E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe European Southern Observatory's "ESOcast" focuses on dozens of planet discoveries.
European astronomers have announced the discovery of more than 50 new planets beyond our solar system, including 16 that are just a notch above our own planet in mass. They say their record-breaking findings suggest that more than half of the stars like our sun possess planets, and that many of those worlds are less massive than Saturn.
The pick of the litter is a planet that's already been in the spotlight: HD 85512 b, a world at least 3.6 times as massive as Earth that's located 36 light-years away in the constellation Vela. HD 85512 b is the only one of the 16 super-Earths on today's list that is located in its star system's habitable zone. That's the area around a star where scientists believe water could exist in liquid form, which would make a rocky planet potentially livable.
HD 85512 b's status came to light a couple of weeks ago in a paper submitted to the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics, but the team behind the discovery provided more details about that super-Earth and the dozens of other worlds in papers presented today at the Extreme Solar Systems II conference in Wyoming.
The findings came from the team behind the High Accuracy Radial Velocity Planet Searcher, or HARPS, which is installed at the European Southern Observatory's 11.8-foot (3.6-meter) La Silla Observatory in Chile.
"The detection of HD 85512 b is far from the limit of HARPS, and demonstrates the possibility of discovering other super-Earths in the habitable zones around stars similar to the sun," University of Geneva astronomer Michel Mayor said in today's news release from the ESO.
Super-Earths, which range from Earth's mass to worlds 10 times more massive, are of particular interest to planet-hunters because it's thought that they could be even more conducive to the development of life than our own planet. When the search for extrasolar planets began more than 15 years ago, the telescopes used for the task could only detect giant planets like our own solar system's Jupiter. Since then, the techniques and tools used for the search have become much more sensitive.
HARPS, for example, can detect the slight gravitational wobble caused by planets as small as Earth, if they have incredibly close-in orbits. HARPS' observations of 376 sunlike stars has led the team to conclude not only that more than half of such stars are surrounded by planets (maybe as many as 70 or 80 percent), but also that about 40 percent of sunlike stars have at least one planet less massive than Saturn.
One of the team members, Lisa Kaltenegger of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy and the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, told journalists today that the latest round of findings marked a new age in the search for habitable planets.
"We are actually entering an incredibly interesting time in our history," she said.
Keeping track of the habitables
ESO's Markus Kissler-Patig said the discovery of HD 85512 b could be one of the first entries in "a good catalog of habitables" marked for further study. Kissler-Patig is the project scientist for the ESO's European Extremely Large Telescope, or E-ELT, which is slated to be built over the next decade at a cost of 1 billion euros ($1.4 billion).
HD 85512 b "is in the zone where we can directly image it," Kissler-Patig said, and that means astronomers could theoretically analyze its atmosphere for the signatures of life, such as the presence of oxygen, methane and water vapor.
The HARPS team members were able to figure out the minimum mass and orbital characteristics of HD 85512 b, but they couldn't determine its density, composition or the nature of its atmosphere — which means astronomers will have to wait for the completion of E-ELT or similar high-resolution observing instruments to confirm that the world is truly habitable.
Francesco Pepe, a colleague of Mayor's at the University of Geneva, said that the HARPS team's discoveries include 10 worlds described in papers submitted to Astronomy and Astrophysics, including HD 85512 b, and 49 planets reported today at the Wyoming conference. Eight of the new planets were detected as part of the Swiss-led CORALIE search effort in Chile, he said. The ESO says this is the largest number of extrasolar planets reported at one time.
Pepe said the findings pointed up a fresh mystery for planet-hunters to ponder: the existence of a "planet desert" between low-mass worlds and gas giants. Relatively few planets have been found at a level around 30 times the mass of Earth. "It may point towards different formation mechanisms" for planets like Earth and Neptune vs. planets like Jupiter and Saturn.
HARPS isn't the only instrument engaged in the search for extrasolar planets: Two space telescopes, NASA's Kepler and the European Space Agency's Corot, are detecting planets by looking for the telltale dimming of their parent stars. Kepler and Corot can determine how big a planet is, but they can't tell how massive it is. In contrast, HARPS can determine the mass but not the size.
Unfortunately, Kepler can't be used to confirm HARPS' discoveries, nor can HARPS confirm Kepler's. The good news is that the William Herschel Telescope in the Canary Islands is being outfitted for a HARPS North instrument that will begin operation next year and facilitate the follow-up of Kepler detections.
Today's revelations bring the official tally of extrasolar planets to 645.
Other findings from the Extreme Solar Systems II conference:
• Over at the "Dynamics of Cats" blog, Steinn Sigurdsson quotes Kepler team members as saying they have identified 1,781 candidate planets, with up to 27 of those confirmed. Among the reported candidates are 123 potential worlds that are less than 1.25 times as wide as Earth, and 121 that are in the nominal habitable zones of their parent stars.
Jon Lomberg
An artist's conception shows storms on a brown dwarf.
• Astronomers say they have observed brightness changes on a failed star, also known as a brown dwarf, that may indicate a storm grander than any seen yet on a planet. The stormy brown dwarf is known as 2MASS 2139.
"We found that our target's brightness changed by a whopping 30 per cent in just under eight hours," the University of Toronto's Jacqueline Radigan said in a news release. "The best explanation is that brighter and darker patches of its atmosphere are coming into our view as the brown dwarf spins on its axis."
Radigan is the lead author of a paper being presented this week at the Extreme Solar Systems II conference.
More about alien planets:
- Previously: Super-Earth on the 'edge of habitability'
- Interactive: How scientists search for other worlds
- 'Invisible' planet discovered using new technique
- Background: Looking for alien Earths? Here they come
Authors of “The HARPS search for Earth-like planets in the habitable zone, I — Very low-mass planets around HD20794, HD85512, HD192310" include F. Pepe, C. Lovis, D.D. Ségransan, W. Benz, J. L. Bertaux , F. Bouchy, X. Dumusque, M. Mayor, D. Queloz, N.C. Santos and S. Udry.
Authors of "The HARPS search for southern extra-solar planets XXXIV. Occurrence, mass distribution and orbital properties of super-Earths and Neptune-mass planets" include M. Mayor, M. Marmier, C. Lovis, S. Udry, D.D. Ségransan, F. Pepe, W. Benz, J. L. Bertaux , F. Bouchy, X. Dumusque, G. Lo Curto, C. Mordasini, D. Queloz and N.C. Santos.
Authors of "High amplitude, periodic variability of a cool brown dwarf: Evidence for patchy, high-contrast cloud features" include Jacqueline Radigan, Ray Jayawardhana, David Lafreniere, Etienne Artigau, Mark Marley and Didier Saumon.
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or adding me to your Google+ circle. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for other worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Until we stop making such a mess of this one who cares?
I think its more of a reason to care...
What Kyle says may be true, however I'm not as much interested in finding a new home for humanity, as I am in just answering the question are there other earth-like worlds out there, that have their own life or technological civilizations?
