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!

Ocean Planets on the Brink of Detection

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the look-for-mon-cal-first dept.

Space 159

ZonkerWilliam writes "It seems, at least theoretically, that there may be 'ocean planets' out there in the galaxy. If there are, we are closer than ever to detecting them. The formation of such planets is fairly likely, reports the PhysOrg article, despite the lack of an obvious example in our own solar system. We may have a former ocean planetoid in the neighborhood, orbiting the planet Jupiter: the moon Europa. These water worlds are the result of system formation castoffs, gas giant wannabes that never grew large enough. If any of these intriguing object exist nearby, the recently launched CoRoT satellite will be the device we use to see it. The article explains some of the science behind 'ocean worlds', as well as the new technology we'll use to find them."

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

On these planets (5, Funny)

Ice Wewe (936718) | more than 7 years ago | (#17865468)

And on these ocean planets we shall find cloners. And when we find these cloners, we shall find the clone army. Long live the Jedi!

Re:On these planets (2, Funny)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 7 years ago | (#17865640)

"If there is water, that means there is oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe." -- Dan Quayle

Re:On these planets (5, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#17865782)

You really have to feel sorry for poor Quayle. He was (*is*) actually an intelligent fellow. He just can't speak in public to save his life.

In this particular speech, he meant to say that where there's water, there's oxygen to be extracted. In this, he's quite correct. It would take a significant amount of energy, but it's perfectly feasible to extract breathable oxygen from water on Mars.

It's just the way he put it that's outright hilareous. :)

Re:On these planets (-1, Offtopic)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866138)

You really have to feel sorry for poor Quayle. He was (*is*) actually an intelligent fellow. He just can't speak in public to save his life.

It's awfully interesting how we seem to have conservation of oratorical ability on the republican ticket... Reagan/Bush Sr, as Reagan went into Alzheimer's, they let Bush Sr. Talk more. Turned out he was a pretty good speaker, fairly convincing. We all know who his partner in crime was. Now look what we've got...

Re:On these planets (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866500)

Well, he did also suggest that this water would be found in the "canals" on Mars. Though perhaps that arose from his moments earlier gaffe of saying Mars and Earth had the same orbit and was just getting more and more flustered as he spoke.

Re:On these planets (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866652)

Pretty much. The more Mr. Quayle spoke, the more nervous he got, and the worse his mistakes got. It's interesting to watch, because he knows he's not making any sense, but his attempts to make it better just make it worse.

In Quayle-ese:

Same Orbit == "Similar enough to be semi-hospitable to human life."
Canals == "Channels through which water once flowed."

At least he didn't have to speak on the possibility of microbial life on Mars. It would have been War of the Worlds all over again!

"Not now, Martha! Them ALIENS are attackin'! The Vice Prezident sez so!" :P

Re:On these planets (3, Funny)

Thuktun (221615) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866692)

You really have to feel sorry for poor Quayle. He was (*is*) actually an intelligent fellow.
MOUSEBENDER: It's not much of a cheese shop, is it?
WENSLEYDALE: Finest in the district, sir.
MOUSEBENDER: Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please.
WENSLEYDALE: Well, it's so clean, sir.
MOUSEBENDER: It's certainly uncontaminated by cheese.

Re:On these planets (2, Funny)

tyme (6621) | more than 7 years ago | (#17867198)

AKAImBatman [slashdot.org] wrote:
you really have to feel sorry for poor Quayle. He was (*is*) actually an intelligent fellow.
I suppose that depends on the what the definition of "is" is.

Re:On these planets (1)

Nesetril (969734) | more than 7 years ago | (#17865696)

No we shall poison the Ancestor shark for some dark side points.

Re:On these planets (-1, Offtopic)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866014)

Ahhhhhhhh that now makes sense.

We can detect Ocean planets because the Massively Acute Fine Flexible Interconnected Antennas that the RIAA lawyers possess can sniff out copyright infringement across the galaxy.

Its as if millions of mp3 players cried out a Britney song and were suddenly silenced.

Re:On these planets (4, Funny)

peragrin (659227) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866598)

>>Its as if millions of mp3 players cried out a Britney song and were suddenly silenced.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Re:On these planets (3, Funny)

Warg! The Orcs!! (957405) | more than 7 years ago | (#17867376)

or we may find Kevin Costner on a raft. I'm not sure which one is scarier.

Re:On these planets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17867478)

I'd wager we find pirates thar too yarr! They sail the oceans, the pirates do.

They might even set up a bay...

Anyone for a swim? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17865484)

Are these oceans water, liquid methane, or molten iron?

2nd post? 3rd? 1st?

Just the facts (4, Funny)

flynt (248848) | more than 7 years ago | (#17865506)

It seems, at least theoretically, that there may be 'ocean planets' out there in the galaxy. If there are, we are closer than ever to detecting them.

Nice to start the summary off with not just one, but *two* tautologies!

Definition please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17865690)

Nice to start the summary off with not just one, but *two* tautologies!

It would help when using BIG words to link to their definitions [wikipedia.org]

It would help me and others like me to have to go to endless stupid meetings on a fucking Friday because some jackass superior (even dumber PHP) has to do something to feel superior to me. Even though, I sent this stupid fucking superior PHP the email he fucking requested stating exactly what I'm going to (read) say in this stupid fucking meeting.

I'd go back to coding but they've sent everything overseas.

