New habitable extrasolar planet discovered

[taniwha]

...There are experts in this field that aren't clueless individuals making wild guesses and do you know what... They are'nt sure...

Of course no one knows for sure if life exists other than on earth. So why would any one bother looking for it then? Because the potential for it to exist is overwhelmingly obvious, thats why.

Theres more chance of being right if you say 'yes' and if you arent sure you have more chance of being right than by simply saying 'no.'

The systems are too numerous and complex, the dynamics change from red dwarf to red dwarf, planet to planet and moon to moon to dismiss 100% of the 'earth-likes' as lifeless, just as ridiculous as saying that 100% of 'earth-likes' around a yellow dwarf must have life.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Of course no one knows for sure if life exists other than on earth. So why would any one bother looking for it then? Because the potential for it to exist is overwhelmingly obvious, thats why.

If you admit that no one knows for sure then giving the answer:

I think the answer is definitely yes

is not only wrong, it's dishonest.

Theres more chance of being right if you say 'yes' and if you arent sure you have more chance of being right than by simply saying 'no.

Total rubbish. Saying yes or no when no one knows the answer is just a guess. Science doesn't guess. The scientific and honest thing to do is admit that you don't know, but the correct and honest approach is something you avoid like the plague, preferring to make wild guesses and pretend you know what you are talking about. You are fooling no one but yourself.

The systems are too numerous and complex, the dynamics change from red dwarf to red dwarf, planet to planet and moon to moon to dismiss 100% of the 'earth-likes' as lifeless, just as ridiculous as saying that 100% of 'earth-likes' around a yellow dwarf must have life.

And there you go again simply making stuff up, taking wild guesses, pretending to know what you are talking about but in fact advertising your total ignorance.

In fact all red dwarfs will share properties, that's exactly WHY they can be grouped together. It is these shared properties that cast doubt over whether ANY red dwarf can sustain life.

Read the links I provided, you might learn something.

Edited July 2, 2014 by Waspie_Dwarf
typo.

[Frank Merton]

This is kinda a response to a message a bit above that was "amused" to find we don't look for life in places we don't think we will find it and asserting that until we know we won't know. We can infer a lot from what we do know.

It's an interesting, and not unanswerable, question of whether or not life "as we know it" is likely. What this means is life that uses long chains of carbon atoms and exists in a medium of liquid water, although as we know this includes organisms that carry their water with then and drink it now and then.

We know this requires a certain temperature/pressure regime, so that the organic molecules can hold together and its chemistry can take place. We usually roughly set that at where water is in liquid form.

People speculate all over the place with little science behind them. That's easy, but if one has an alternative form of life to propose one should propose it. Chains of silicon might work but all kinds of problems have been pointed out. Other than that carbon is the only one that seems at all workable.

Therefore the search is on for places where there is or at least could or has been liquid water.

[taniwha]

If you admit that no one knows for sure then giving the answer:

is not only wrong, it's dishonest.

Do you spend your time tying knots in strings or something! Why must you complicate matters? This is not an admission of anything, for me to say that 'no one knows for sure' is by your measurements a contradiction because i clearly dont know everyone on earth.

Total rubbish. Saying yes or no when no one knows the answer is just a guess. Science doesn't guess. The scientific and honest thing to do is admit that you don't know, but the correct and honest approach is something you avoid like the plague, preferring to make wild guesses and pretend you know what you are talking about. You are fooling no one but yourself.

Like i said the chances of every red dwarf system being identically sterile is non sense.

And there you go again simply making stuff up, taking wild guesses, pretending to know what you are talking about but in fact advertising your total ignorance.

In fact all red dwarfs will share properties, that's exactly WHY they can be grouped together. It is these shared properties that cast doubt over whether ANY red dwarf can sustain life.

Read the links I provided, you might learn something.

There are plenty enough differences in red dwarfs, enough to doubt a one shoe size fits all thesis. But even if your friends are by some miracle right, their revelation has no impact on a planets diversity or lifes durability in such habitats, there are too many combinations to consider even for a super computer. So my honest opinion is definitely yes - it is not beyond possibility that a chance for life can be given by a red dwarf.

[cyclopes500]

By the time humans get there we'll probably be able to genetically and bio engineer any sort of life form that can live anywhere. We worship gods even now, many gods are the bringers of life, one day we will be the god that seeded a planet, and in billions of years time a highly evolved life form related to our work, much as we ourselves are related to the bacteria found in the Earth's primitive oceans. They'll be creating stories and have religious books with heroes and villains, putting us up into the skies in the form of constellations, preach good and bad, singing songs, cutting the hearts out of their own species in our name like the Aztec's did, building religious buildings in our name, have wars in our name, probably even have suicide bombers and terrorists killing innocent members of their own kind. One day they'll reach the stars like will I hope and end up learning the same lessons and getting their fingers burnt like we will no doubt. Personally i wouldn't surprise me if our creator was one of the first aliens sitting on a toilet, taking a dump inside a spacecraft whist orbiting our primitive world, and then pulling the chain. my question is simple though. What sort of crap will be raining down from us when we flush the bog whilst above some other poor distant world?