Everything in the universe doesn't have to exist solely for our benefit.
juilop,
It's not all about us. They are looking for worlds that may sustain life not necessarily us.
Juliop, not true.
I'm trying to find the formula now. The greater mass of the planet results in an increased force of gravity, but you also have to factor in the larger radius... being further from the center of the planet reduces the effect of its gravity.
Assuming similar density, I think you'll find that a man weighing 200 lbs would weigh somewhere between 250-350 lbs. In otherwords, your body could adapt. That's a very rough guesstimate though. Maybe someone else can provide the calculation? If not, I'll try to figure it out later tonight.
juilop,
It's not all about us. They are looking for worlds that may sustain life not necessarily us.
(Thanks Dan Webster). Looks like the force of gravity would be about 54% greater on this planet.
Mass is estimated to be 3.6x greater, so assuming similar density to Earth (big assumption), radius would be about 1.53x Earth's...
Therefore, a man weighing 200 lbs on Earth would be about 308 lbs on this planet.
Going to our moon is about 236,000 miles away. What this article is about is possible planets at 216 TRILLION miles away...be very very very long time for us to figure out how to get there at 216 TRILLION miles away.
Warp speed Scotty..aye captain!
Cjsks, you are correct, we went through this exercise when I first wrote about that super-Earth ... gravity would be roughly 1.4 to 1.5 times Earth's.
juliop - the weight of your 200 lb man (as measured on Earth) is not only dependent on the mass of the planet, but also its radius.
If said world has 3.6 times Earth's mass, but is a largely ice or water world, its surface gravity would only be 1.25 that of Earth - your 200 pound Earthman would weigh 250 pounds.
Of course, calling the weight of a person a "ridiculous" concern, when discussing visiting an object that is well beyond our ability to get anything to anyway, is putting the cart before the horse.
(Oops - I waited too long to respond and several other excellent posts came in before me - apologies for duplicating those posts.)
We know these planets exist in part because their inhabitants have been visiting earth for thousands of years. Sooner or later they will make themselves known to us. Unfortunately or fortunately I don't think we will be around when it happens. Our brains may not even have the capability to comprehend the event. If the universe post Big Bang is approx. 14 billion years old then you can bet the farm there are civilizations millions or billions of years older than earth's. Their methods of travel and exploration may also be way beyond human comprehension. No reason however, to stop searching...
All pointless. No way to get there. Won't be a way for far to long to matter. The money and effort would be better spent on an international effort improving space travel so humans can actually get someplace else in a decent amount of time.
"HD 85512 b, a world at least 3.6 times as massive as Earth that's located 36 light-years away in the constellation Vela"
So what. Do you people know how far 36 light years is from Earth. We have problems even sending people to the Moon!!!
I've read some remarks from other posters at MSNBC who seem so out of touch, they could probably be visitors from one of these planets! That would explain a lot!
Interesting that the 100-Year Starship conference is just a couple of weeks away. Coincidence?
http://www.100yss.org/
Oh, since We FU_KED this world up so badly we are looking for another one that We can FU_K UP, that's real bright ........
Hey Rick: what exactly are you doing with your life then? Posting a comment with a computer that requires electricity and is made in large part from petroleum-based plastics? Are you running purely on solar/wind power? Do you drive a car to work? Well DO you? What is your premise for the argument that we have F'd up this world? My woods and backyard and running creek water are clean. My air is clean. Everywhere I go hiking in national forests I see nature. Animals flourish. In other areas like South America, we are STILL finding new species of animals and plants.
I for one don't particularly care to go back to the days of mankind living in caves and using stone tools and risking life to get food to survive. On the other hand, the last three decades have seen vast improvements in environmental concerns in balance with advancement in technologies compared to the three decades prior to that. In short, we can do both. Knee-jerk reactions like Biden supporting a 1-child policy ala China and other draconian, fascist policies aren't the answer.
Extraordinary find... I've followed these discoveries since the first candidate planets were found and im very interested in what out scientist and technological advances can do for us to look further in-depth at the life containing capabilities of these planets. I hope i live long enough to see these discoveries and who knows what else. And thank you 10acle for putting Rick in his place. However his opinion is his opinion, let him be fooled by his own means.
Amazing... what an exrodinary find. We should be inspired to know about the possiblity of what may be out there. I would like to still be here to see what other life form may exist, and to know we are not alone. More than that I hope this stirs the imagination and creativity of the next generation. We were inspired to go to the moon, send a rover to mars & to "seek out life & boldy go where no one has gone before" thank you Gene Rodenbery. Imagine how this can inspire our children. What may they dream, and accomplish? I want them to reach for the stars instead of ordinary or wose a video game about killing zombies.
Bluelake # 1.12,
I think you're mixed up. WE are the the aliens from far off planets. We defeated the original inhabitants and took over. I believe they were long faced skinny creatures with great big slanted sad eyes, and they had very smooth, rubbery bodies that appeared to have no bones. People claim to see them every now and then, (especially in Nevada) but so far, nobody has actually captured one.
several years ago I read an article in Popular Science that we have the tech. to travel at the speed of light, but we don't have a vehicle that could withstand the pressure. Please correct me if I am wrong about what I read, or thought I read. I may have misunderstood what I was reading.
Conspiracy Rhetoric of Man Kind
Hi,
What has taken us so long?
Instead of getting real pictures, we are still getting \
Conspiracy Rhetoric of Man Kind
Hi,
What has taken them so long, telling us something we have known for more than 40 years.
Unfortunately there is no distance given for this other solar planet, it could be anywhere. I only assume that it is at least a thousand light years away from us. My question on this subject is; why is everybody concerned about size and gravity. And on the same note, why can't we get more information on "Gliese" which is comming our way. Or why don't we know anything about our next nearest star "Alpha Centaury" (only 4.3 light years away). There is plenty of ancient knowledge of other worlds within a 100 light years, why don't we know anything about them? And most importantly; why don't we make any efforts to find out. We talked about this in the 70s, we could be there by now. Is it possible that we did, but everything is classified for a reason.
No one could afford a ticket to relocate to one of these other so-called Super Earth planets. Instead of wasting time trying to find another homing planet, maybe we should focus on the one we are currently on and clean up the mess we have made of it.
It takes a lot more than an earth sized planet to be habitable. We have a moon and the correct distance from the sun that makes life bearable here. We have all of the conditions that support life. Was this by chance?
It doesn't really matter since we are stuck here. It is always fun to see the "what ifs" but there is nothing on the horizon to check them out.
Personally, and like most others, I don't see life as a chance. That is what the "great scientists" and others want you/us to believe. The odds of life anywhere in the universe are "astronomical" without some sort of intervention. Dozens of parameters for life as we know it had to come together at the exact same time making the odds improbable, even here.
That there are planets around other stars is logical, but that they possess the extremely rare physical realities of earth are improbable. The odds of winning the lottery 3 or 4 times in the row using the same numbers is higher than finding life or the capability of life on other planets.
