Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

A Third of Sun-Like Stars May Have Warm Earth Analogs

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the where-do-you-think-the-off-world-colonies-are? dept.

Earth 188

The Bad Astronomer writes "An astronomer studying data from the first 136 days of the Kepler observatory missions has calculated that as many as 34% of all Sun-like stars (abstract) may have Earth-sized planets orbiting in their habitable zones, where conditions are right for life as we know it. I have some reservations with his numbers, but they do match other studies. There may be 15 billion warm, Earth-sized worlds in our galaxy alone."

cancel ×

188 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Relax. . . (2)

dtmos (447842) | more than 2 years ago | (#37555844)

A Third of Sun-Like Stars May Have Warm Earth Analogs

Don't worry; our knowledge of superior digital technology will save us.

Thanks -- try the veal! I'm here all week.
H'mm, pretty small crowd for a Thursday. . . .

Re:Relax. . . (2)

Chapter80 (926879) | more than 2 years ago | (#37556160)

"There may be 15 billion warm, Earth-sized worlds in our galaxy alone."

This is provably wrong.
We're here, so clearly they are not alone.

Re:Relax. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37556238)

Sounds like you are reading it wrong. Read again! They are referencing the fact that they are NOT including OTHER galaxies. Not that the 15 billion are alone. Which would contradict itself in the fact that 15 billion can't be alone together WITHOUT Earth even.

Re:Relax. . . (1)

bloodhawk (813939) | more than 2 years ago | (#37556448)

whooosh!

Re:Relax. . . (1)

Frenzied Apathy (2473340) | more than 2 years ago | (#37556764)

[faceslap]

Re:Relax. . . (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37556852)

I'm hoping for something like Ursa Minor Beta ...

The rich and sunny planet Ursa Minor Beta has the quite peculiar property that most of its surface consists of subtropic coastline. Even more peculiar, on this world it's always Saturday afternoon, just right before the beach bars close. Light City, the only city on Ursa Minor Beta, which can only be reached by plane, is the very place where the editorial offices of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reside. A further anomaly in Light City is that the Lalamatine district, just behind the beach, is the only place on the planet not to enjoy a perpetual Saturday afternoon. Instead it is always early evening, with cooling breezes - this is where the nightclubs are located.

MITT ROMNEY 2012! MITT ROMNEY 2012! MITT ROMNEY! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37555846)

Please vote for Mitt Romney in the 2012 elections. He is the only one who can save America.

Re:MITT ROMNEY 2012! MITT ROMNEY 2012! MITT ROMNEY (2)

halivar (535827) | more than 2 years ago | (#37556086)

Well, we have to send someone to go look for those warm-earth analogs. Eh... why not? Sure.

Re:MITT ROMNEY 2012! MITT ROMNEY 2012! MITT ROMNEY (0)

xevioso (598654) | more than 2 years ago | (#37556514)

He is a Mormon. Mormons believe that Jesus walked among Native American Indian tribes, and that there are lost cities in America. The Book of Mormon describes three heavily populated, literate, advanced civilizations in the Americas. The book primarily deals with the Nephites and the Lamanites, who it claims existed in the Americas from about 600 BC to AD 400. It also deals with the rise and fall of the Jaredite nation, which the Book of Mormon claims came from the Old World shortly after the fall of the Tower of Babel. This is silly stuff. We do not need a person who believes this running our country. Beliefs matter. Don't vote for kooks.

Re:MITT ROMNEY 2012! MITT ROMNEY 2012! MITT ROMNEY (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37556626)

None of that is any less sensical that believing all the other stories about Jesus. Water to whine, razing the dead, walking on water, etc.

Re:MITT ROMNEY 2012! MITT ROMNEY 2012! MITT ROMNEY (0)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | more than 2 years ago | (#37556880)

...razing the dead...

Now there's an interesting mental image of the savior.

Re:MITT ROMNEY 2012! MITT ROMNEY 2012! MITT ROMNEY (1)

gilleain (1310105) | more than 2 years ago | (#37557520)

...razing the dead...

