[QUOTE=Hellsten;25395581]No one was talking about us living there.
It was more about them creatures that might be living there.[/QUOTE]
The mere presence of water on a planet and sufficient mass means the possibility of life.
Even water and sufficient mass for an atmosphere are up for grabs as requirements. Having never encountered alien life, we have no ground base requirements on. Water is only on the list because it functions as an extremely common and effective universal solvent. Atmosphere because it provides a ready source of material to assist in the breakdown of molecules for energy.
Well, it's much more likely we'll find life on a planet that is much like ours.
[QUOTE=Hellsten;25395626]Well, it's much more likely we'll find life on a planet that is much like ours.[/QUOTE]
There is no evidence to back that up.
Europa may very well house life and Europa is pretty damn different from Earth.
[QUOTE=GunFox;25395654]There is no evidence to back that up.
Europa may very well house life and Europa is pretty damn different from Earth.[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure we're evidence enough that a planet in the habitable zone is more than likely going to have some sort of life on it.
[QUOTE=StupidUsername67;25395684]Pretty sure we're evidence enough that a planet in the habitable zone is more than likely going to have some sort of life on it.[/QUOTE]
The habitable zone basically just refers to a narrow band of space a certain distance from a star which would theoretically allow for liquid water on the surface.
This ignores the huge possibility of substantial geothermal activity or atmospheric friction causing an artificial increase in temperature to create liquid water. It also largely ignores the huge possibility of other life not requiring water. Water is HANDY for the creation of life, but nature is creative.
[QUOTE=GunFox;25395654]There is no evidence to back that up.
Europa may very well house life and Europa is pretty damn different from Earth.[/QUOTE]
Actually Europa is thought to closely mimic the conditions of the artic oceans and much deeper down the heat would be like tropical waters.
[editline]14th October 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=StupidUsername67;25395684]Pretty sure we're evidence enough that a planet in the habitable zone is more than likely going to have some sort of life on it.[/QUOTE]
What? You're spouting bullshit, all we have as "evidence" is the isolated incident of earth being in OUR habitable zone around OUR star that is habitable for US.
There could be giant gas bag creatures that live purely by filtering water vapour out of the atmosphere or live in jets of steam for their water needs, that's even if they are based off of carbon biochemistry, they could be methane or ammonia based.
[QUOTE=GunFox;25395735]The habitable zone basically just refers to a narrow band of space a certain distance from a star which would theoretically allow for liquid water on the surface.
This ignores the huge possibility of substantial geothermal activity or atmospheric friction causing an artificial increase in temperature to create liquid water. It also largely ignores the huge possibility of other life not requiring water. Water is HANDY for the creation of life, but nature is creative.[/QUOTE]
Okay, and? I know that there's going to be planets out there nothing like Earth that could have life, but that still doesn't have anything to do with planets in the habitable zone being more likely to have life than those that aren't.
[QUOTE=StupidUsername67;25395822]Okay, and? I know that there's going to be planets out there nothing like Earth that could have life, but that still doesn't have anything to do with planets in the habitable zone being more likely to have life than those that aren't.[/QUOTE]
The point is that people praise this planet as holy grail of astronomy, while it's pretty much completely uninteresting.
Aliens: "That planet is 75% water and has oxygen in the atmosphere, nothing could live there! Move on."
Any hapitable planet that current exsists probly harbours life already.
i thought the source would be something like
"www.christiangodnewsblog.com"
History yet repeats itself again...
[url]https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Great_Moon_Hoax[/url]
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;25385664]You'll need a company to supply those worlds, I'll ironically call it Blue Sun because Gliese is a Red Dwarf.[/QUOTE]
Nah, I'll start my own named Eclipse.
[QUOTE=GunFox;25395508]9 people voted this dumb?
Do none of you understand how gravity works?
Three times the mass with the same volume means you weigh three times as much. Weigh 150 lbs? Now you weigh 450. The human heart simply cannot withstand that kind of pressure over any sort of period. Moreover it isn't even normal weight. Rather than fat being packed on and compressing your organs, EVERY MOLECULE in your body is now being pulled down at three times the force. Your heart, assuming it can keep you alive for more than an hour or two under such stress, would give out extremely quick. Your entire body would need substantial biological or mechanical modification in order to be able to withstand gravity on this planet.[/QUOTE]
It's less dense than Earth, bro.