I really enjoy astronomy and have all my life, but those who promote this crap that life can exist in so many other places are just looking for research grants that will never pay off, like the lottery for nearly everyone who plays it.
Cant we just love the simple thought of gaining knowledge of what surrounds us via the universe? Its not about going there and destroying their Mother Earth or being guilty that ours can have room for improvement, but simply enjoying our right to be knowledged. Thus being thankful for that right. Honestly how can you bicker over such a petty thing when there is too much going on such as a WAR. Things that matter is where our true heart should lay.
Bob, have you ever heard of the Drake equation? Life IS probable and even likely to exist on ther worlds simply based on the number of planets alone. Sure, we hit the "life lottery" on this planet, but there's trillions upon trillions of other worlds playing the same game. Surely there are one or two or billions of other "winners" out there somewhere.
Not only are we incapable of getting to the moon at this time, we can't even get people up to the ISS!! I'm not too concerned with us getting to another planet anytime soon. Though some"thing" potentially living only 36 light years away seems awfully close in this huge universe. I hope if they do come here (if they haven't already), they would be more respectful of our planet and people than we would be if we went to theirs.
Arieus
People told the Wright Brothers man would never fly. I'm glad the Wright Brothers didn't listen. And I hope modern scientists continue their important work.
That's pretty narrow minded Bob. Just because there was certain criteria needed for our planet to grow and evolve, doesn't mean those same criteria need to be met for a different planet to evolve in whatever life form they are to have. For all we know another planets criteria might be liquid mercury and anthrax, or Plumesthium and Jiggywatts (don't worry, if you don't know what those last two are, I don't either). That' the point though, we can't be so naive to think we know it all.
You are wrong. Traveling at the speed of light would require infinite energy. It takes four times the energy to double your speed; the (biggest) problem would not be withstanding pressure (which would not be an issue in the vacuum of space) but rather generating the energy required to accelerate to anywhere near the speed of light.
There will always be problems on Earth. In the recorded history of humanity, we have never stopped having problems. Now that doesn't mean we shouldn't do our best to resolve the issues we do have. However it also doesn't mean that we shouldn't be thinking about the next phase of our evolution as species which is space.
Man-made problems on earth aside, there are a lot of other factors that could make the survival of humanity extremely difficult. A large meteor strike could wipe out most life on earth as we know it. Another ice age could kill millions, if not billions, while also setting our civilization back decades. A catastrophic volcanic eruption could also have the same effect, as is a massive gamma ray burst from our own sun. We have already seen all of this happen before in planetary history. It could happen 100,000 years from now or it could happen next year. We simply don't know because our own scientific knowledge is insufficient at this point to see all the angles contained within events of that magnitude. With all of that in mind, we need to put at least some of our attention toward space. It is not only a good insurance policy to ensure the our survival, it could also help to improve lives here on Earth. After all, scientific advancement in seemingly unrelated areas can often result in technological advancements in other practical areas.
Now if we do find intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, the million dollar question becomes "what is their scale of technological development and would they be friendly or hostile to us?" Our own development as a civilization may have a very large influence to the answer of that question.
First off, how come we have the technology to find other earth-like planets without first having the technology to travel those great distances? Would that not be the same as putting the cart before the horse? Second, there's still a lot to be discovered in our own planet before going to search for another one. If Egypt had the technology to make the pyramids then they may have also the knowledge to save our planet. Anyways, I'm just saying that we all have the potential to contribute knowledge and ideas for the better of humanity itself.
P.S. Christopher Pinola, I have little knowledge about your question but I hope the following will help: "Taking advantage of Einstein's special theory of relativity, which says that time runs slow for a moving object, one of the chambers is then taken on a long, fast journey and brought back: Time would pass at different rates at the two ends of the wormhole, [and] anyone falling into one end of the wormhole would be instantly hurled into the past or the future [as they emerge from the other end]"
and you can also watch Carl Sagan's explanation on traveling at the speed of light:
Clearly you don't have a firm grasp of just exactly what those odds are.
Well there's no point in hitching up the cart if you don't know where you are going.
Here are the links for Christopher Pinola for an explanation on traveling at the speed of light:
Put this title on youtube to see Carl Sagan's explation on traveling at lightspeed >
Carl Sagan's Cosmos: Episode 8-Travels in Time and Space
h t t p : / / w w w . y o u t u b e . c o m / w a t c h ? v = p 4 H G a T o v M M c & f e a t u r e = r e s u l t s — v i d e o & p l a y n e x t = 1 & l i s t = P L F E 7 0 A F 9 0 F 6 E 7 5 8 A 5
and I found my Einstein's reference at
h t t p : / / w w w . l i f e s c i . s u s s e x . a c . u k / h o m e / J o h n — G r i b b i n / t i m e t r a v . h t m
This is John Gribbin's home page on time travel > look for it on google
A discovery that truly sparks ones imagination. Escially mine, which aspires to be a future astronaut and hopes to have the opportunity to explore new worlds outside of our own. Our planet is an insignificant speck of sand on a beach that will be washed away at the high tide at the the end of the day, and I can't imagine our universe without any other kinds of intelligent civilizations. To do so would be ignorant.
Wars here on Earth are a serious concern, but if we unite in a solitary cause and forget our petty differences, then perhaps we can see peace in a global agenda to expand our civilization beyond our earthly means, and in doing so expand our conciousness beyond greed and the violence that comes with it. There was once a man who said the Earth was round, and was prosecuted by those in fear of reality. To admit our insignificance will put us one step closer to expanding our conciousness to the depths of the unknown. Believe in the possibilities that are to come, and they will come true. Disbelieve, and you will be left behind by the believers who still dream.
christopher pinola:
I don't see why high velocity would cause pressure problems in the near vacuum of space, but then I know less than you there. At any rate, force=mass*acceleration. That means that in the frictionless environment of space if you apply a net force to an object for a really long time, it will eventually approach the speed of light. I say approach rather than reach because Einstein's theory of Relativity calculates that the a graph of the velocity of said object (y-axis=velocity; x-axis=time) has a horizontal asymptote (look it up) at the speed of light. The question then (ignoring that pressure issue) is not whether we can reach, say, 90% the speed of light, but how long it takes to reach it. Various technologies are in the works; antimatter is by far the best but also by far the most expensive currently and farthest in the future.
Paul J. Linke:
First, the distance to this other planet is given, and it is "only" 36 light-years away. The best (read fastest) spaceship we could build now would get there before the year 3000, but I make no guarantees about 2500. Second, people are concerned about size and gravity because the we already have the mass, and so the size will tell us the density (and therefore whether it is made of gas or rock) and the gravity at its surface, both of which are factors in whether humans could survive there.
