wobble method.

..........m
Ag=G*-----
..........r^2

Acceleration due to gravity is proportional to mass and inversely proportional to the radius squared.

longship

(40,416 posts)
38. Well, maybe not styrofoam, but maybe not so much iron.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 04:39 PM
Apr 2013

The number one element on Earth is oxygen, usually combined with other elements. I think the number one solid element is silicon. Iron is up there, too.

Who knows the composition of these planets? We certainly do not. But by combining the eclipse method (Kepler space telescope) that gives us their radius with the wobble method (mostly ground-based telescopes) which may give us the mass, it may be possible to determine the planet's density.

But many of these observations are at the edge of our abilities with current equipment. For the eclipse method, one needs resolution to detect fine differences in light output and a lot of time continuously viewing the same object(s). For the wobble method, one needs a helluva good spectrograph to detect the wobbles in the star due to the orbiting planet(s) due to the Doppler shift.

It ain't easy.

longship

(40,416 posts)
41. We have one of our own. Saturn is less dense than water.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 05:17 PM
Apr 2013

It would float if one had a large enough ocean.

But it is almost certain that any so-called styrofoam planet will be a gas giant, like Saturn. The dynamics are such that small planets have low mass and cannot hold on to low mass elements necessary to make a low density planet. A small planet can only hold onto heavier elements and compounds. The low mass shit just drifts away because the escape velocity is too damned low to hold it.

Sorry, my friend.

 

Spitfire of ATJ

(32,723 posts)
42. I can picture a planet composed of a large amount of pumice...
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 05:29 PM
Apr 2013

It happens when lava cools very quickly.

longship

(40,416 posts)
44. Well, you're thinking statically.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 05:45 PM
Apr 2013

As if a star system somehow forms pumice without the necessary mass to cause the tectonic actions to melt minerals into pumice.

You have to look at the dynamics of a star system to realize some things just aren't going to happen that often, if ever.

For instance, all the bodies in the solar system revolve around the sun the same direction. That couldn't be an accident. It tells us something about the dynamics of building a planetary system around a star. It also validates conservation of angular momentum.

There are all sorts of things like this which tell us what to expect, and what not to expect. Probably no styrofoam earth-sized planets out there because there's just no way to get there within nature.

 

Spitfire of ATJ

(32,723 posts)
46. Picture a large volcanic planet hit by a large asteroid tossing out a huge volume of lava.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 06:01 PM
Apr 2013

That would do it. The lava would cool very fast in space and would form a ball shape from it's own gravity. The core would be crushed solid but the overall density would be low.

longship

(40,416 posts)
48. Or it would likely spin out of the star system.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 06:09 PM
Apr 2013

Sure, one can come up with scenarios where such a thing might be possible, by collisions, or some such thing. But these conditions would be very rare and do not address the issue that one has to resort to special pleading to provide a possible mechanism.

In general, nature still obeys its own rules which seem to exclude such things. I guess one cannot say it's impossible, but it's certainly not very probable. I would not expect that astronomers would be finding such a thing any time soon, if ever.

Prior plausibility is important.

 

Spitfire of ATJ

(32,723 posts)
53. We don't know what goes on in nebulas. Just about anything is possible....
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 06:29 PM
Apr 2013

We already know about star factories out there and giant molecular clouds. Then there are globular clusters that look like tightly packed stars that are actually about a half light year apart but still suffer collisions. A mass of frozen gas would be very light but wouldn't be in a habitable zone.

longship

(40,416 posts)
58. Well, still, the universe obeys the laws of nature.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 06:50 PM
Apr 2013

One doesn't get to make stuff up. Saying anything's possible is an invitation to be called out. And arguing from ignorance does not gain one any advantage over hard realities of what is known about the universe.

I am not trying to be personal here. I find an earth-sized styrofoam planet intriguing. But it's not at all very plausible by what we know. And that is not at all likely to change.

Advances in science are conservative. Einstein's relativity revolutionized the theory of gravity, but reduces to Newton's theory at lower masses and slow speeds. We still use Newton to land probes in the outer solar system.

 

Spitfire of ATJ

(32,723 posts)
59. "One doesn't get to make stuff up."
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 07:12 PM
Apr 2013

Hence, my link to where I read in the past about a low density planet.

Scientists without imagination are famous only for being irritating.

longship

(40,416 posts)
60. Ahem. Your link led to a gas giant planet.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 07:36 PM
Apr 2013

Not an imaginary earth sized styrofoam planet.

Sorry that science still doesn't allow people to make stuff up. Science is a tough bastard. You've got something new? Fine. But you'd damned well better have some theory and evidence to back it up. Otherwise, you are nowhere.

