First habitable planet confirmed. Scientists believe harbors life and possibly sent signal.

LA wrote:

Never is strong, and as we destroy our planet future options must be taken into consideration, Mars is highly possible, Planets like this one discovered would take generations to reach. Why is simple, one we may end up killing our own planet and two some humans seek exploration outside our own planet.

You have been watching too much movies and t.v.

freak kind of lives in a tiny box outside of his ME understanding

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

LA wrote:

Never is strong, and as we destroy our planet future options must be taken into consideration, Mars is highly possible, Planets like this one discovered would take generations to reach. Why is simple, one we may end up killing our own planet and two some humans seek exploration outside our own planet.

You have been watching too much movies and t.v.

They don't teach science and technology downunder I take it, this isn't movie fiction, it's reality.

LA wrote:

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

LA wrote:

Never is strong, and as we destroy our planet future options must be taken into consideration, Mars is highly possible, Planets like this one discovered would take generations to reach. Why is simple, one we may end up killing our own planet and two some humans seek exploration outside our own planet.

You have been watching too much movies and t.v.

They don't teach science and technology downunder I take it, this isn't movie fiction, it's reality.

We'll never be that advanced. We have to land on the moon 1st though.

LOL. Why do you underestimate human kind so terribly?

These concepts seem so far fetched for me to understand, they must be fiction.

Already did, Nasa is already working on this exact thing, we've sent out numerous probes and drones, how isolated is Australia? at least your women can be hot.

LA wrote:

Already did, Nasa is already working on this exact thing, we've sent out numerous probes and drones, how isolated is Australia? at least your women can be hot.

Our women are hot but we haven't landed on the moon. Hopefully we see it 1 day soon.

Wolfgangsta wrote:

LOL. Why do you underestimate human kind so terribly?

These concepts seem so far fetched for me to understand, they must be fiction.

I lost faith in mankind a long time ago.

Jamaica lands on Moon, that leaves every third World country and Australia

Damn... I only read through the first few pages of this thread to realize we have some very imbecilic intriguing people on this board with some seriously fucked up abhorrent mindsets.

Anyway, I always love scientist's and their theories. So let me get this straight... There's a "planet" about 120 trillion miles away that this turd, Vogt, is 100% positive has a chance to sustain life?! Now, with our technology we can see this system as the equivelency of a compilation of dust particles on a lens, therefore forcing these astronomers to use another theoretical process called radial velocity data to justify their claims. And then they toss in more theory in "guessing" that it might have a rocky substrate capable of sustaining an atmosphere... And this guy's 100% positive?

So in a nutshell, this group is suggesting that there's 100% probability that there's a chance of life on a planet so far away it almost defy's comprehension based on a multitude of unproven theories that are needed due to a lack of technology advancements?... Are we reaching just a little bit to attempt to achieve some notoriety and gain additional grant money? Making any assumption about a planet this far away with our technology is irresponsible to say the least.

Now, I'm not against the thought of life somewhere else... But I am against blow hard scientists gaining fame and in some cases a small fortune by making ridiculous assumptions based on a load of unproven theories on a subject so far away that we won't likely get near it for at least a few hundred more years. The only thing this guy said that I remotely agree with is this... "the ubiquity and propensity of life to flourish wherever it can". Meaning that there's a much better chance for life to exist on planets unlike ours than there is for us to need find another planet like ours in order for life on any level to exist.

No one in science is doubting what they're saying man. I believe them too. The planet is rocky and within the zone where liquid water can form. Boom. All you need.

Carbon

You know this "habitable zone" only applies to life like ours, there could be life developing in completely different environments from earth, to the point our atmosphere would be instantly toxic to them the way liquid methane would be toxic to us.

wait so is this planet mad cold all the time?

oggy420 wrote:

wait so is this planet mad cold all the time?

hell nah, it ranges from i believe -40 to 160 degrees...

All known life uses Carbon as it's backbone, it's possible but difficult to envision life forming without it, it's about bonding.

oggy420 wrote:

wait so is this planet mad cold all the time?

No, it's tidally locked to it's star so one side would be exposed to the star at all times and one dark at all times. At first that sounds bad, but without a relatively giant, planet sized moon like we have, that is actually the most stable type of planet there is. Without a huge moon to set our axis we'd shift on our axis every few thousand years and completely fuck up our climate, and never have the stability for complex, long term organisms to form.

Truly "earth like" planets would be exceptionally rare. We're here because we have an abnormally large gas giant in Jupiter in relation to the nature of our system that sucks all the debris out of the inner solar system, keeping the asteroid belt in line and keeping Earth impacts to a minimum, and we in our early development were struck by a mars-sized planet called Theia, at just the right angle, allowing Earth to suck both iron cores, and causing the moon to form out of the accretion disk. Our moon in relation to us is giant, to the point we'd probably be better seen as a "dual planet system"(the moon technically doesn't orbit our core, the fulcrum is actually in the middle of the mantle)

Our extra heavy core, huge moon and jupiter are all absolute key to our development. Those are probably rare in space.

LA wrote:

All known life uses Carbon as it's backbone, it's possible but difficult to envision life forming without it, it's about bonding.

True, but this is earthnocentric, as all known life formed in the same place from the same ingredients.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_life#Silicon_biochemistry

I personally believe all of this is possible and likely probable.

Probably simple life, but Carbon is able to bond with more elements and form longer chains then Silicon.

LA wrote:

Probably simple life, but Carbon is able to bond with more elements and form longer chains then Silicon.

Ya kind of how I feel about it, but my knowledge here is very second hand history channel so I can't say anything for sure.

When you two are getting along you make for some great reading material. Well when you are at eachothers throats you do also, but you know what I mean.

Aside from watching the Science channel, I've also taken Organic Chemistry so I at least have an understanding of how elements could possibly bond, but still I need to read up on this stuff more. I would love for life to exist outside our planet, even more so different forms of life like Silicon based lifeforms, probably won't live long enough to see it though.

All life on Earth could possibly be alien in origin, carried on a comet or astroid frozen in ice.

i still think earth is just a reality television show for the rest of the universes entertainment