Third, Gliese 581 (20.3 light-years away) has an unconfirmed planet well within its habitable zone. The reason we can't get more info (yet) is the same as for the planets in the article: we don't have telescopes with a high enough resolution (directly proportional to lens diameter) to detect more information. Also, there are many billions of stars in the Milky Way galaxy alone--meaning a very long waiting list. We actually know a great deal about Alpha Centauri (lots and lots of math). The Wikipedia article does not mention any planet searches in the system after 2002 (before we could detect planets smaller than Neptune), but models predict that near-Earth-sized, rocky planets are likely. Again, the waiting list for study is unimaginably long.
Fourth, ancient knowledge of stars is limited to their locations in the sky, their movements, and more recently, their distances from Earth and from each other, and even more recently, their velocities. VERY BIG telescopes (and computers) are required to find out more. This takes time, precision, money, and careful but arbitrary selections of which stars to study so as to not waste millennia and economies studying unlikely/uninteresting/unimportant stars.
Fifth, they have known about this for less than 5 years. These discoveries are made using emerging technology and the latest and greatest telescopes to date. If the topic was brought up in the '70s, it was because we had just gone to the moon (missions between 1969 and 1972) and people were wondering where the next destination would be. Star Trek, for instance, debuted in 1966, when the Space Race was well under way.
(Sorry for the long post)
It seems I took far too long to reply.
Here are the links for Christopher Pinola for an explanation on traveling at the speed of light:
Put this title on youtube to see Carl Sagan's explation on traveling at lightspeed >
Carl Sagan's Cosmos: Episode 8-Travels in Time and Space
h t t p : / / w w w . y o u t u b e . c o m / w a t c h ? v = p 4 H G a T o v M M c & f e a t u r e = r e s u l t s — v i d e o & p l a y n e x t = 1 & l i s t = P L F E 7 0 A F 9 0 F 6 E 7 5 8 A 5
and I found my Einstein's reference at
h t t p : / / w w w . l i f e s c i . s u s s e x . a c . u k / h o m e / J o h n — G r i b b i n / t i m e t r a v . h t m
This is John Gribbin's home page on time travel > look for it on google
Happens to me all the time!
I prefer posts that have a little meat, and a lot of thought, put into them. +1 from me Bill
Cheers! ~Michael (AFM★Radio / Astronomy.FM)
Jack-2510943, I agree. All of this is interesting. But I also have noticed that even though transportation technology has exponentially advanced, only a small fraction of the earth's population has any access to world-wide travel.
@christopher pinola: I think you misread it, we can approach the speed of light, but we can't get too it. Aside from that, yes, we do have the tech to get close to the speed of light, and yes depending on where you are, the pressure would be too large.
Mitchell
Humans could survive on a planet with 2-3 times the surface force of gravity as earth. There will no doubt be some health complications, some unforseen, however it will make many individual humans stronger, and I would be willing to bet that in a few generations unless life on that planet is too easy, the human race in general would become physically stronger in general.
This is great news, it may not be very long before we find a planet that will support human life. When we do the first thing we should do is build a big space ship then load it up with all the right wing Republican nut cases and shot it off toward their new home........We'll even give them their own government headed by, Perry, Bachann and Palin, Bon Voyage.
Thanks for adding politics into a science article...
Wait!!! Can't we leave the GOP here and the rest of us go? It would be nice to let them finally realize what they are doing to the planet as they slowly(or not so slowly) kill themselves off.
Palin can then say "I can see Alpha Centauri from here".
(yes I know she never said the Russia comment).
Take the political BS elsewhere, this is a science article.
You should visit Kansas if you think this is true. But bring a towel, because you are ALL wet.
It's all politics cjsks, who do you think pays for your telescopes so you can look at places we'll never visit in your lifetime. At least I hope we wont. Who wants to jack up another planet or life-form with our greed and insecurities.
Yes, discussions on the space program are often political, but the above discussion (if you want to call it that) was off topic, and made no reference to the article or the space program.
Nice try though.
This thread shows the political thread that runs through even the space program.
Here's a genuine fact for you: In 2010 the U.S. government spent more money on air conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan that for the entire NASA budget.
There are lots of people surfacing these days who 1) have no critical thinking skills beyond choosing between a Big Mac and a Whopper, 2) who see science as entirely bogus based entirely on their self-observation that what scientists report is not something they are educated enough to understand, 3) who are so institutionally paranoid that they trust no one in government or science. These people are under the delusion that their uneducated and ill-informed opinion is just as valid as the results of years of science that they cannot even begin to comprehend.
There is a lot of politics involved in all science these days, including NASA. It's too bad because there are a number of very exciting things going on these days and the right wing idiots who post on here have no idea how to appreciate it.
@Chris, bravo. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Chris-I second Eric's post. Well said.
On any monitored comment site, you political partisan losers would have had most of your comments deleted by now.
Get a life.
But who would provide tax dollars for all the government handouts for the remaining liberal democrats. You would starve in short order if all the taxpayers left Earth.
LOL Tarzan! So true, especially considering half the households in the US paid ZERO federal income taxes last year after deductions. The overwhelming majority of them vote Democrat of course.
@Cwood: I was actually thinking the same thing, except in reverse. But I have a better idea right here on this planet - specifically in this nation: why don't you socialist liberals take your blue states on the West & East coasts and north mid-west and keep your dwindling unions, jobs, Obamacare, big nanny state government, and high taxes. We'll take the red states everywhere else and keep the job growth like foreign car plants, the low taxes, the military, the agriculture, and the guns.
Good luck. And no, we won't loan you people anything when you can't pay your own socialist bills. And that includes food. Go ask China and Russia for everything.
Heck Big Al, give it to the Muslims! Then the Left Wingnuts can go with them and "celebrate diversity" together.
all i know is that i am smarter in my sleep than any so called educated liberal democrat is on thier best day. These people are living proof that educated idiots do exist.
@Chris 53713
Your thoughts are shared by many
Chris wrote:
Nonsense. C'mon, a little skepticism would keep you from falling for that kind of junk. Regards....
darnthatdream;
it's really sad when genuine facts bite you on the arse, isn't it?
$20.2 billion per year for air-conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan
http://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-war-20b-in-air-conditioning
or
http://www.businessinsider.com/money-spent-in-afghanistan-could-buy-at-home-2011-8
(which reports $38 billion for two years of AC)
sick, but true.
BTW, NASA's 2011 budget was $19 billion
No this thread shows how the losers on the far right/left would take any opportunity to bash the "other guy" with no thought of anything else. Guess what f#ck nuts, you're ALL destroying this country with your back and forth BS. No wonder both parties can produce nothing but garbage for politicians, look at the garbage they all pander to.
You can bet there are people who worked on these projects who associated themselves with both parties politically. They manage to do their jobs together,maybe that is something you should all consider. Honestly I can't help but wonder how some of you even function in society. Do you walk around with a big D or R tattooed on your foreheads so you can start a slap fight whenever you pass one another on the street?
THAT's the takeaway image of the day! (Pulling my cap further down my forehead now....)
danwill, thanks for the NPR link. Included in the article was this:
$20 billion for air-conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan? Uh, no. Skepticism is my friend.