I don't think there is any plausible mechanism for a stable earth-sized styrofoam planet. I don't think such a small, low density planet could hold itself together, even if there was a process to create the damned thing in the first place, which I also doubt.

I am sorry that you do not like what I have written here. I really am not trying to malign you. I may even be wrong about this. That's part of science, too. But your idea does not seem to have a plausible basis, let alone mechanism. Without them, you really have nothing.

I apologize for deflating your idea. I am being pedantic. Forgive me.

longship

(40,416 posts)
63. Let me put it this way.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 08:11 PM
Apr 2013

Every single smaller planet in the universe which we've studied has high density. What I mean by smaller is smaller than the medium sized Ice Giants like Uranus and Neptune. This means millions of objects in our solar system alone. All four of the inner planets, all the moons, all the ice dwarfs, and all the uncountable myriads of asteroids. All are rocky, composed of high density compounds. Of all the extrasolar planets discovered that we have data on, none violate this trend.

Not a single one is styrofoam density or even close to such. The only planets of low density are large gas giants. There is a reason for that. It is in the equations for gravity -- Newton would suffice. It can be modeled on a computer.

I have not done the modeling, but I highly suspect that there are no low density small planet-sized bodies among the multitude in our solar system alone because such a thing would not be stable; its self gravity could not hold it together.

Take Phobos, for instance. It has a relatively low density. But it's what is called a rubble pile, a collection of dense rocks held together by their mutual gravity. That's probably close to the limit. Also, it's a very small object, which may help. It's that problematic R-squared term in the denominator. Gravity diminishes as the square of the radius. So you either have to have a large mass which increases density for small objects. Or, to have low density, you have to have both a huge radius and large mass. Which is what I've tried to describe to you in these posts.

There probably isn't a way to have both low density and an earth-sized planet at the same time. We certainly don't see it in the thousands of objects we've studied. Very small things (check out Phobos) and very large things (Saturn) don't have to obey those rules. Phobos because it's small; Saturn because it's very massive. There may be a continuum between, but I would bet my bottom dollar that there is a null between them where there is no stable solution.

Interesting discussion, just the same.

 

Spitfire of ATJ

(32,723 posts)
64. "its self gravity could not hold it together."
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 08:34 PM
Apr 2013

Seems there is a limit in dwarf planets where they reach a certain mass and form a sphere.

?1353517166

The rotation determines if it's a lozenge which is hard to swallow.

longship

(40,416 posts)
65. Good pun, my friend.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:00 PM
Apr 2013

But just as its self gravity needs to be a certain limit to form a sphere, the same may be true to form a low density body, until the mass is sufficient to hold low mass molecules like He and H2.

It's a fucking nightmare to calculate such stuff. I could have done when I studied this shit in the 70's, but now all I have to go on is my old experience with this stuff, plus the fact that of the many thousands of objects we've studied zero of the low density objects are small. In fact, they are all very large. Most of them, by a huge factor, are stars!

So, I suggest that nature just doesn't make planet sized low density objects short of the mass of gas giants or above. (Unless there's some very small objects, of which there may be many -- an astronaut loses a Big Mac package on a space walk... just joking.)

The lowest density objects known are red giant stars, probably the best known, and largest of which is Alpha Orionis -- Betelgeuse. It's one honking big star, but its density must be very low.

In other words, if you want low density you almost have to have either very low mass or high mass. There may not be stable solutions in between.

 

Spitfire of ATJ

(32,723 posts)
67. I don't believe you could have a super lightweight planet in the Goldylocks Zone.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:42 PM
Apr 2013

I do however believe you could have a "super-earth" with a larger diameter but lower gravity due to the planet being composed of material with less density than our own. One of those materials could be pumice-like as in a hardened mineral or metallic medium chock full of gas bubbles. Hell, a planet could just be a big ball of sulphur or calcium for that matter and be much less dense than our iron/silicon planet.

longship

(40,416 posts)
68. But no homogeneous matter is likely to exist in any primordial system.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:21 PM
Apr 2013

Primordial planetary systems are chaotic as all hell. There are things smashing into things all over the place. Even after planets begin to form, they also crash into each other. The only planets that survive are those able to form stable orbits after the millions of years of chaos. There may have been more planets in our solar system early on, but the rest of them were likely cast off into interstellar space. Those that remain are here because they attained stable orbits. The rest are long gone.

Gravity is a fairly simple force. But solving it analytically for more than two bodies is impossible. However, it can be modeled for more than two.

What you are suggesting has never been seen. Ever. Furthermore, there seems to be a rule that the more massive a body, the less dense it can be. We know that low density requires lots of low mass stuff. And we know that in order to hold low mass stuff you need large mass. That's the only way it happens. Hydrogen and helium escape earth as soon as they're released into the atmosphere.

But all low density celestial objects have lots of H and He. All of them! And very high mass to retain that H and He. No exceptions. None.