Now there's an interesting mental image of the savior.

It's well known that the Lord was a 80th level Paladin, and did triple damage against the undead.

Re:MITT ROMNEY 2012! MITT ROMNEY 2012! MITT ROMNEY (0)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37556982)

So are you agreeing or disagreeing with xevioso?

Re:MITT ROMNEY 2012! MITT ROMNEY 2012! MITT ROMNEY (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#37557324)

It's easier to disprove, however. I.e. there's more archaeological evidence clearly showing it to be false. Christians dodge the bullet wrt Great Flood etc by claiming that it's all allegorical, but, last I checked, it's not an option for Mormons, at least not for those parts of their scripture that are directly affected. So their only choice is to dismiss the science that proves them wrong as invalid.

Re:MITT ROMNEY 2012! MITT ROMNEY 2012! MITT ROMNEY (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#37557560)

Christians dodge the bullet wrt Great Flood etc by claiming that it's all allegorical

Not necessarily even allegorical. For a civilization whose idea of the "whole world" is probably a few thousand miles wide, the notion of the "whole world" being flooded is actually pretty plausible.

Re:MITT ROMNEY 2012! MITT ROMNEY 2012! MITT ROMNEY (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#37559204)

A literal reading of the Bible is very clear that world is the entirety of creation, and Noah and whoever was on the Ark were the only survivors. Anything beyond that is creative reinterpretation of the text.

Re:MITT ROMNEY 2012! MITT ROMNEY 2012! MITT ROMNEY (0)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558238)

I'm sorry, but there's a pretty big difference between the two. Also important, one set of beliefs is pretty easy to disprove, whereas the other isn't.

The Mormon beliefs include entire lost cities and civilizations in North America. There is absolutely NO evidence to support these beliefs in archeology or genetics. If there were an advanced civilization here 1000 years ago, I think it's pretty safe to assume we'd know about it by now with archeology. We know about other civilizations from that time period, such as the Anasazi who lived near where I do now, in Arizona; even though they were a comparatively small tribe, they left canals, petroglyphs, and best of all entire cities [wikipedia.org] (villages actually by modern standards) that still stand today. Same goes for other pre-Columbian civilizations in Central and South America. We know quite a bit about the civilizations that preceded European settlement on this continent, and there isn't one shred of evidence to back up Joseph Smith's wild claims.

The Jesus story is much harder to disprove. It's all about one man, not multiple civilizations. This one man didn't build any physical monuments, cities, etc. People from that time claimed he performed a few miracles, but nothing that would leave any archaeological record, so they may be true, or they might not, there's no real way to know. Most importantly, the story is about a man who claimed to be the son of God, and came here to teach us about how to live with one another. Strangely enough, this turned into a worldwide religion that lasts to this day, yet many of his so-called followers (especially ones in the USA) haven't bothered actually learning about the very simple things he taught, such as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", and instead have twisted the religion into a hate-filled thing that bears his name but none of his teachings.

Re:MITT ROMNEY 2012! MITT ROMNEY 2012! MITT ROMNEY (2)

djlowe (41723) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558294)

Water to whine

"But, I don't WANT water! Can't you make something with alcohol in it ?!?"

Re:MITT ROMNEY 2012! MITT ROMNEY 2012! MITT ROMNEY (1, Insightful)

ZankerH (1401751) | more than 2 years ago | (#37556876)

Unfortunately, all of the democratic and republican presidents have publicly admitted to holding some irrational, religious belief or another. Is there a single, serious, declared atheist candidate? No? Then if we're going to elect another idiot who believes an imaginary friend is telling him to invade other countries, we might as well skip the mainstream irrational and go for the full-on, batshit crazy stuff.

Nothing can save America anymore. May Cthulhu eat us first.

Re:MITT ROMNEY 2012! MITT ROMNEY 2012! MITT ROMNEY (2)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558288)

How about electing someone who's actually a Christian, and believes the stuff like "love thy neighbor", "do unto others", etc. The people calling themselves Christian now haven't bothered reading anything that Christ taught.