Damn Chris 53713. You nailed it. The US is becoming a backwards country that now rejects science. Very sad.
Backcountry: While I'm also frustrated, you have to drop the false equivalency. The left believes in science. Many on the right do not. It is the right that most often injects partisan garbage into every thread here. It is the right that calls for ending NASA. It's all provable.
That said, this story has nothing to do with politics and any commentary that tries to advance such an agenda is inappropriate.
Now, back to this amazing story!
@DTD: The article does state that those roads and securing said roads are for bringing in the fuel needed for the A/C, so you can legitimately say that it belongs to the cost of A/C'ing.
Critical reading is my friend.
But whether or not it's an accurate figure, it's hard to tell, but if he really was chief logistician for Petraeus in Iraq, he probably does have a decent clue.
Mitchell
I guess you missed the first post on this thread. There is no way you could prove which side is worse, I think probably you are just more likely to notice when it is something you don't agree with. Nice of you to inject your own partisan garbage btw.
Mitchell, well, if you read it on the internet, it must be true. This is not the first time NPR has fallen for a line. There's a small cadre of folks who set out to make them look dumb. They often succeed.
Roads can be used to bring in other things besides fuel.
Regards....
what makes the gravity greater on super earth?
See, you failed again at critical reading.
Mitchell
It is probably a good thing for these other possibly-life sustainable planets that we are too far away to get there.
If there is already intelligent life on any of these planets, they should be horrified at the thought of us showing up. The people that jump into these type of discussions (the story is not about politics) to "politicize" them are proof of that.
And God help the inhabitants of other worlds if we not only showed up with our political differences to fight, bicker about, and try to impose - we'd be bringing our religious issues with us as well.
Maybe God had a reason He put us so far away from other inhabitable worlds!
edddavis,
absolutely!
I wouldn't blame an alien race for simply blasting us out of existence for attempting to bring politics and religion to them
I agree more2bits - but I still think it is fascinating what we are currently and what future generations are going to discover.
That's just amazing! The term "Super Earth" makes me wonder if a world is three or four or ten times the size of ours and could have atmosphere and could sustain life would it be likely that the lifeforms, if any, would be larger as well?
I'm sort of using reverse logic on this one. I'm under the impression that small land masses, like small islands, etc. tend to small smaller versions of some animals. Could it be that a drastically LARGER planet could support larger animals and plants?
I'm afraid I'm not explaining this very well. Perhaps somebody will be able to read between the lines and respond (no politics or religion please).
Hard to say... who are our resident astrobiologists? :)
The variety of size of life on Earth doesn't seem to have much to do with the size of the Earth itself or even it's surface gravity, so I don't see a direct correlation.
Our size and stature has more to do with natural selection. i.e., What do we hunt or what hunts us, quality of diet, are we plant eaters (look at giraffes, brontosaurus), etc... Any number of factors.
Good questions skip, and though I'm not an exobiologist, I might be able to provide some food for thought. Here on earth sometimes the biggest animals, such as the now extinct Moa of New Zealand or the ancient "elephant bird" of Madagascar have evolved on remote and isolated islands, so island size does not seem to constrain evolved size, though these are admittedly large islands.
More significantly, large planets "ten times the size of ours" would have much stronger gravity, which would more likely be a limiting factor for size.
skip Nicholson, you are correct, a larger planet will have larger animals but not necessarily for the reason you are thinking. The smaller land masses on earth tend to have smaller animals because there is not enough natural resources (food) to sustain larger ones, or large populations. However, on a "super-earth" planet (that's a name I don't like, they only mean 'larger than earth') the gravity would be much greater. Any living thing on this planet would need to be larger (or in a form unlike anything we've yet discovered) to compensate for the extra gravity. There would likely be more animals around the size of insects as well, since a small enough animal would be pretty much immune to the effects of heavy gravity thanks to its low mass.
For the record, I'm a student in physics but don't have any degrees in astronomy, physics (yet), or biology.
Skip, there has been some research suggesting that super-Earths are better when it comes to tectonic activity and the ability to hold onto an atmosphere. I've added a link to a story about that in the item, and Scientific American had a great article specifically on ths subject, written by Kepler team member Dimitar Sasselov, if you can find that. I don't think it got into the little vs. big animal question, though.
Here's the msnbc article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34230212/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/super-earths-may-be-superior-fostering-life/
Mikey, keep in mind that larger planets have a larger radius and the further away you are from the center mass, the lower the effect of its gravity. Also, if the planet is larger but not as dense, difference in mass would be less than the difference in size.
So while gravity on a "super-earth" would likely be greater, probably not as many times greater as you might think. For example, while Neptune is several times larger than Earth, if you could stand on it's surface, your weight would only be roughly 10-20 lbs greater. Gas planets obviously are not that dense, but you get the point.
From the other article (Thanks for that link Alan)
Thanks folks that is all very interesting and very helpful. I can't wait to meet a giant from a "super earth". Hey weren't those guys from that old TWILIGHT ZONE episode, "TO SERVE MAN" giants? Maybe they came from a super earth?
It's just one of those things I wonder about when I read about a planet possibly being able to support life and that the same planet is multiple times larger than the earth. Would the life-forms, if any, be proportionally larger?
Just one of those things that rattle around in my tiny little monkey/lizard brain from time to time.
Here's the problem as I see it (and I'm sure this will be quite unpopular.
We can't ignore the "religion" hypothesis when discussing science (and issues like this.)
Beliefs have consequences people. The last time I checked ... America is the most religious (technically advanced) nation on the planet. And, what does this get us?
A constant and blatant discrediting of our scientists. We are at the bottom of the barrel in math and science. We are in a downward spiral in NASA funding. Politicians look at scientific opinion as though it is just "hearsay" and not particularly relevant. CERN and other B I G science programs ..... you guessed it, not happening in the states. Evolution, the cornerstone of our understanding of biology? Well pretty soon, only in particular states.
The list goes on and on people.
Again, beliefs have consequences for all of us.
I understand that correlation does not equate to causation, but at a certain point, we must be honest with ourselves. We can bury our heads in the sand to this phenomenon of American ignorance and intellectual bankruptcy all we want. Sure, we can call it "politics" or "economics" or whatever else we want to make ourselves feel better. But it is only going to get worse.
I'm no expert, but it would seem to me that the higher gravity of a larger planet would eventually lead to life that is smaller than us rather than larger. Just a theory, but food for thought.
You're right, until both sides learn to respect and accept the other. That is not impossible. Each validates the other if the mind is open.
Alan, -maybe slightly off topic- but I've read about the potential importance of tectonic plate activity on Earth as far as keeping our atmosphere/planet what it is. Besides size, I wonder if anyone has researched the idea that our Moon's gravitational effect has influence on keeping our planet active. An extreme example is what Jupiter does to Io. Venus, though it's hard to tell under the clouds, doesn't appear to have active plate tectonics and it's virtually the same size as the Earth.... only difference is the lack of a major satellite.
