[Merged] Earth-Like Planet Can Sustain Life

[Macrat]

Mr. 100% sure was the one mentioning tidally locked, if I remember correctly. I hope I don't, otherwise the guy is just an idiot and I have no clue how he got where he was. After all, science would say "Tidally-locked" counters "100% life forming guarantee."

So, yeah, if I remember correctly - which would make me annoyed - this guy's either completely gone off the deep end with enthusiasm, or he really is a plant trying to loosen us up for something. And since this is a speculative topic, I hope no one will get on my **** about speculating the conspiracy angle here for giggles.

Of COURSE it's a conspiracy! Open your * ..err I mean eyes

[J.B.]

Of COURSE it's a conspiracy! Open your * ..err I mean eyes

I would say you already jumped off the deep end. Unless you can provide evidence that the powers that be know aliens and are readying us for arrival? And I mean serious evidence, like undoctored photos and military reports, because anything less can be misinterpreted.

[lost_shaman]

Thank you! This is a supreme point. This is massively important. Life CAN evolve to resist radiation. But it CANNOT arise inside of high levels of radiaton. It can evolve to deal with it, if it already exists. But it simply cannot even begin if radiation is not controlled.

It seems that life on Earth almost certainly began in the Earth's early Ocean's that would at the time have been Iron-rich and therefor would have been nicely shielded from a large percent of any radiation.

[Macrat]

I would say you already jumped off the deep end. Unless you can provide evidence that the powers that be know aliens and are readying us for arrival? And I mean serious evidence, like undoctored photos and military reports, because anything less can be misinterpreted.

I guess you have already considered the fact that you will just have to be chipped like the rest of the 'dumbed down' usa folks

[111uminate]

There's a lot of variables to consider when faced with the question of whether a planet can support life or not. First and foremost, you have to analyze what degree you're anthropomorphizing those variables. There's no reason to think that possible life out there would need conditions similar to ours to survive, let alone evolve. While I understand what we have in front of us is the only baseline we have, I still think it's a shortsighted viewpoint to have. One needs to look no further than the extremophiles we've discovered right here on the Earth; things living miles beneath the ocean with very little light and heat, organisms living in acidic lakes, bacteria that feeds on rocks and minerals in sub-zero temperatures.

So the planet is tidally locked, or so we speculate. Let's pretend for a moment that it is. Why should that deter the possibility of there being life there? Looking through the lens of evolution, that would mean for the most part that the climate there would most likely be constant. Organisms wouldn't face the challenges they have here on Earth, with climate changes and differing conditions forcing them to adapt and evolve. Sounds like it could be comfortable. With no day and night cycle however, would they sleep? Would they dream? Would they have an internal clock? Would different organisms have evolved on the night side, and day side? Did they evolve to prey on eachother? There's so much to consider.

I guess you have already considered the fact that you will just have to be chipped like the rest of the 'dumbed down' usa folks

Blanket statements such as that certainly don't help your case.

Edited October 12, 2010 by 111uminate

[Copasetic]

Thank you! This is a supreme point. This is massively important. Life CAN evolve to resist radiation. But it CANNOT arise inside of high levels of radiaton. It can evolve to deal with it, if it already exists. But it simply cannot even begin if radiation is not controlled.

That's actually not true. Earth's "real" second atmosphere didn't show up till around 3.8 bya. The first cells show up around then. Which means, that protolife (the replicators) would have evolved under the first atmospheric conditions, which lacked an ozone as well.

This means protolife (and even early cells) arose under log scales more radiation than we're used to today. Consequently this would could have been an advantage for early life, as it could have promoted more variation for evolution to act upon.

Modern life (like ours) could not have arose under such conditions (in deed most modern life still doesn't deal well with radiation). You could certainly make the argument that complex life (such as ours) wouldn't do well lots of radiation, but that is here nor there--As we can only guess how evolution would have turned out were the atmospheres not to have changed.

Life may have never got past a simple cell stage and we'd never have existed. Although, if I've learned anything studying embryology, human anatomy, biology, etc, its that natural selection is much more clever than you or I. So while megarads maybe a hindrance to the path that evolution took here on earth that lead to us, I'd say we certainly couldn't rule out some type of complex life evolving on some distant planet where large dosages of radiation are the norm or even another type of complex life on earth that isn't present today (as we know how life here turned out).

Maybe they hit upon better proofreading mechanisms than our life did? Maybe their replication machinery, in the absence of ionizing radiation is error free (thus they need those dosages of radiation for variation to arise at all)? Maybe they use a phospholipid bilayer where they sequester heavy metals in the lipopathic space, thus negating ionizing radiation? Maybe they evolved a phosphatidyl lipid derivative which absorbs radiation? Maybe the planet is tidally locked with the sun and life only exists on the side shielded from the radiation? Or maybe evolution has found them a solution that would bewilder our biological minds?

The possibilities are really endless, until we go have a look see.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Copasetic

[Copasetic]

It seems that life on Earth almost certainly began in the Earth's early Ocean's that would at the time have been Iron-rich and therefor would have been nicely shielded from a large percent of any radiation.