Re:MITT ROMNEY 2012! MITT ROMNEY 2012! MITT ROMNEY (-1, Offtopic)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 2 years ago | (#37556788)

Mitt Romney collaborates with the terrorist tea party organization. That makes him a traitor to this country in a time of war.

Re:MITT ROMNEY 2012! MITT ROMNEY 2012! MITT ROMNEY (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 2 years ago | (#37557660)

This is actually on-topic, because Mormon theology requires there to be all sorts of habitable Earth-like worlds out there for good Latter Day Saints to become Gods for when they die.

15 billion, but 0 within reach (2, Informative)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 2 years ago | (#37555884)

15 billion, but 0 within reach... So much for that info.

Re:15 billion, but 0 within reach (5, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#37555924)

Natalie Portman might be out of reach too, but I still like to know whether she exists.

Re:15 billion, but 0 within reach (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37556144)

Natalie Portman might be out of reach too, but I still like to know whether she exists.

Or where she lives... /dothecreep

Re:15 billion, but 0 within reach (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 2 years ago | (#37555958)

15 billion, but 0 within reach... So much for that info.

I donno, lets just start shooting neutrinos at them and maybe we're find one that likes a good war just like us!

Re:15 billion, but 0 within reach (2)

guspasho (941623) | more than 2 years ago | (#37556162)

By your reasoning none of us should be interested in what you have to say.

possibly habitable and those out of reach (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37556264)

True, but I was so disappointed at the ratio between possibly habitable and those out of reach... You see, I want to visit those places, in my lifetime... :)

Re:15 billion, but 0 within reach (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37556196)

Out of reach NOW: yes.

Later...

Talk about an incentive plan.

Re:15 billion, but 0 within reach (0)

deathcloset (626704) | more than 2 years ago | (#37556422)

I love the caliber of cynics we have on slashdot! After all, skepticism is knowledge's greatest ally, but logic is it's greatest friend.

0 within 'our' reach, certainly.

But what about 'their' reach?

"The Indonesian province of West Papua is home to an estimated 44 uncontacted tribal groups.[16]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Guinea#People [wikipedia.org]

Re:15 billion, but 0 within reach (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#37556614)

So far there's not been much reason to try reaching anything. If we can narrow down some of those 15 billion to be actually earth-like, where we really could colonize a whole planet I'd say you have reason.

Re:15 billion, but 0 within reach (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558536)

If you don't bother to look for something, you're not going to find it.

Re:15 billion, but 0 within reach (1)

T.E.D. (34228) | more than 2 years ago | (#37556792)

How sad for you. I currently have one within reach.

Did you read the headline? "Earth Analogs" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37557464)

An Earth Analog is not the same as our Earth.

Re:15 billion, but 0 within reach (1)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558140)

Visionless defeatest quitter. Wimp.

Reaching them is merely an engineering problem.

Re:15 billion, but 0 within reach (2)

RicktheBrick (588466) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558202)

Not only are they out of reach to us, we are probably out of reach to them too. The probabilities of any one outside of our solar system knowing that we exist is very small. Now suppose someone on a planet 1,000 light years away was watching us 1,000 years ago. Now suppose they had sufficient technology to determine that we were an inhabitable world with vast oceans. They would know by the absent of radio energy that we did not possess that technology yet. But knowing it would take 1,000 years for their radio signal to reach us I would assume that they would broadcast a signal with all of their knowledge. It would cost them so little and would be a great help to us. I hope that we will do the same if we can determine that there is an inhabitable world within a 1,000 light years of us. I am guessing here but just suppose we knew of a planet 1,000 light years away and just suppose we put a satellite that was just a giant venetian blind somewhere between our sun and their planet. I would think that it could blot out our entire sun for a period of time. I would think that we could signal them just by turning it off and on. Therefore they would not even have to have a radio receiver as they would just need a telescope. So we could have received that signal about 500 years ago so they could have start signaling us 1,500 years ago at a 1,000 light years away and we would be receiving that signal for the last 500 years. I know that this would take a lot of knowledge since the satellite would have to be directly in our line of sight with their sun. But I would think that even a world that is only 50 years more advanced than we are would possess such knowledge. With this technology any star that is visible with the naked eye could have started signaling us thousands of years ago and we would have at least known of it for those many years.

