Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Major Discovery: Entire solar system could support life

Options

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    mickmac76
    Registered Users Posts: 400 ✭✭mickmac76


    Great discovery by all involved, can't wait for the James Webb telescope to be launched and investigate these sort of systems.


  • Options
    #3
    forestgirl
    Registered Users Posts: 254 ✭✭forestgirl


    Maybe that's where all the dead people are gone


  • Options
    #4
    ps200306
    Registered Users Posts: 1,601 ✭✭✭ps200306


    Before we get too excited, let's not forget the X-ray flux from M type dwarfs that we discussed in respect of Proxima Centauri. The planets in this new discovery are only spitting distance from their parent star. The Goldilocks zone ones get 1,000 to 2,500 times the X-ray flux that a star at Earth's distance from the some star would.


  • Options
    #5
    Jan_de_Bakker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,403 ✭✭✭Jan_de_Bakker


    forestgirl wrote: »
    Maybe that's where all the dead people are gone

    what ??


  • Options
    #6
    Gwynston
    Registered Users Posts: 919 ✭✭✭Gwynston


    More info from the BBC: Star's seven Earth-sized worlds set record

    Which includes this amusing "holiday brochure" by NASA:
    _94800971_mediaitem94800970.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,400 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    ps200306 wrote: »
    Before we get too excited, let's not forget the X-ray flux from M type dwarfs that we discussed in respect of Proxima Centauri. The planets in this new discovery are only spitting distance from their parent star. The Goldilocks zone ones get 1,000 to 2,500 times the X-ray flux that a star at Earth's distance from the some star would.
    So they'll evolve faster ?

    They are tidally locked so dosage will vary depending on where you are, also lots of things here can cope with large doses of radiation.


  • Options
    #8
    Steve
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 22,584 CMod ✭✭✭✭Steve


    Why is it that people continue to think that 'life' = a goldilocks planet when it has been proven otherwise. e.g in zero o2 in hyper pressures at the bottom of trenches and and at extreme temperatures and acitity such as sulphur vents.


  • Options
    #9
    Rgb.ie
    Registered Users Posts: 121 ✭✭Rgb.ie


    Steve wrote: »
    Why is it that people continue to think that 'life' = a goldilocks planet when it has been proven otherwise. e.g in zero o2 in hyper pressures at the bottom of trenches and and at extreme temperatures and acitity such as sulphur vents.

    This.

    Strangely enough, I have not seen many people stating the above.


  • Options
    #10
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,247 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Steve wrote: »
    Why is it that people continue to think that 'life' = a goldilocks planet when it has been proven otherwise. e.g in zero o2 in hyper pressures at the bottom of trenches and and at extreme temperatures and acitity such as sulphur vents.

    Liquid water is the main factor I'm guessing?


  • Options
    #11
    alchemist33
    Registered Users Posts: 10,969 ✭✭✭✭alchemist33


    forestgirl wrote: »
    Maybe that's where all the dead people are gone
    Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »
    what ??

    Riverworld reference?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Steve
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 22,584 CMod ✭✭✭✭Steve


    Mickeroo wrote: »
    Liquid water is the main factor I'm guessing?

    Says the life form that evolved in a liquid water environment.

    A life form that evolved in a liquid hydrogen (or iron or whatever) environment would be equally as skeptical as to our existence. :)


  • Options
    #13
    mickmackey1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭mickmackey1


    Steve wrote: »
    Why is it that people continue to think that 'life' = a goldilocks planet when it has been proven otherwise. e.g in zero o2 in hyper pressures at the bottom of trenches and and at extreme temperatures and acitity such as sulphur vents.
    It has been proven that life can adapt to those conditions, but not that it can originate in those conditions. Big difference.


  • Options
    #14
    Steve
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 22,584 CMod ✭✭✭✭Steve


    mickmackey1 wrote: »
    It has been proven that life can adapt to those conditions, but not that it can originate in those conditions. Big difference.

    No offence, but that's based on a very narrow minded view that life must only exist within the realm of what we can exist in.

    Waterbears are a good example of what can exist on the fringes of what we know, it's not a great leap to speculate beyond their capabilities.


  • Options
    #15
    mickmackey1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭mickmackey1


    Steve wrote: »
    No offence, but that's based on a very narrow minded view that life must only exist within the realm of what we can exist in.

    Waterbears are a good example of what can exist on the fringes of what we know, it's not a great leap to speculate beyond their capabilities.
    Well that's what it is, pure speculation. Plenty of alien conditions elsewhere in the Solar System, but not a shred of evidence for life.


  • Options
    #16
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,583 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    mickmackey1 wrote: »
    Well that's what it is, pure speculation. Plenty of alien conditions elsewhere in the Solar System, but not a shred of evidence for life.

    Not a shred of evidence for life.......as we know it........


  • Options
    #17
    Steve
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 22,584 CMod ✭✭✭✭Steve


    mickmackey1 wrote: »
    Well that's what it is, pure speculation. Plenty of alien conditions elsewhere in the Solar System, but not a shred of evidence for life.
    It wasn't so long ago (in cosmic terms) that the world was flat / lived on the back of a turtle / our planet was the center of the universe / etc and anyone who argued against that was executed..


  • Options
    #18
    ps200306
    Registered Users Posts: 1,601 ✭✭✭ps200306


    Steve wrote: »
    A life form that evolved in a liquid hydrogen (or iron or whatever) environment would be equally as skeptical as to our existence. :)

    We have extremely strong reasons to believe that liquid hydrogen and liquid iron are not suitable solvents for any sort of biological process.
    Steve wrote: »
    Waterbears are a good example of what can exist on the fringes of what we know, it's not a great leap to speculate beyond their capabilities.

    That fable has grown more legs than it can support. Waterbears have survived exposure to vacuum and radiation. They have not grown or reproduced in those conditions. Saying they do not die quickly is not the same as saying they thrive. With prolonged exposure they become dessicated and die, just like all other organisms that require water.
    Steve wrote: »
    It wasn't so long ago (in cosmic terms) that the world was flat / lived on the back of a turtle / our planet was the center of the universe / etc and anyone who argued against that was executed..

    That, though, is an 'argumentum ad ignorantiam'. While we were learning that our planet was round and orbited the Sun, we were also making headway about how life works. Not just our life, or even just life on earth, but some basic conditions for any plausible life. That's why, for example, we are more interested in Mars than in Mercury (which is easier to get to).


  • Options
    #19
    Steve
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 22,584 CMod ✭✭✭✭Steve


    Mars can be visited by humans and they can, for a while, survive there. The same cannot be said of Mercury.

    That does not preclude the existence of indigenous life there. It's unlikely, I agree but nonetheless possible.


  • Options
    #20
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Steve wrote: »
    Why is it that people continue to think that 'life' = a goldilocks planet when it has been proven otherwise. e.g in zero o2 in hyper pressures at the bottom of trenches and and at extreme temperatures and acitity such as sulphur vents.

    NASA scientist: We'll have to alert the press of this incredible find!
    The media: So you found planets around another star?
    NASA scientist: Yeah it a lot different than anything we were expecting.
    The media: Is there life there?
    NASA Scientist: Well, we have no way of knowing that, the solar system is very different from our own, the location of the planets and the output of that star means it's possible there's water on some of them which opens up the possibility they could support life.

    Media headlines: NASA FINDS LIFE ON SEVEN OTHER PLANETS!!! They'll probably enslave us all.


  • Options
    #21
    maninasia
    Registered Users Posts: 4,616 ✭✭✭maninasia


    Lads I refer you to this thread :).

    https://www.boards.ie/b/thread/2056127581


  • Advertisement
Advertisement