http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080616/sc_nm/space_planets_dc
"Did I ever tell you how much I like ants huh? Especially fried in a subtle blend of mech fluid and grated gears?"
-Rampage, Beast Wars
-Rampage, Beast Wars
System
79987 Posts
16 years, 3 months ago
How do they know these planets are like Earth, if they are thousands of light years away and impossible to get anywhere near? The only real way you could know if these planets are like Earth, is if you were to visit them. You can't possibly know if these planets have all the conditions you need to support life just by looking through a giant telescope at them.
nippy
2386 Posts
16 years, 3 months ago
retromaniac
How do they know these planets are like Earth, if they are thousands of light years away and impossible to get anywhere near? The only real way you could know if these planets are like Earth, is if you were to visit them. You can't possibly know if these planets have all the conditions you need to support life just by looking through a giant telescope at them.
They never said they could support life. They said they were Earth-like planets, meaning they're not comprised of gasses, but of solid materials.
System
79987 Posts
16 years, 3 months ago
Who's to say that life on Earth is the normal standard? That very narrow thinking.
Strange, these are earth like planets but people cant actually live on them. And besides i would be like 70 before they finally did discover a way that people could live on these planets.
They did'nt say noone is living on those planets. They simply said they are earth like. There very well could be life on some of those planets. But technology being where it is, we are hundreds if not thousands of years from figuring out how to get there.
DebrisStorm
Who's to say that life on Earth is the normal standard? That very narrow thinking.
Precisely the point I've argued for years.
We have, here on earth, creatures that survive in water that would kill every other living being (known to mankind) in seconds. Thats just one example. There are more.
Who says that all life must need oxygen or even light?
april1980
Who says that all life must need oxygen or even light?
Well, if you study science, there are certain laws that dictate that all life needs oxygen. If you are willing to entertain the thought that science may be wrong about that, then that means science may be wrong about other things in the Universe, as well. We already know that life can exist without light; we only need to look at all the species that live miles beneath the ocean's surface where no solar light can reach.
And Nippy - if these planets are "Earth-like" only because they are solid and not gaseous, then why don't they call them "Mars-like"? Last time I checked, that was a pretty solid planet, but still nothing like Earth in comparison.
The only thing that would make a planet like ours would be the discovery of an oxygen-based atmosphere, life, or liquid water. These news pieces only use terms comparing these planets to ours to get people interested enough to read them. If people want to get excited about it, then great. That's what discovery is born from.
DebrisStorm
Who's to say that life on Earth is the normal standard? That very narrow thinking.
No, Debris, it is not. We could all sit around and come up with all sorts of cool imaginings about what is out there that has yet to be discovered, but until it is proved it is not narrow-thinking, but clear thinking. Science can only be based on what has been proven (or disproved, rather). If we thought that there was no "normal standard", then science books would be pretty empty, don't you think?
Cynor's right, we should study science.
nippy
2386 Posts
16 years, 3 months ago
CYNOR
DebrisStormWho's to say that life on Earth is the normal standard? That very narrow thinking.
No, Debris, it is not. We could all sit around and come up with all sorts of cool imaginings about what is out there that has yet to be discovered, but until it is proved it is not narrow-thinking, but clear thinking. Science can only be based on what has been proven (or disproved, rather). If we thought that there was no "normal standard", then science books would be pretty empty, don't you think?
Hahaha, wow. Mr. Narrow Thinking himself has spoken up against science, once again. Brilliantly done. I like how you're claiming "science can only be based on what has been proven or disproved". Anyone with any sort of background in science knows that a lot of theories are accepted as truth yet unable to be "proven", at least yet. You should attempt to read a science book sometime.
First of all, if I'm using science as a basis for my point, how can I be "speaking out against it"? Once again you skip logic to try and slam me.
And please tell me what theory exists that says there is life in the universe that exists, and without the need of oxygen to boot?
Nippy, I could say that the Sun is the center of our solar-system, and you'd still find a way to disagree with me.
And please tell me what theory exists that says there is life in the universe that exists, and without the need of oxygen to boot?
Nippy, I could say that the Sun is the center of our solar-system, and you'd still find a way to disagree with me.
nippy
2386 Posts
16 years, 3 months ago
CYNOR
First of all, if I'm using science as a basis for my point, how can I be "speaking out against it"? Once again you skip logic to try and slam me.
And please tell me what theory exists that says there is life in the universe that exists, and without the need of oxygen to boot?
You can't use science as a basis for your point if your entire point is going to be based on the opinion that all science is proven factually.
As for your second statement, you're an idiot. You're confusing scientific theory with the laws of probability.
Then why did you tell me that many theories are believed to be fact without proof? My whole point was that there is neither scientific proof NOR theory based around life on other planets (yet). Tell me I'm wrong there.