Lngsd, there's been a lot of discussion about the impact (so to speak) that the moon's presence has had on Earth's development ... not only in terms of the tidal effects but also the mere fact that there was something big enough to almost exactly cover the sun. (Remember the beginning of "2001"?) You'll probably enjoy this Astrobiology essay from a few years back:
http://www.astrobio.net/index.php?option=com_retrospection&task=detail&id=2507
Guys, Earth has life which ranges from microscopic to about 30 meters, so what do you mean when you speculate that life on another planet would be bigger/smaller than life on our own? Regardless, survive!
i hope someday in the future we can go to other planets and destroy them one by one and take everything they have for us ,so we can be the best creation.but i know someday thats what we are going be doing maybe in the year 3999.
Alan Boyle: Thanks for commenting after your story. Much appreciated as it adds more insight to the discussion.
DarnThatDream - Yeah, I think creature size has less to do with gravity and more to do with available resources. And if anything, I would think less gravity would result in taller (maybe not necessarily more massive) creatures.
BigAl,
While I find your post kind of funny - I think the following saying fits this bill:
"You know you have created God in your own image when you find that He hates the same people you do."
"We are actually entering an incredibly interesting time in our history..."
I could not agree more. Kepler, HARPS and other instruments are really starting to churn out these discoveries. It should only be a matter of time until we find a habitable earth-like exoplanet right in our own cosmic backyard. The idea that they can directly observe some of these for signs of life, like oxygen, methane, water vapor, perhapes even CFC's?? ...amazing.
50 new planets, we should leave them alone because we've done nothing but screw up the one we are on !
Cheer up. The jury's still out.
Childhood's end...
Very good news. Good thing there's still somebody out there doing science for the sake of science.
At a distance of 36 light years HD 85512 b is safe from humans for many years to come.
Some of my best friends are humans.
hey, wait! this just doesn't jive with creationism, which really oughta be given equal time here, right?
everything in science is just a theory, after all...
could we please have Palin or Perry or Bachmann chime in?
Science is just a communist plot to turn us into godless socialists.
If anyone is suggesting that there is intelligent life somewhere other than here, that's just crazy talk. Everyone knows that the invisible guy impregnated a virgin, who in turn, gave birth to an omnipotent being. Intelligent life somewhere other than earth, puhleeze.
Are you implying there is intelligent life here on earth? Where?
We were created by the Q.
(let's see who gets that reference)
Religion is just a Communist plot to turn us all into Punch drinking Zealots....!
So if there's life on other planets, does Jesus have to do the whole crucifixion and resurrection thing all over again?
Toasty, many gods, but only one science.
@yowza-4085363: Aslan does.
We wouldn't have been created by the Q, but rather simply are the Q.
Are you referring to Q from Star Trek by chance?
At any rate, I, a Christian, see no conflict between science and religion. With the possibility of symbolism, ect. in mind, it is hard to find something which religion claims (the core teachings, not stuff that people made up generations later to suit their purposes/understandings) and science denies, and equally hard to find something which science claims and religion denies.
With the exception of the timescale (and who knows what time is to God? certainly not what it is to us), the Christian creation story correlates very well with the current astro/geo/biological understanding of Earth's history.
From Genisis, in order: Creation of heavens and earth, earth "formless and empty", water metioned, "Let there be light", light/dark into day/night, separate sky/water, creation of dry land, vegetation, sun moon and stars created and set in motion, aquatic life, birds, land animals, people.
Scientific theory: Big Bang ("let there be light"), stars form, many star generations, earth/moon form (molten), earth cools and soldifies, cools enough for liquid water (oceans), entire surface of planet is ocean until granite (new rock type) forms continents, first life (bacteria), photosynthetic life make oxygen, life slowly gets more complex, in order of appearance: protists (usually microscopic, not bacteria), plants, fungi, animals. Life makes its way out of oceans, onto land, diversifies, simply because there is less (or rather no) competition in new ways of living. Humans of course are among the most recent secies on this planet.
Similar enough for you?
Have you read the rest of your holy book beyond the first few pages?
There is actually some really immoral things in there. Want to know how many human the loving god of the bible killed, not counting everyone who drown in the flood, burn to death in Sodom and Gomorrah and the first-born Egyptians (yes god killed babies). The Christian god killed over 2.2 million people. I particularly question the morals of a being that felt it righteous to send two bears to kill children for making fun of Elisha's bald head. I guess it was a god-less heathen who said "Sticks and stones may break my bone but names will never hurt me".
Of course the bedrock of Christianity is Jesus is god and god is Jesus. Jesus also doesn't make any sense if there is no OT. Of course religion doesn't harm anyone, it only the root cause of 9-11. It creates hatred of homosexuals. It divides countries like Ireland. And it causes science education in this country to be water down. Most wars in history have been directly caused by religion and most of the hot spots in the world today are caused by the religious. If you think any biology teachers actually teach evolution in any detail beyond a quick gloss over and they an quick apology if they offended anyone of faith you're mistaken.
I used to believe but the more I researched and dug into what a monster this god of the bible is the more repulsed I was. This is no being that is worthy of praise and love. He is the last kind of monster I would want to be stuck with forever. No wonder he is insecure and the first thing he demands is that you love him and that you don't love any other gods. Christians know this as fact because this god impregnated himself in to a virgin only to eventually to be killed by the people he was born to save. Then 2 days later (yes count the days it is only 2 days) he came back as a zombie in order to allow a loophole for the entirety of humanity (who he hadn't killed yet) for the sin of a naked rib chick who listened to a talking snake who told her it was okay to snack on an apple. The direct result of eating the special apple was that she realized she was naked.
Sure that story ties into Science so well I don't see how anyone could ever question it. I mean the creator of everything in the Universe was kind of enough to create small pox so the medical scientist wouldn't be bored and had something to do. Well at least he made cancer a bit harder so it will keep the medical scientist from getting bored for a few more years. What a loving being worthy of our worship and that is why we pray that his other worshipers don't fly anymore planes in to our buildings.
I am sure if there is life on one of these planets they will have a good chuckle over all of our gods and how we kill each other defending the same one true god. I think their biggest laugh is going to be when we call ourselves intelligent rational beings. That will be sure to get the biggest laughs.
It's simple - Science is the persistant study of turning ideas and hypothesis into known fact based on indisputable evidence. Religion is to convince ourselves to believe in something which holds no solid evidence and in which has not been proven fact, since it was invented. I for one, can't seem to convince myself. I'm sure other civilizations far advanced from ours would not know what "Jesus" is.
Warp factor 6 Sulu, engage!
Is it a fair question to ask:
If an earth-like planet is 3.6 times greater than earth, is the gravatational force relative to its size?
Yes, the gravitational force felt on the planets surface would be greater than that on Earth.
They don't give all the information in this article needed to calculate an approximate gravitational force.