Re:15 billion, but 0 within reach (1)

david.given (6740) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558428)

Surely you mean 3: the warm Earth-like world we're currently standing on (well, in my case, sitting), plus Mars, plus Venus. Both of which are pretty easy to get at using current technology. Some of the gas giant moons probably count too, but they're a special case as they're not in Sol's habitable zone.

Just because the planet's the right mass and about the right distance from its primary doesn't necessarily mean we'd find it habitable...

0? (1)

leifb (451760) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558568)

not... 1?

Well, 15 billion Earth-like planets (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37555898)

That's sure a lot of shards for one galaxy. How do I move my character to one of the cool ones?

Re:Well, 15 billion Earth-like planets (-1, Flamebait)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | more than 2 years ago | (#37555996)

Become a Mormon! If you can max out your worship points you'll get to become the GM of your own planet/server.

Re:Well, 15 billion Earth-like planets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37556106)

It's true. Or at least, it's true that Mormons believe that. I wouldn't know myself, I haven't logged off Real Life in a while, and the devs haven't been talking much lately, though if you listen to the Mormons, they say that the developers talk to us all the time.

RTFM (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37556180)

if you listen to the Mormons, they say that the developers talk to us all the time.

What the developers have to say is all there in the manual [biblegateway.com] . Or at least it's supposed to be. Mormons think there are a bunch of other manuals, and Catholics add a few chapters, but other followers of Christ are under the impression that those manuals are uninspired and misleading.

Analogs? (1)

slapout (93640) | more than 2 years ago | (#37555932)

Not after the MPAA finds out

Liquid Water (0)

Siberwulf (921893) | more than 2 years ago | (#37555960)

Why do we still put a mandate of "liquid water" in the hospitable zone requirement? Are we really naive enough to think that life out there CAN'T POSSIBLY FORM without water?

Am I just totally nuts here?

Re:Liquid Water (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | more than 2 years ago | (#37555980)

By "hospitable zone requirement" do they mean hospitable for life in general, or hospitable for humans? If life in general then that's ridiculous, of course life can form without water. If hospitable for humans, then I'd think water would be a pretty important thing to have.

Re:Liquid Water (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37556204)

By "hospitable zone requirement" do they mean hospitable for life in general, or hospitable for humans? If life in general then that's ridiculous, of course life can form without water. If hospitable for humans, then I'd think water would be a pretty important thing to have.

No, they mean 'hospitable' for carbon based life-as-we-know-it. It doesn't have to have air conditioning or WIFI and thus may not be habitable for humans.

Re:Liquid Water (3, Informative)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 2 years ago | (#37555998)

That's the whole "as we know it" part.

It's not that anyone thinks its impossible for life to from under other conditions, but that we do know of one set of conditions that worked. Plus, I always thought habitable meant habitable for humans.

Re:Liquid Water (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37556062)

exactly, if we can't invade it and kill the local population, what's the point?

Re:Liquid Water (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#37557368)

You're too short-sighted. It's not about merely killing natives; we want oil, and you need carbon-based lifeforms for oil to form.

Re:Liquid Water (3, Insightful)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#37556024)

Liquid water is the foundation of a lot of interesting chemistry, and also a good temperature regulator. Life getting by without it would likely have to endure much more significant temperature swings.

Re:Liquid Water (2)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#37556496)

Why do we still put a mandate of "liquid water" in the hospitable zone requirement? Are we really naive enough to think that life out there CAN'T POSSIBLY FORM without water?

Someone asks this damned question EVERY time this topic comes up ... the answer is always the same: We don't know how to look for life that we can't say anything about it's chemical composition.

By looking for liquid water, we limit the search to places where something like us could exist.

How do you propose we look for a life form which has no chemical similarity to us? By your standard, we could look at anything, and say "well, there could be some unfathomable form of life there" ... which doesn't do anything to narrow the field.