You're setting up a straw-man just so you can knock it down, because you just feel the need to fight me on everything I post.
You're setting up a straw-man just so you can knock it down, because you just feel the need to fight me on everything I post.
nippy
2386 Posts
16 years, 3 months ago
CYNOR
And Nippy - if these planets are "Earth-like" only because they are solid and not gaseous, then why don't they call them "Mars-like"? Last time I checked, that was a pretty solid planet, but still nothing like Earth in comparison.
Since you decided to add this in, I guess I'll address it. Human nature dictates that we attempt to make sense of the unknown by finding similarities with the known. We live on Earth, not Mars. We know Earth. We're still studying Mars, CYNOR. I'm sure you know that.
That was precisely my point. We know that Mars is solid, and we know that these planets are solid. If that is about all we know of either of them, then at this point they have more in common (based on what we know) than these new planets and ours. My point was that N.A.S.A. and news organizations will attempt to use terms that will pique the most interest and curiosity, because it would be a lot more interesting to find another planet like Earth as oposed to Mars. That was all.
nippy
2386 Posts
16 years, 3 months ago
CYNOR
Then why did you tell me that many theories are believed to be fact without proof? My whole point was that there is neither scientific proof NOR theory based around life on other planets (yet). Tell me I'm wrong there.
You're wrong there. The size of the universe is what drives the hope for other life to be found, hence the laws of probability coming into effect.
CYNOR
You're setting up a straw-man just so you can knock it down, because you just feel the need to fight me on everything I post.
You're a straw man, I guess. I feel the need to fight you on everything you post because every post you make is bait.
nippy
2386 Posts
16 years, 3 months ago
CYNOR
That was precisely my point. We know that Mars is solid, and we know that these planets are solid. If that is about all we know of either of them, then at this point they have more in common (based on what we know) than these new planets and ours. My point was that N.A.S.A. and news organizations will attempt to use terms that will pique the most interest and curiosity, because it would be a lot more interesting to find another planet like Earth as oposed to Mars. That was all.
Mars IS an Earth-like planet, and we still as of yet are not aware of the ability of the planet to sustain life. I see Rush Limbaugh has ingrained the fear of the media in you. You should close yourself off to all media and simply absorb what he has to say. He's an authority on everything.
CYNOR
april1980Who says that all life must need oxygen or even light?
Well, if you study science, there are certain laws that dictate that all life needs oxygen. If you are willing to entertain the thought that science may be wrong about that, then that means science may be wrong about other things in the Universe, as well. We already know that life can exist without light; we only need to look at all the species that live miles beneath the ocean's surface where no solar light can reach.
We once thought the universe revolved around the Earth. This was scientific fact until proven otherwise.
We also once thought our bodies were regulated by 4 main substances and that illnesses were cause by an imbalance. Bleeding one of the subtances was thought to restore balance. This, again, was proven wrong.
We also thought the bottoms of our oceans would be lifeless, one scientist said the pressures were too great and temperatures too cold. But guess what?
My point is, anyone that says there can be no life on "X" planet because yadda yadda, is not necessarily correct in saying so.
Science, be definition is a fluid thing. We're constantly evolving and learning. They said we'd never travel the speed of sound, that it would cause massive internal damages etc, but once again, we evolved.
Just because we do not know about a certain thing yet, that is not to say it does not exist.
I hate it when Scientists use technobabble to try and convince people Earth is alone and no life exists out in space.
Well, space is VERY fecking big. We're still learning about our own planet. Its far too early to dismiss the possibility of life elsewhere.
There are plennty galaxies far older than ours where it is concievable a civilisation is eons ahead of ours and whos travel accross the stars is an common afair as a trip to the supermarket for us.
I guess if every post I make is bait, then I'm defying the laws of probability.
Let's get something straight, Nippy. I don't know you, you don't know me. You don't like, me, and I don't really care what you like or don't like. If you're trying (again) to get to me, it's not going to happen. If you get something out of fighting me tooth and nail over everything, then I guess I'm happy to help. I can't figure out just what I did to get in your cross-hairs, but again, I'm not concerned about it. I'll keep being an active member of these forums when I want to weigh-in, and you can either discuss things with me and the others, or continue to try and pick apart every thing I say.
Let's get something straight, Nippy. I don't know you, you don't know me. You don't like, me, and I don't really care what you like or don't like. If you're trying (again) to get to me, it's not going to happen. If you get something out of fighting me tooth and nail over everything, then I guess I'm happy to help. I can't figure out just what I did to get in your cross-hairs, but again, I'm not concerned about it. I'll keep being an active member of these forums when I want to weigh-in, and you can either discuss things with me and the others, or continue to try and pick apart every thing I say.