Given the Earth's mass is 5.9722 × 1024 kg you can expect that 3.6 times that would be a sizable difference.
You have all the info you need to come up with a reasonable estimate... I just can't seem to run the calculation properly.
If we assume density of the "super-earth" equals Earth's, so mass is 3.6x Earth's (based on being 3.6x larger), we know Earth's mass = 5.9736×10^24 kg, therefore "super-earth" mass = 2.1505 x 10^25. But I'm not sure how to calculate radius, which is needed to know how many times greater is the force of gravity on super-earth. (Very generally speaking, force of gravity on super-earth should be greater than 1x but less than 3.6x earth's.)
The formula for the volume of a sphere is
V = 4 * π * (R^3) / 3
If we're assuming the two have the same density (a big "if", of course!) and using "e" for earth and "se" for super-earth,
V_se = 3.6 * V_e
Plugging in and cancelling the constant bits from each size leaves
R_se^3 = 3.6 * R_e^3
so the ratio of radii is the cube root of 3.6, or (assuming my trusty calculator is working correctly) about 1.53
Awesome, thanks!
Beautiful!
Okay, most humans will pass out at a roughly 3.5 to 4.0G-force. Highly trained aero-nauts (space nuts) go la-la at 5.0G's. How then could it really be feasable to compare it to earth at all? We could not live there, and plants we need could not grow there. There might be mineral or fuels, but we could never get it.
That place is a drag...
Bighand, a rocky planet with this mass comes out to roughly 1.5G, not 3.5 - 4.0G. So you might feel a bit sluggish, but you wouldn't pass out. Moreover, you would get used to it.
I did it wrong...
If that's the case, let's go mess up another planet. Whose driving?
I would speculate, if we assume that the planet is solid, that the density would be greater than Earth's. After all, Earth is the densest member of our solar system even though Mercury is composed of an intrinsically denser mix of elements. The additional compression due to Earth's larger mass is what makes it denser than Mercury. These factors would make the radius of the newly discovered planet smaller and the surface gravity greater than the computations above.... I think.
A place for a new life form. Teausbaggicus.
Known better by its shortened form, "Texas."
Was that a spell?
With every new discovery on "space the final frontier" one can only marvel at the wonderful creative power of the force that designed all of this. Could any of this majesty ever happen by chance, what is the statistical probability of this happening, everything in its place and operating in perfect harmony.
Yes, it's all in the image of His sublime balance of meatballs, spaghetti and sauce
Jitesh I hope you know that we can all see where you're going with this. I also hope you know that religion and science do not have to be mutually exclusive.
Yes, it could happen by chance (it did). The statistical probability of our universe laid out the way it is, is indeed very low, but if it wasn't laid out like this, it would be laid out in a similar fashion I'm sure, maybe one or two atoms in a different place or maybe galaxies switched, or a whole different set of galaxies, planets and stars.
Instead of saying, "God put all this here as is,"
wouldn't it make more sense to say, "God created the universe"? Studying science IS studying God. Don't turn away from all of His beauty He has created! It is out there for us to study and admire through the gift of Science that he has given us!
For the record, I'm not a religious person, however the above viewpoint is how I have heard many religious persons explain how science and religion are not mutually exclusive.
The statistical probability of it happening like this? That's like flipping a coin a thousand times and then asking what was the probability of the coin landing as it did for those flips. You could compute it, but why? It happened exactly the way it happened.
Make it so, Ramen.....
He who boiled for our sins reached out with His noodly appendage...
I really think that it would be great if some of these other planets had life. Especially life we could communicate with. Life that neither would threaten us and that we would be peaceful toward. I will do my job by faithfully paying taxes and reading these articles. ... And I will drink beer as I do it.
PS.. I think that consideration for the creator or "reason" for this miraculous universe is valid. Chance seems a bit shallow for the outstanding world we live on. I would not be surprised if there were more like this.
The statistical probability of something happening after it has happened is always 100%. Who is to say there hasn't been a trillion trillion trillion billion Universes that have been created in the last 3 mico seconds but none of them had the laws of physics that would allow a Universe like ours. Since there is a Universe it happened once and that is enough.
I can make a deck of cards with a million cards in it. I can shuffle it and deal all the cards out. The probability that I will deal the cards out in that exact order is has more zeros in it then there are atoms in the known Universe but it would always happen anyways.
Love this thread ^
Darn, that means Obama will be letting millions more illegal aliens in and giving them amnesty.
I am NOT an expert, but -
with all this new empirical and observational data why isn't there a rewriting of the Drake equation? Drake's equation was formulated a long time ago and now there is actual data that could be used to make a new version - has this been done? And if not - why?
Someone who knows more about astrophysics than I do will have to answer this question!
The Drake equation is simple enough to update easily when new data comes in - just replace some of the old guesses with actual figures when new data is available. Nowdays, the only guesses left are: What percentage of earthlike planets are in the "habitable zones", what percentage of habitable planets actually originate life, and what percentage of life bearing planets develops intelligent life.
Replacing those final guesses will take a lot more time and a lot more investigation.
The Drake Equation tried spell out the factors you would have to know on order to make an estimate of how common technological civilizations are in this galaxy
Observations like these, show more and more that the factor:
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
...is a very comfortably large number. Not that many years ago, we could only make educated guesses about how common extrasolar planets of any kind are. If planets were rare, the rest wouldn't matter. Now we have nice, hard data. But...
fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
...and all following factors, still have values we can only guess at. We don't currently have evidence of so much as a microbe that didn't come from Earth. Finding even the simplest life elsewhere in this solar system would suggest that life isn't a very rare phenomenon, and we could then give a tentative value to f(sub)t that means something.
Frankly, the Drake Equation is more of a conversation starter than a rigorous algorithm, but the habitability of planets is generally incorporated in the equation. You can plug in your own numbers using our handy-dandy Drake Equation calculator:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30609189/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/figure-odds-finding-et/
The greatest way of deflating the human ego would be to find intelligent life on another Planet-------I can hear now all the reasons the religious nut heads would conjure up-- for their existance!!
Religions evolve (as little as some of them may like that word) or die, just like anything else. Indeed, the Catholic Church lately has been out ahead of the curve on this question.
They'll work out a way to incorporate this into their belief systems (anything else is admitting their god isn't big enough to incorporate the Universe, and what faith would do that?), it's just possible some new religions could start. What such a discovery might do to mainstream religions, unlike others, is at the bottom of my list of concerns about this.
And it depends on how it happens. Does some ET make a bold appearance on Earth like Michael Renne? Or is it just radio signals of unquestionably artificial origin, likely not even intended for us, from a world a hundred light years away.? If the latter, we'll get over it after just a few weeks of headlines. No panic, no nothing....
But the question would then be...should we deliberately signal them, now that we know where to point our antennas? And almost any country could easily take it upon itself to do so.
And if interstellar travel becomes not just possible, but practical, some religions will see it as a missionary opportunity. A chance to spread 'The Word.'