Interestingly, ultraviolet radiation emitted by the sun to earth doesn't help much the state of entropy of the system. However, UV radiation in the presence of ribonucleosides actually increases the entropy of the earth-sun system, because RNA is great at absorption and heat emission of UV light (more heat means more steam, more steam means less "ordered" water molecules because the individual molecules would have a greater kinetic energy).

Meaning the polymerization of ribonucleosides into polynucleosides would have been thermodynamically favorable on early earth and possibly a major catalyst to the formation of competitive polynucleoside chains. As those most stable (thus the best at thermodynamic stability) would increase the entropy the most. Knowing that RNA is a functional and informational molecule (DNA only fulfills one of these roles, can you guess which?) it makes it a much more likely candidate for protolife.

This also means, that early life may have not formed "deep and shielded" in the oceans and in fact, was in "plain view" of all the radiation we get from the sun.

However, once the need arises for iron-sulfur redux compounds then I think life may have "turned tail" from the surface of earth to the deep recesses where thermal vent heating and a ready supply of iron-sulfur catalysts could have helped solve the next step--Compartmentalization (a membrane enclosed replicator). Possibly the "pivotal" role of deep sea vents.

[Copasetic]

If you are going to attempt to quote someone, try spelling the quote correctly.

I don't blame him. Your lack of respect is unfounded and came out of nowhere from my perspective. His statement was one of common sense. A statement, I might add, that the original speaker would have done well to consider before making such a stupid proclamation.

For a vetted "professor of astronomy and astrophysics" to proclaim "Personally, given the ubiquity and propensity of life to flourish wherever it can, I would say that the chances for life on this planet are 100 percent. I have almost no doubt about it," is not only irresponsible, it is ridiculous.

How does someone become a professor of astronomy and astrophysics if they know so little about basic math? Since when does "100 percent" equate to "almost" in a situation like this? How about any situation? Does he not understand what "100 percent" means? That's the impression I get.

Do you honestly think that this Steven Vogt comes across as anything but silly with such a statement?

We don't even know if this planet has liquid water. We know next to nothing about this planet. And he makes this kind of statement? He'll be laughed out of a job if he doesn't retract that statement or back it up. (I still need to watch the above referenced video to see if he delivers something more substantial, but so far from what I've read... the information lacks a backing for a "100 percent" conviction. (Edit: Nope, no more info in the video. I stand by my opinion that he made an idiotic statement. Even if it turns out to be true in the end, now is not the time for such claims.)

And you attack DL for making one of the most obvious statements there are? (Obvious to anyone who actually thinks about such things, as DL most definitely does.)

Instead of admonishing him to calm down, why not just apologize?

** That being said...

I find this discovery amazing. I'm openly impressed with this new planet and look forward to finding out more information as it becomes available. The possibilities of this planet, and others like it, are just the tip of the iceberg in my opinion. But if I were making an announcement to the press in this guy's position... I'd be a little more cautious with my choice of words.

A "vetted astrophysicist" does not the prebiotic chemist make. I think the assumption he's making is that the formation of life is relatively common in the cosmos. We certainly can't say as of yet and must remain agnostics about the rarity (or commonness) of life.

Yes, indeed, atmospheric problems would be continual and massive. Think of the STORMS, man, the STORMS! Hot and cold air differences would make a massive extreme-weather band around the planet.

That depends on the type of atmosphere they have. "Storms" (movement of storms) follows fluid dynamics, with a much greater gravity than here on earth, we don't know what type of atmosphere they have. It could potentially be a thick atmosphere which offers lots of resistance to flow.

___________________________________________

I think the problem here, is we only have "earth life" to go by. We don't know what tidal-locking decreases the chances of life, anymore than we know that it increases the chances of life. We know for "our life" it probably wouldn't be a good thing, but applying that assumption to all potential life throughout the universe is a mistake. The sample size is far to low to make a statement either way. We may get abroad in the cosmos and find that ratio of life on tidally-locked planets to non-tidally-locked planets to be 2:1 or 8:1 or 100:1.

Only time and exploration will tell.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Copasetic

[Copasetic]

Gliese is 20 light-years away. am i right in saying our radio waves which have been leaking out from earth would have reached this planet by now?

i've just done a google search to get the answer and i come across a piece by SETI. they sent a radio message to this planet in 2008 and the radio message will arrive in 2029.

edit to add they sent the message towards Gliese 581 c. not the newly found one. Gliese 581 g i thought something wasnt right, how could they have sent a message in 2008 if the planet has only just been found.

Radiowaves emitted throughout the 20th century would have reached there, but since these weren't tight coherent beams I'm not sure someone on the other end could make meaningful sense of it. The first radiowaves emitted into space by people would experience massive decay as they expand outward into space. To send any kind of "useful" "beam", it needs focused on a specific position.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Copasetic

[Copasetic]

I would think that there would be little to no water on the 'hot' side of the planet. It would have evaporated and been carried toward the temperate zone by the warm winds long ago. It's possible that the moisture in the winds could have delivered most of the water to the cold side and would have left most of the water on the planet trapped in ice. Who knows how much free water there is in the temperate zone? There could be an abundance of it or there could be very little. It's impossible to say at this point.