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Do you spend your time tying knots in strings or something!

Sadly I don't get time, I'm too busy correcting the lies and nonsense you post to do that.

Why must you complicate matters?

I'm not complicating any thing. It's hardly my fault if it impossible to simplify things to a level that you can actually understand them.

This is not an admission of anything

Heaven forbid that honesty should occur in one of your posts.

for me to say that 'no one knows for sure' is by your measurements a contradiction

No the contradiction is saying that no knows after giving a definite answer. That IS a contradiction.

because i clearly dont know everyone on earth.

you make that painfully obvious with every post you make in this section.

I would expect, by the law of averages, for you to get something right occasionally but you are wrong every single time you post. You show no logic, no knowledge, no understanding and no common-sense, you just guess and you always guess wrong.

Like i said the chances of every red dwarf system being identically sterile is non sense.

You even struggle with the elementary English don't you. I did not say they were identical. Nor did I say that they are sterile... it is the planets around them that may be sterile. What I did say was:

In fact all red dwarfs will share properties, that's exactly WHY they can be grouped together. It is these shared properties that cast doubt over whether ANY red dwarf can sustain life.

If you are still struggling to understand this then let me know and I'll try to re-phrase it in smaller words for you.

There are plenty enough differences in red dwarfs, enough to doubt a one shoe size fits all thesis. But even if your friends are by some miracle right, their revelation has no impact on a planets diversity or lifes durability in such habitats, there are too many combinations to consider even for a super computer. So my honest opinion is definitely yes - it is not beyond possibility that a chance for life can be given by a red dwarf.

What arrogance. You dismiss astronomers knowledge and expertise whilst being a complete ignoramus of even primary school level science.

In science opinions count for little, evidence counts for everything. Not once have you backed up one of your wild guesses with a single piece of evidence.

But sometimes there is no evidence, only opinion. in those cases not all opinions are equal. Those of an expert out way those of the uneducated. This does not mean the expert is always right, but it does mean they are far more likely to be right. In these matters my opinion is worth very little, I am no expert. this is why I provide links to the work of experts.

However my opinion still outweighs yours by some margin. Your knowledge of science is zero therefore your opinion is totally worthless.

If by some miracle they are right!!!! You are in no position to judge the work of experts because you are incapable of understanding it.

Lilly, Frank Merton, Emma_Acid, toast, myself and others have all tried to point out the error of your ways. We have all tried, in various ways, to explain to you that simply making stuff up is not scientific.

I found a post of yours the other day in which you said this:

I learn as I go on UM. Its the education I didnt get at school. Theres a lot of knowledgeable and good people in this diverse community.

It's good advice, it's a shame you don't follow it. Given your total refusal to learn anything in this section I can only assume that was a lie too.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

Here is a quizz, i took it to find out what i didnt know i already knew about the life cycle of stars. lol. my score...5/9...see how you go.

http://www.bbc.co.uk.../quiz/q10273836

I got a 9/9

Given the nature of the questions, getting only 5 right is not something I would brag about, they are mostly pretty basic stuff.

[taniwha]

...In science opinions count for little, evidence counts for everything...

But there is no evidence that red dwarfs poison all of their planets and render them lifeless. But I suppose anything is possible. Like life on red dwarf planets being possible for instance. Until science can confirm just one red dwarf system lifeless, which means each earthly or watery planet it has is thoroughly examined tip to toe, odds that life does or does not exist in such systems remain equal. How can this be a lie?

I simply choose to think a positive over a negative. Are you always so easily offended by what people think? My decision is based on science, that a red dwarf is a sun that has planets that are earth like. Why does this confuse you?

As far as i know a red dwarf is relatively stable it should out shine even the current age of our universe, they can display purely unique characteristics dependent on size and mass, they can be destroyers of worlds, and exo earths are one of their features. The exo earth may be tidally locked or not, they may have moons or not, they may have the same elements or not, they may be completely understood - but they are not! All red dwarf exo earths that exist in the universe will never be known, they number in their billions, but they may just as well number infinity. That means more than enough difference for potential life. If not one of these planets has life

(if alien life does exist) then there must be a reason why. We have no convincing evidence to say what that reason might be. Hmmm.