Let's hope ETs don't think the same way. If interstellar conflict is possible at all, I'm convinced it'll be over what we call religious/philosophical/political issues, not resources. There's no material stuff here that isn't just as, or more abundant elsewhere. But hearts and minds to win, are another story...
Ramen preserve those poor aliens when the space bound Jehova's Witnesses and the Mormon's start knocking on their doors at 8:30 A.M. on a Saturday morning.
Yeah, we would just send an imitation of whatever we had received from them - in a hundred years or so they'd get it, then we'd wait another hundred to hear back from them, etc...
And if interstellar travel becomes not just possible, but practical, some religions will see it as a missionary opportunity. A chance to spread 'The Word.'
I just can't see space crabs accepting a human-form being as their source of "salvation" . let's face it, several major religions would need to make some serious changes. but if actual, intelligent aliens were found, and contacted, there is little doubt that certain fundamentalist elements will be screaming "DEMON!"
Of course FTL travel is possible, if all the UFO's are not time machines, then there are only two possibilities:
1. The pilots and passengers are really, really old.
2. The UFO's possess some type of a FTL drive. Which I believe is the correct answer. It probably has to do with the energy in the Zero-Point Field or something even more simple. Why would God build a universe so big it's inhabitants could never meet or visit! Oh yes, religion without science is superstition and science without religion is just statistics. Science and religion go hand in hand, all the way to God, it's the people that are don't get it.!!!!!
Study the cargo cult religions of that popped up during the WW2 in the pacific. Ships landing on the small islands and built airstrips. The natives had never seen airplanes before. The big silver birds landed with cargo inside them for the people who were in the landing towers and who kept the landing strips clear.
The natives thought if they also built towers and cleared landing strips the silver god birds would appear and give them cargo also. So they assumed the ground crews were doing some kind of religious practice to have the great silver birds land to give them cargo. It didn't happen on just one island but on separate islands. The natives also abandoned their useless religion in favor of the church of the create sliver bird.
I am sure if a UFO landed with technology millions of years more advanced they ours they could pull off the I am god. After all we just recently invented toilet paper.
Many people (Erich Von Daniken, Chariots of the Gods) would claim they already have.
Here's another though for you -
What if incredibly advanced and super intelligent aliens showed up and told us of their great civilization...
What if they were to tell us that on their world, no one had to suffer in poverty, hardship or despair.
And what if they told us that the secret to their success as a civilization was that they had abundant resources, shared their collective intellects, helped one another, and didn't hoard or hold back from each other in the name of profit.
Suppose they told us we could be the same way, and that they'd share their knowledge and show us how. What if their first suggestion was a more equal distribution of resources, as a means to end poverty?
Your um, "fundamentalist elements" would be screaming "COMMUNISTS"!
yep, that is for certain.
"Communist Demons from Outer Space" would be an excellent title for a propaganda film, don't ya think?
Yeah, at least half of the world's population would be scared witless.
I don't know about half of the world, but a disheartening number of Americans would believe it.
hmm, time to start making that movie
Well, I still donot beleive that on Earth (Aliens coming from external cosmic world), the Pyramids were built in conglomeration with Aliens. I guess till we see Aline in real we cannot trust the fact that Aliens do exist.
The only thing I hate about these reports on new found worlds beyond our solar system is that we still can only detect planets that are significantly larger in mass than worlds our own size. The very large population of planets that could (and most likely do coexist around the same stars as these newly discovered planets) aren't detectable by current techniques used in planet finding.
The Kepler mission finds the bigger planets first, the smaller ones take more orbits to confirm. It just has to stare at stars a few more years.
Well, I still donot believe that Aliens exists and people believing the fact that Pyramids were built in conglomeration with Aliens by Humans many years before.
May be we need to really wait for day when Aliens will land their space ship on earth after having travelled several light years or from far remote place on earth itself and talk to us,..lolz,..
Till then I would suggest Obama should fuel these fantacy theories of Aliens and their existance.
-rD
a truly intelligent alien would pass us by.
Well, I still donot believe that Aliens exists and people believing the fact that Pyramids were built in conglomeration with Aliens by Humans many years before.
May be we need to really wait for day when Aliens will land their space ship on earth after having travelled several light years or from far remote place on earth itself and talk to us,..lolz,..
Till then I would suggest Obama should fuel these fantacy theories of Aliens and their existance.
-rD
Do you really believe the gov., especially the military aspect of it, would allow the public to learn about alien contact if they can contain it?
BigAl Las Vegas
Nice to see you could sneak away from the coming out party there in Vegas. You forgot Al Gore; need someone to save the ozone. Obama too; there will be need for universal health care, homosexual marriage and job stimulus plans. You forgot all the other left wing save the whales, but murder the babies crowd. It's only about 216 TRILLION miles away. If you start your trip today you might get there in time before you evolve again.
You are all forgetting one point, gravity is not based on the size or how dense alone you must add in the rotation speed as well, larger planet faster rotation, more gravity, larger planet with slower rotation less gravity.
Robert, incorrect. All you need to calculate gravitational force is mass of object 1, mass of object 2, and the distance between them (radius).
F = G*m1*m2/r^2
("G" is the universal gravitational constant).
Faster rotational speed would counteract gravity, so faster rotation would lead to lower surface gravity - except at the polar regions. But there is a limit to how fast a planet could rotate and still remain stable without loosing mass, and in most cases the rotational speed isn't enough to make a big difference in gravity, even at the equator.
There was an interesting SciFi story decades ago, maybe in Analog. A very massive planet rotating very fast, so that your weight was strongly proportional to the latitude. Humans were able to tolerate the high latitudes only be being immersed in fluid (so they floated). There was an intelligent life form, shaped something like a flat centipede, indigenous to the higher latitudes.
Robert, rotation has nothing to do with gravity, save for the fact that centrifugal force slightly counteracts it. You are in fact very slightly lighter at Earth's equator, than at the poles. It's a very slightly oblate spheroid because of this. (it's a also part of why you want to launch into orbit from as near the equator as you can, taking advantage of that rotation) Jupiter, being a gas giant and rotating in about 11 hours, is visibly more oblate than a sphere to the eye.
Mike, you're referring to Hal Clement's 'Mission of Gravity.' It involved a very massive, very rapidly rotating, super-Earthy planet that was still two Earth gravities at its equator (humans could walk and function there for short times, only in 'powered armor' type spacesuits), increasing to 700 gees at the poles. The centipede-like beings were hired to travel overland to a high-latitude region area to recover data from an important science probe that crashed there. (We see them again in the subsequent novel 'Star Light')
The author was quite careful about working out the physics of the story, and I believe there's an appendix wherein he explains his calculations.
Thanks Frank, it's nice that somebody on here knows what the heck they're talking about.
Oh, I get it. This new planet is where they intend to send all the baby boomers - the poor ones that is. Then they won't have to worry about medicare or social security (or continue to hope that the boomers who are LIVING TOO LONG will just die off).