Your way isn't science ... it's just pointing and saying "maybe". It has no useful input to actually looking for anything. So, unless you can provide some mechanism still using the scientific method to search for life in the galaxy that DOESN'T look for parameters similar to our own ... it's pretty much a non-starter.

Sure, there could be Jupiter Methane Bats ... and Rigel 7 could be teeming with Silicon Sharks ... but we have no meaningful way to look for them.

Re:Liquid Water (2)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#37557068)

As a biochemist, the requirement for liquid water seems somewhat reasonable to me. If you want life, you need a chemistry that supplies a minimum level of complexity - you need information storage, you need thermodynamics that can be balanced quite tightly, and from all our knowledge of chemistry, there is not much room for something like that outside of carbon chemistry in liquid water. I wouldn't categorically rule it out, but it is a pretty good bet.

Re:Liquid Water (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#37557790)

Sure, it seems reasonable ... but the universe is big and vast and complex and sneaky.

Essentially, we can only restrict ourselves to what we know. We can't rule out the possibility of some of this stuff, but we can't seriously consider it because it's basically science fiction since we have nothing to suggest it. So, from a science perspective, the answer is to ignore it.

If you can have a cloud of alcohol [universetoday.com] in space, and all of the other wacky stuff we see ... I'd be reluctant to be the one to say "you simply can't have life without water".

For all we know, there's something living in a sea of liquid methanol right now ... drunk, happy, and utterly alien. :-P (Or, if you evolved in methanol, you'd likely not be drunk from it, but you get my point.)

The point is, there is no way to search for alien life that is so alien as to be something we can't make any guesses about. I'll certainly defer to your chemistry knowledge ... but I wouldn't bet against the universe. :-P

Re:Liquid Water (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#37557952)

As I said, I would not categorically rule it out. But we know a lot of chemistry outside of biochemistry defining life here, and most of those chemistries do not really support complexity. I am open to be surprised and would be glad to, but I would not bet my house on it.

Re:Liquid Water (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#37556552)

Water or not, I believe that life will still require a liquid of some sort to form in.

 

Re:Liquid Water (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#37556842)

Water or not, I believe that life will still require a liquid of some sort to form in.

That's not true even for Earth. Think small.

Re:Liquid Water (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 2 years ago | (#37557378)

I'm thinking small. The smallest know organisms live in a mine in Northern California. I don't think they can survive without water any more then any other life on earth.

Re:Liquid Water (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#37559116)

You look in the wrong spot - there are cryophiles that live at temperatures far below that of liquid water.

When there aren't any liquids, make your own!

Re:Liquid Water (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#37557586)

Thinking real small here, what is inside cells? Liquid.

Ok smaller, I guess would be viruses, but are they technically life?

Re:Liquid Water (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#37559192)

Thinking real small here, what is inside cells? Liquid.

That doesn't imply that they need a liquid to form in as per the GP. There are bacteria that combine hard ice with other materials to produce an antifreeze solution for their internal needs.

Re:Liquid Water (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37557562)

Since we have absolutely no clue how life started on earth, it pretty naive to think that somehow being in the "habitable zone" is sufficient to cause "spontaneous generation" to occur.

Re:Liquid Water (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#37557856)

Who said the life couldn't form? It's just heaps easier to start with what we know.

makes sense (1)

nimbius (983462) | more than 2 years ago | (#37555994)

analog has always seemed warmer to me.

And what proportion of stars are sun-like? (1)

LordNacho (1909280) | more than 2 years ago | (#37556036)

And how many stars are there?

Someone do my math for me, I'm busy working.

Re:And what proportion of stars are sun-like? (3, Interesting)

Macharius (1479985) | more than 2 years ago | (#37556274)

Given a population of 200-400 billion stars in the Mikly Way, 7.6% are similar to ours for 15-30 billion stars... 1/3 of which would be 5-10 billion stars purportedly hosting planets capable of supporting life as we know it.

Re:And what proportion of stars are sun-like? (1)

LordNacho (1909280) | more than 2 years ago | (#37556428)

And that's just in the Milky Way!