Once you get to the mass of an object great enough to form a spherical body, there's not enough gravity to hold low mass H and He until you get to gas giant mass and size. Below earth mass and a planet doesn't even hold onto much of an atmosphere (Mars) unless there's unusual circumstances (Titan).

I'll give you one thing, though. If there were spherical low density bodies in the universe, they might more easily form as moons to a more massive planet. That's where the great diversity exists in our planetary system. Saturn alone has more diversity in its moons than the planets as a collection.

Fucking interesting shit here. But I am not comfortable with speculations beyond the evidence. I think the reason we see very large low density styrofoam bodies is that they cannot form below a certain mass (other than the degenerate very small mass thing which has effectively little to no self-gravity).

Wow! Thanks for the discussion. It's been a great one. I wonder how Douglas Adams would have written a styrofoam planet into his Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series?

I do know how Douglas Adams explained Dark Matter. Dark Matter is composed of all the styrofoam packing peanuts for all the scientific instruments designed to study Dark Matter.

I will leave you with that.

sofa king

(10,857 posts)
71. That might be the case with 253 Mathilde
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:31 PM
Apr 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/253_Mathilde

Mathilde seems to be a carbonaceous chondrite rubble pile, with an unusually low density and ridiculously huge craters.

But Mathilde's density is still greater than water (and Saturn), and it is only a tiny fraction of the size of any of the Keplers. Make a gravel pile big enough and its own gravity will heat and melt itself down to a higher density and smaller physical size... in most cases. But the universe is a big place and I've learned that there is always room for an exception....

Posteritatis

(18,807 posts)
45. The smaller one's 1.4 Earth masses, which wouldn't be that bad
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 05:50 PM
Apr 2013

Square-cube laws and the like are definitely our friends in those sorts of situations. I don't have the exact math on hand, but you'd be looking at something less than 1.2 gravities on the surface.

Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #49)

 

Spitfire of ATJ

(32,723 posts)
10. That's a blip in geologic time....
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 02:59 PM
Apr 2013

But yeah,...for all we know a LOT of stuff we see is different because we are looking back in time the further we look.

Which is why quasars are so cool.

cbdo2007

(9,213 posts)
12. That really isn't that far away to speculate that it may not exist anymore....
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:02 PM
Apr 2013

unless it got blown up by the Death Star. Wouldn't it only take 554 human years traveling by rocket to reach something 2,700 light years away? Maybe my math is off.

cbdo2007

(9,213 posts)
20. Hahahaha, sorry. Figured my math would be off by a lot.....
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:35 PM
Apr 2013

I was just trying to show that a planet 2,700 light years away is insignificant in regards to the lifespan of a planet.

Hmmmm, ok Googled - it would take us about 67,500,000 years to reach these planets with our current technology.....still compared to something being around 4 Billion years old, it isn't that long.

 

arcane1

(38,613 posts)
32. The relative time on the rocket would be much less, at least
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 04:25 PM
Apr 2013

The passengers would age slowly, so your estimate might be correct for the time span inside the rocket.

But yeah, either way it is nothing compared to 4 billion years

On the bright side: we can send probes much faster than people. It would be amazing to get a close-up look at one of these planets

 

MillennialDem

(2,367 posts)
33. At the speed of light the aging rate of the rocket passengers would be 0
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 04:26 PM
Apr 2013

Of course, at 90% or 95% or 99% or even 99.9% it's not 0.

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
75. Of course, even if we could send probes to something 2700 light years away,
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 12:49 AM
Apr 2013

it would still take 2700 years to get there even going at the speed of light, and at least another 2700 years to get any signals back from the probe (assuming it was pre-programmed to start sending signals immediately back to Earth upon arrival).

 

leftyohiolib

(5,917 posts)
16. if we could travel at the speed of light it would take 2700 years to get there. but we cant travel
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:12 PM
Apr 2013

ANYWHERE near that fast

 

Joshua Pistachio

(17 posts)
17. Fascinating
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:15 PM
Apr 2013

Sadly these planets seem to be too far for us to contact. Hopefully we will develop the technology to do so in the future.

eggplant

(3,893 posts)
35. Actually, I think it is slightly east of the middle one.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 04:28 PM
Apr 2013

And at least half of it appears to be "dark".

Arkana

(24,347 posts)
22. Great. Can we round up all the Republicans and send them to one of them?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:41 PM
Apr 2013

They could even call it Libertopia or Jesustopia, just like their diseased little fantasies!

Hassin Bin Sober

(26,272 posts)
74. No. I mean a war with the Keplarians.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 11:01 PM
Apr 2013

Sending them our Republicans would be the equivalent of lighting poop on fire, leaving it on their doorstep and ringing the door-bell.