Other types of sun, like earth suns or orange dwarfs for instance may have a higher ratio of potential for life than red dwarfs but through force of numbers red dwarfs probably wont be outnumbered, making them the most common place to find life. This is my theory anyway.

I have an inkling of life that could arise that is resistant to uv radiation, most likely plant life. Marine plant life. They might thrive on the cusp of night and day, deep within thermally heated lakes and oceans.

[taniwha]

I got a 9/9

Given the nature of the questions, getting only 5 right is not something I would brag about, they are mostly pretty basic stuff.

Cool, keep me posted if your ever wrong now, you hear!

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

Cool, keep me posted if your ever wrong now, you hear!

I am not the one that is continually showing my ignorance of astronomy and physics.

There is nothing wrong with not knowing a lot about these subjects, people have different interests. But you keep posting about astronomy as if you know a lot about the subject, while it is painfully obvious that you don't.

Why don't you educate yourself on the subject instead of lookin foolish all the time ?

This is just a friendly suggestion.

PS: I will keep you posted, but I am never wrong.

[toast]

(...) My decision is based on science (...).

ALL OF A SUDDEN!

[Frank Merton]

Red dwarfs do last an awfully long time -- an order of magnitude or more longer than the sun (by last I mean stay on the main sequence). Therefore any life there could be there a long time.

At least early in their lives they tend to be unstable and shoot off flares the sun would certainly envy but any life nearby would not. Maybe they settle down, but even so just one every million years or so ain't healthy -- indeed, less so as life in such a regime does not evolve, even if it could, any sort of defense.

Also relevant is the fact that planets orbiting a red dwarf necessarily are much closer in to be in the habitable zone, and therefore will be tidally locked so that one face always faces the star and the other always faces outer space. Viable atmospheres and other things become unlikely.

One major flaw in the argument I see above; it is not necessary to explore a planet in detail to say it is unlikely we will find life there. Just a little reasoning is enough.

[taniwha]

Red dwarfs do last an awfully long time -- an order of magnitude or more longer than the sun (by last I mean stay on the main sequence). Therefore any life there could be there a long time.

Yes i agree

At least early in their lives they tend to be unstable and shoot off flares the sun would certainly envy but any life nearby would not. Maybe they settle down, but even so just one every million years or so ain't healthy -- indeed, less so as life in such a regime does not evolve, even if it could, any sort of defense.

Perhaps, i think the big question is if an atmosphere can provide the necassary protection. Or water. Or caves. Or moons .

Also relevant is the fact that planets orbiting a red dwarf necessarily are much closer in to be in the habitable zone, and therefore will be tidally locked so that one face always faces the star and the other always faces outer space. Viable atmospheres and other things become unlikely.

Are you sure all the planets will be tidally locked though? Billions of red dwarfs means billions of planets means billions of combinations.

This link is interesting it confirms all your doubts and adresses the complications which might befall hypothetical living organisms on these planet types. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.1025.pdf

One major flaw in the argument I see above; it is not necessary to explore a planet in detail to say it is unlikely we will find life there. Just a little reasoning is enough.

True, if we get the opportunity to reach just one of these planets though, we should analyse it with the same determination we analyse Mars.

[GlennThe14TH]

Jeepers, but 5 times the mass! Conventional science says we might be able to get there quickly enough, assuming we survived the impact, but moving around would be a big problem!

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Jeepers, but 5 times the mass! Conventional science says we might be able to get there quickly enough, assuming we survived the impact, but moving around would be a big problem!

Moving around would be the least of your problems, see THIS THREAD.

Edited July 12, 2014 by Waspie_Dwarf

[taniwha]

Moving around would be the least of your problems, see THIS THREAD.

We need to get closer to these planets to get closer to the truth, thats the only way we can eliminate the earthlikes for sure.

...We are in this era now where there are 1,700 planets known, and [for many of those planets] there’s really no analogy in our solar system... said Bruce Macintosh, a member of the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology and the principal investigator for the Gemini Planet Imager

...With the exception of a few specialized individuals, we have no idea what the heck they are made of. And so this enormous puzzle about how the universe has made systems so different from our own is extraordinarily exciting...

Even though even the closest exoplanets are distant objects, astrophysicists are able to measure many of their characteristics including size, mass and density. They can now also determine some of the chemical make-up of a planets atmosphere ... and are able to detect more detail by the year.

http://www.newswise.com/articles/amid-revelations-of-a-universe-rich-with-planets-what-s-next-for-exoplanet-hunters

Or listen here to the broadcast...

http://www.kavlifoundation.org/science-spotlights/spotlight-live-hunt-other-worlds-heats#.U8JXqWIaySM