Well, still hoping to find signs of life outside of Earth during my lifetime then. In fact, lots of interesting instruments seem to be going up, so I'm definitely hopeful.

Re:And what proportion of stars are sun-like? (1)

Kickasso (210195) | more than 2 years ago | (#37556290)

Billions and billions of stars!

Total failure (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37556040)

And the fact that communism has failed on every single one? Will the leftist professors listen? Oh no, they are much too self-important!

Re:Total failure (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#37557390)

Actually, communism has succeeded on all of them. That's why they are all silent - they have nothing to discuss with bourgeois imperialistic likes of us. ~

Re:Total failure (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 2 years ago | (#37557758)

That makes sense, after all hasn't communism always been "good idea, wrong species"?

I don't see the obsession with Goldilocks zones... (1)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37556110)

I don't see the obsession with Goldilocks zones...

1) We will have the technology to inhabit "unihabital planets" long before we have the technology to REACH goldilock planets.

2) If the plan is just to find life- I know we look at planets like ours- becuase we know how to look for life similar to ours as oppossed to other theoretical life forms. BUT- odds are- there are probably a thousand life forms that don't appear anything like earth-forms for every one that does.

Re:I don't see the obsession with Goldilocks zones (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37556242)

I don't 'see' the obsession with Earth sized planets. A Jupiter hosting 20+ moons in the 'Goldilocks' zone will provide many possible habitats.

Planetary science and exobiology is immature yet. It needs time and a really big telescope.

Re:I don't see the obsession with Goldilocks zones (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 2 years ago | (#37557832)

I know we look at planets like ours- becuase we know how to look for life similar to ours as oppossed to other theoretical life forms. BUT- odds are- there are probably a thousand life forms that don't appear anything like earth-forms for every one that does.

There could be life on the sun. The atmopsheric storms of Jupiter might form intelligent life. It's all neat SF, but completely useless to talk about in science. It's not that planetary scientists don't get this, it just that it adds nothing to the conversation to say "life mght be everywhere". Fine, sure, but then what? Beyond SETI, there's no way to detect life-not-as-we-know-it, so it doesn't matter in any practical way.

Re:I don't see the obsession with Goldilocks zones (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558430)

1) We will have the technology to inhabit "unihabital planets" long before we have the technology to REACH goldilock planets.

Yes, but who really wants to live in a giant artificial dome? It'd be nice to find someplace that's like our own planet naturally.

Anyway, yes, the plan is to find life, and hopefully intelligent life. You're not going to find that on Jupiter or Venus, or at least it's highly unlikely because those planets won't support carbon-and-water-based life like us. To find life that resembles us, we have to look for planets that resemble ours.

BUT- odds are- there are probably a thousand life forms that don't appear anything like earth-forms for every one that does.

Pure conjecture, and I imagine any biologist would tell you you're wrong.

Typo in summart (1)

guspasho (941623) | more than 2 years ago | (#37556148)

Analogs? So that 1/3 are rocking turntables while the other 2/3 are all about the CDs or mp3s?

Re:Typo in summart (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37556546)

I really hope you don't think it was a typo, such poor knowledge of the english language would just be sad.

Re:Typo in summart (1)

WorBlux (1751716) | more than 2 years ago | (#37557424)

He's probably just English, or Canadian, or Australian, where analog is not a accepted spelling variant of analogue.

Re:Typo in summart (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37556624)

Analog is the normal American English spelling, for both noun and adjective.

Re:Typo in summart (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37557010)

See - this is the problem with the US habit of dropping the 'unnecessary U', you lose entire words because of it.

Analogue is the 'correct' spelling to describe something not digital for example.

Analog means "an object, concept or situation which in some way resembles a different situation".

It's the same deal with armour and armor - 2 distinct words in UK English.

 

Which Actually Means... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37556232)

There may be 15 billion Earth-like worlds with aliens who don't know or can't accept population control, looking to acquire new real estate and resources to satisfy the ever-increasing demand that is putting a terrible strain on their homeworld.