Jamastiene

(38,187 posts)
23. Will those names always be their names?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:43 PM
Apr 2013

In the distant future (long after the Republican Party is gone), if we colonize some of these planets, can we rename them something easier to remember?

K&R


longship

(40,416 posts)
39. Astronomers usually do not name things.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 05:05 PM
Apr 2013

There are noted exceptions, planets and moons in our solar system, comets are named after their discoverer, asteroids and minor planets are named by their discoverer but only after their orbits have been well defined.

All the rest are usually know solely by their catalog numbers. There are multiple general systems for star names, but except for the few very brightest stars, none of them have names. Instead, they are usually associated with a particular constellation, within a precisely defined boundary in the sky. The catalog name is usually followed by a designation, for instance Gliese 581, is one star in the Gliese catalog. If it has planets around it designated by a lower case letter in order of discovery. Gliese 581a, would be the first, for instance.

Many designations may seem weird, but to an astronomer, they mean something. It's part of the vernacular within that science.

That's why astronomers get pissed off at outright scams like the Star Registry which sell people the right to name a star. No such right exists, and astronomers wouldn't use it even if it did.

In general, there are too damned many stars and will be too damned many extra solar planets to name them. Astronomers have long since realized this. It's about time the general public did.

Remember "Ceti Alpha Five"? Well, Star Trek got the designation wrong, but that's kind of the idea. By one cataloging method "Alpha Ceti" would be the brightest star in the constellation Cetus. In this case, it also happens to have a popular name, Menkar, given it by Arab astronomers long ago. Astronomers just call it Alpha Ceti.

Jamastiene

(38,187 posts)
52. Thank you for that detailed information.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 06:25 PM
Apr 2013

I did not know about the cataloging method. It makes much more sense now. I wish there was an astronomy for dummies web site online. I'm fascinated with it, but barely know anything. There is so much out there.

longship

(40,416 posts)
55. You are most welcome. Glad my post made sense to somebody. ;-)
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 06:40 PM
Apr 2013

There are astronomy object catalogs for all different kinds of objects. Each has their own methods for IDing.

One of the earliest is the Messier catalog from the 18th century of just over 100 objects, depending on whether you count only those that Messier himself catalogued. His purpose was to help comet hunters like Edmund Halley from mistaking these extant fuzzy objects for possibly new comets.

In subsequent years there have been a multitude of astronomical catalogues. Astronomers working on a specific type of object will use specific catalogues for their work.

It's really simple. And almost none of the objects are ever named.

Sunlei

(22,651 posts)
26. they should seed some of the close planets/moons with any life that survives in like conditions
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:51 PM
Apr 2013

bacteria in hot pools,lava fields,steam vents under the sea, under artic ice fields, 'live rust' off deep oceans? prime the pump for O2 producing life.

 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
57. If they can host life, then they probably do.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 06:44 PM
Apr 2013

An interesting consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in open systems that are far from equilibrium (like planets) is that self-organizing systems are thought to appear with a probability of 1. Since life is a highly dissipative, entropy-generating structure (of the sort much beloved by 2LoT) the appearance of life is probably inevitable wherever conditions permit. Since intelligence makes life about as dissipative as it can get, the implication is that intelligent life exists "out there" with p=1 as well.

The real question this brings up is the Fermi Paradox, aka "Where the fuck is everybody?" My answer is that intelligence isn't well suited to recognizing the long-lag problems inherent in degrading local potential energy gradients, until it's too late. Take climate change, for example. Our experience with intelligence, the potential energy gradient represented by fossil fuels, and the CO2 being produced by our entropic degradation of that gradient, and our apparent inability to stop our burning behaviour, strongly hints that we won't be contacting anyone out there either.

 

MillennialDem

(2,367 posts)
79. Problem with the Fermi paradox no one thinks about is the time for a civilization to rise up
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 09:50 AM
Apr 2013

capable of sending and receiving signals. And that's even assuming we know where to look and that they are sending out signals.

We've been doing that for ~50 years.

Out of 500+ million years of multicellular life existing on Earth.

 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
80. But if civilizations last for a very long time...
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 10:06 AM
Apr 2013

There would presumably be time to both send and receive. The implication is that civilizations do not last for a long time, but are like flash bulbs going off in the universe - thin expanding spherical shells of signal that sweep past and then vanish.

I'd be willing to bet that the lifespan of a technological civilization is a few hundred years at most. The exact length of time would depend on the amount of stored potential energy that is available. The less energy there is, the longer a civilization would last, but it might not be able to achieve the level of tech required to send much of a signal out into the universe. The more energy is available, the higher the level of technology that would be achieved and the shorter the lifespan of the civilization. In that case the civilization essentially burns itself out, as we are now doing.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»3 new planets could host ...