Again, that depends on the density of the atmosphere. Remember this fun guy from high school physics or chemistry:

Volume and pressure are inversely related (thanks to those no good Clapeyron, Boyle and Charles!). So increasing temperature would certainly increase volume, however if pressures were great enough, despite the heat, you could still have liquid water.

[S2F]

Again, that depends on the density of the atmosphere. Remember this fun guy from high school physics or chemistry:

Volume and pressure are inversely related (thanks to those no good Clapeyron, Boyle and Charles!). So increasing temperature would certainly increase volume, however if pressures were great enough, despite the heat, you could still have liquid water.

Thanks for pointing that out Copa. I suppose with a descriptor of 'earth-like' it caused me to assume things that I shouldn't have (like atmosphere density). Consider it a not-so-small oversight on my part.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Slave2Fate

[J.B.]

Thanks for pointing that out Copa. I suppose with a descriptor of 'earth-like' it caused me to assume things that I shouldn't have (like atmosphere density). Consider it a not-so-small oversight on my part.

Aye. It's what? 1.5 times the size of our world? Most of everything is speculative, using gravity wobbles. In fact, I don't read anything about them actually seeing the planet on telescope, so. . . I'm wondering if they even know for certain that the planet itself exists, let alone anything else at all about it.

[mcrom901]

its all bogus.....

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/doubt-cast-habitable-alien-planet-gliese-581g-101012.html

[booNyzarC]

its all bogus.....

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/doubt-cast-habitable-alien-planet-gliese-581g-101012.html

Good find mcrom. No wonder the initial reports sounded hinky.

[questionmark]

in related News:

First life-friendly exoplanet may not exist

Last month, a team of astronomers announced the discovery of the first alien world that could host life on its surface. Now a second team can find no evidence of the planet, casting doubt on its existence. The planet, dubbed Gliese 581 g, was found to orbit a dim, red dwarf star every 37 days, according to an analysis by Steven Vogt of the University of California, Santa Cruz, Paul Butler of the Carnegie Institution of Washington in DC, and their colleagues.

Unlike the four previously known planets in the same system and hundreds of others found throughout the Milky Way galaxy, Gliese 581 g sits in the middle of its host star's habitable zone, where temperatures are in the right range for liquid water to exist. It is also puny enough – weighing about three Earths – to have what is likely a rocky, solid surface.

Read more

Now lets wait to see which team had the wrong glasses on.

[111uminate]

its all bogus.....

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/doubt-cast-habitable-alien-planet-gliese-581g-101012.html

Man, that is depressing. I'll admit I was pretty excited about it, but absolutely skeptical of the "100% chance for life" claim. I suppose at this point we wait for more research to be done before a definitive answer can be made. Right now it doesn't look good. Wasn't this find substantiated by other observatories before it was made public, as it should have been? Or is that where we're at now in the process? Hmm.

[sean6]

Man, that is depressing. I'll admit I was pretty excited about it, but absolutely skeptical of the "100% chance for life" claim. I suppose at this point we wait for more research to be done before a definitive answer can be made. Right now it doesn't look good. Wasn't this find substantiated by other observatories before it was made public, as it should have been? Or is that where we're at now in the process? Hmm.

always anther side

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/gliese-581g-discoverer-responds-101013.html

????????? ???????????

Edited October 14, 2010 by sean6

[booNyzarC]

always anther side

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/gliese-581g-discoverer-responds-101013.html

????????? ???????????

So first he claims that he is 100% certain that this planet has life... and then after someone independently investigates the data and doesn't back him up (about the planet even existing in the first place...) he states I feel confident that anyone independently analyzing this data set will come to the same conclusions.

Hmmm...

I can understand taking pride in your work. I even admire that. But this just defies logic, unfortunately, and therefore I can't say that I admire this guy. If he had been conservative enough to claim that he was 99% sure that there was life, I'd consider him far more rational, but 100%? And then to make a statement that he would be confident of anyone independently analyzing this would reach the same conclusion, even though others have already actually analyzed it and reached a different conclusion...?!?!? Really?

I don't want to say he's off his rocker, but if he keeps saying things like this, I don't know if there is any other conclusion. Am I off base with this? Did they stop passing out common sense rations when he passed through the birth canal? Come on...

[J.B.]

Aye. It's what? 1.5 times the size of our world? Most of everything is speculative, using gravity wobbles. In fact, I don't read anything about them actually seeing the planet on telescope, so. . . I'm wondering if they even know for certain that the planet itself exists, let alone anything else at all about it.

Called it.

He should never have said 100% certain about anything. And the media reported it BEFORE there was independent confirmation? Aye, what a mess our information network is in. Whatever happened to scientists remaining cold and objective?

He should stand by his findings, but he should acknowledge that there's a good chance others won't find the same thing.

Edited October 14, 2010 by J.B.