The surface gravity is apparently 1.1 - 1.7 g, according to wikipedia.
Did you know the acceleration due to gravity on Uranus is 0.9g?
Does this mean that Earth may not exist ?
[QUOTE=Nannak;25400441]History yet repeats itself again...
[url]https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Great_Moon_Hoax[/url][/QUOTE]
Except in this case we are actually taking scientific measurements and disproving a theory with ideal evidence.
Not looking directly at a chuck of rock through a telescope and saying "I SEE LIFE ON THIS HERE SPACE ROCK!!!"
Dumbass.
Also What you meant to say was, "History repeats itself yet again"
Dumbass.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;25400647]It's less dense than Earth, bro.
The surface gravity is apparently 1.1 - 1.7 g, according to wikipedia.
Did you know the acceleration due to gravity on Uranus is 0.9g?[/QUOTE]
That math doesn't work out at all. 3-4 times the mass of earth and 1.3 times the size makes it substantially more dense of body and it will have 3-4 times earth gravity.
[QUOTE=GunFox;25404576]That math doesn't work out at all. 3-4 times the mass of earth and 1.3 times the size makes it substantially more dense of body and it will have 3-4 times earth gravity.[/QUOTE]
boolsheet
Maximum mass of Gliese 581g = 4.3 times Earth's mass = 4.3 * 5.97*10^24 kg = 2.56*10^25 kg
F = GMm/(r^2)
F = ma (force here is the force of gravity)
so GMm/(r^2) = ma
'm's cancel
a = GM/(r^2) (a here is the acceleration at the distance r - Gliese 581g's minimum radius - from the planet's surface due to gravity, i.e. surface gravity)
a = ((6.67 * 10^-11) * (2.56 * 10^25) kg)/((8.29 * 10^6 metres)^2)
a = 24.8 ms^-2
So that's roughly 2.5 times Earth gravity at MAXIMUM mass and MINIMUM volume i.e. absolute max density (which is also statistically nigh-on impossible if the measurements are correct.)
Don't forget the inverse square law involved in gravitation. Go twice as far from the Earth, and the gravitational force on you reduces by a factor of four. So a little decrease in density can result in a larger decrease in gravity.
[img]http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/2250/science.png[/img]
It's no longer there because it cycles around it's sun much faster
[QUOTE=Turnips5;25405214]boolsheet
Maximum mass of Gliese 581g = 4.3 times Earth's mass = 4.3 * 5.97*10^24 kg = 2.56*10^25 kg
F = GMm/(r^2)
F = ma (force here is the force of gravity)
so GMm/(r^2) = ma
'm's cancel
a = GM/(r^2) (a here is the acceleration at the distance r - Gliese 581g's minimum radius - from the planet's surface due to gravity, i.e. surface gravity)
a = ((6.67 * 10^-11) * (2.56 * 10^25) kg)/((8.29 * 10^6 metres)^2)
a = 24.8 ms^-2
So that's roughly 2.5 times Earth gravity at MAXIMUM mass and MINIMUM volume i.e. absolute max density (which is also statistically nigh-on impossible if the measurements are correct.)
Don't forget the inverse square law involved in gravitation. Go twice as far from the Earth, and the gravitational force on you reduces by a factor of four. So a little decrease in density can result in a larger decrease in gravity.[/QUOTE]
How the hell do you remember all this young sir?
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;25411909]How the hell do you remember all this young sir?[/QUOTE]
Well, I had to look up the figures for the masses and radii and stuff, but I know the equations because I'm doing physics (and I'm applying to uni soon doing physics and I'll probably have to do aptitude tests and stuff so it's good to refresh my memory on these things.)
This is so unsciencelike. Getting all hyped up and happy without making sure everything's been recorded properly?
wow, GunFox brought a knife to a gunfight there
I went to a seminar about exoplanets yesterday, and interestingly enough the guy talking said that he'd heard that it'd been disproved. Plus the way they detected it makes it hard to really anything about the planet's surface at all.
I'm actually really disappointed :sigh:
[QUOTE=WeekendWarrior;25400456]Nah, I'll start my own named Eclipse.[/QUOTE]
Psh.. My Blood Pack has the balls to out do both of your merc groups. We mesh laser, and gun, and fire together in our culture.
This planet discovering is so far fetched. Oh look we found a planet that could be habitable planet based on our inferior science 20 light years away!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.