Need an analog real estate agent phone #! (1)

NikeHerc (694644) | more than 2 years ago | (#37556306)

Man, I am so ready to move to an analog world!

Re:Need an analog real estate agent phone #! (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 2 years ago | (#37557016)

Another analog guy in a digital world? Greetings, brother!

Warm Earth Analogs (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 2 years ago | (#37556408)

Which proves the existance of FTL travel since without it, even those issues editted by the great John W Campbell won't have reached beyond the closest handful of stars...

Re:Warm Earth Analogs (1)

AJWM (19027) | more than 2 years ago | (#37556576)

Ha! I don't know how many others will get it, but as someone who has been reading Analog since the Campbell days and was recently inducted into the MAFIA*, I appreciated it.

(* Members Appear Frequently In Analog, or Makes Appearances Frequently etc, depending on who you ask.)

Cheers

But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37556470)

"There may be 15 billion warm, Earth-sized worlds in our galaxy alone."

- But can they run Linux?

Re:But... (1)

ThatMegathronDude (1189203) | more than 2 years ago | (#37557218)

Imagine a beowulf cluster of these...

These are unconfirmed candidates (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#37556498)

The existence of these planets is yet to be confirmed. There are currently only two planets confirmed to be in the habitable zone.

May (1)

englishknnigits (1568303) | more than 2 years ago | (#37556706)

A third of Sun-Like stars may have spaghetti monsters hiding in their solar systems.

And then there's the Fermi Paradox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37556756)

Why aren't they here yet? Even if a very small portion of those has intelligent life, at least some of those would be millions of years ahead of us in technology. Even if there are no higher physics that can shortcut light speed, they should be here by now. That leaves two options: They are here and are watching behind the equivalent of a bird blind, or technological civilizations invariably self destruct.

Re:And then there's the Fermi Paradox (1)

jbohumil (517473) | more than 2 years ago | (#37556816)

There are several other possibilities, I tend to favor the simulation hypothesis, if for no other reason that it has a certain postmodern aesthetic to it I appreciate.

All these outlandish claims of habitable planets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37556818)

But no clear evidence of intelligent alien life anywhere. If there really are possibly billions of warm earth like planets. Then the reason we have no evidence can't be because intelligent alien life doesn't exist IMO. The reply's to this post will likely be a great explanation of why there are no aliens. My only reply to those people is if that's true then there really can't be billions of earth like planets.

Re:All these outlandish claims of habitable planet (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558516)

Do we have an agreed-upon definition of "intelligent"?
We can't dismiss existence based on our own species.

Cue "skeptics" (1)

CheerfulMacFanboy (1900788) | more than 2 years ago | (#37556922)

"Other planets are warm without man made CO2!"

fermi paradox? (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#37557490)

So if there are that many earth-like worlds... Well, you know the question.

Re:fermi paradox? (1)

RatBastard (949) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558030)

Some have life. Some have, will have, or have had, intelligent life. On some of those worlds they haven't invented radio yet. On some they abandoned radio a long time ago. On some they will never make it that far. Some have died out long ago, leaving only their remains. Some have yet to evolve. Some are there, right now, but are too far away to be detected. At the scales we're talking about we may never meet anyone else before we go extinct.

Re:fermi paradox? (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558384)

"they abandoned radio a long time ago" is interesting. I wonder if that was considered when Fermi first made the observation in 1950 -- that a civilization might only radiate detectable emissions during a small period of its existence. Not because it destroyed itself, but because it's a natural progression for a civilization to switch to lower power and ground based conduits shortly after they discover wireless communication.

"May" (1)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 2 years ago | (#37557694)

Problematic word, that.

Drake Equation (1)

seven of five (578993) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558308)

Another number you can plug into the Drake equation, FWIW.

I hope... (1)

SwedishChef (69313) | more than 2 years ago | (#37558704)

I hope they have better luck with intelligent life than we've had.

Hello (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37558710)

Hi, I am from one of those 15.000.000.000 planets, and we have got Slashdot in here as well, we also speak english, and I wish you all my ET friends a good day.

=]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>