--Stupid PHP

Re:Just the facts (3, Funny)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 7 years ago | (#17865750)

Nice to start the summary off with not just one, but *two* tautologies!

Yeah, but the failed to mention that every day we move closer toward the future!

Pilotless airplane! (2, Funny)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 7 years ago | (#17865752)

Drone! Drone!

(sorry can't hear the word tautology without thinking about that guy)

Re:Just the facts (3, Funny)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | more than 7 years ago | (#17865832)

You have to admit, it's better than two oxymorons.

Water World (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17865520)

It's like water world. Only IRL.

Nothing like Water World, here's why: (5, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#17865810)

It's like water world. Only IRL.

No, allow me to explain:

These things have to weigh less than 10 times what the Earth weighs, or they will become gas giants. Our sun weighs 332,946 times as much as the Earth. Only objects weighing at least three times as much as our Sun can turn into black holes. Only a black hole can suck as hard as Water World. Therefore, these water planets are nothing like Water World.

Re:Nothing like Water World, here's why: (3, Funny)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866060)

These things have to weigh less than 10 times what the Earth weighs, or they will become gas giants. Our sun weighs 332,946 times as much as the Earth.

How does one "weigh" a planet or star? Where do you put the scale?

Re:Nothing like Water World, here's why: (1)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866122)

Mass. Sorry, I meant "masses," not "weighs." Mass effects gravity, gravity effects orbits and such, we can tell from that. Don't ask me how, IANAAstrophysicist, but I do trust them to calculate this stuff correctly.

Time to get my geek on. (4, Informative)

Lendrick (314723) | more than 7 years ago | (#17867230)

If you know how far away you are from an object and how quickly you're orbiting it (assuming your orbit is roughly circular) you can use simple algebra to get a rough idea of its mass.

Acceleration due to gravity is calculated as follows:

a = G * (m / r^2) ...where a is the accelelration, G is the gravitational constant, and r is the distance between your two objects. Note that we're ignoring the acceleration of the sun toward the earth, which isn't technically correct, but this answer will be close enough.

Since we're looking for the Sun's mass, we solve this equation for m.

m = (a * r^2) / G

The first thing we need to figure out is the value of a, or how fast things accelerate toward the sun. The earth is 1.5e11 meters from the sun, and travels in a (roughly) circular orbit once every 365.25 days (or 3.16e7 seconds). If you calculate the circumferance of the earth's orbit given the radius, you get 9.42e11 meters. The earth is moving at roughly 2.98e4 meters per second.

The next step is to figure out how far the earth falls toward the sun every second. We can do this (again, roughly) without using calculus. Let's say that, for one second, the earth continues to travel in a straight line instead of a circle. If you subtract the earth's real orbital radius from this hypothetical one, you end up with the number of meters that earth falls every second, or a. Note that this isn't an exact calculation -- I would need to use calculus to do that -- but it's still "close enough". I'm an engineer, not a scientist, so be happy I used 3.14 for pi, as opposed to "about 3." :)

The earth's new distance from the sun, if it travelled at a tangent for sone second, would be calculated using the Pythagorean Theorum, as follows:

d = sqrt(1.5e11 ^ 2 + 2.98e4 ^ 2) = sqrt(2.25e22 + 8.88e8) = 150000000000.00296

Subtracting the original distance from the sun, the earth has fallen about 2.96 millimeters in one second, which means that the earth is accelerating toward the sun at .00592 m/s. That's a. Now we just plug all that into the original equation:

m = 0.00592 * 1.5e11^2 / G

According to Google calculator:
((0.00592 (m / (s^2))) * (1.5e11^2) (m^2)) / gravitational constant = 1.9961037 × 10e30 kilograms

Now, looking up the mass of the sun:
mass of the sun = 1.98892 × 10e30 kilograms

Voila, I've just calculated the mass of the sun with less than 1% error, and I didn't even need to remember any calculus. :)

Re:Nothing like Water World, here's why: (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17866270)

How does one "weigh" a planet or star? Where do you put the scale?
Underneath it, duh.

Re:Nothing like Water World, here's why: (2, Funny)

SVDave (231875) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866348)

How does one "weigh" a planet or star? Where do you put the scale?
On the back of the topmost turtle turtle. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Nothing like Water World, here's why: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17866422)

You put the planet into a tub full of water and see how much water the thing displaced. Duh
 
Haven't you learn anything from 1st year physics?

PS Code = sailors...hmmm

Re:Nothing like Water World, here's why: (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866624)

And they say if you had a bathtub big enough, Saturn would float in it.

Of course that much water in the vicinity of Saturn would be ice, but it's fun to think about a planet floating in a bathtub.

Re:Nothing like Water World, here's why: (2, Funny)

Agripa (139780) | more than 7 years ago | (#17867286)

How does one "weigh" a planet or star? Where do you put the scale?

Just borrow Archimedes' Lever.

Re:Nothing like Water World, here's why: (2, Interesting)

David_Shultz (750615) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866864)

Only objects weighing at least three times as much as our Sun can turn into black holes.

I know you were just making a joke (btw good one) but objects of any size can become black holes, including individual protons.

Re:Nothing like Water World, here's why: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17867248)

I believe parent was referring to stable black holes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit [wikipedia.org]

For all our sake... (2, Funny)

Dark Kenshin (764678) | more than 7 years ago | (#17865552)

I really hope they don't find any of them. If they do, we'll have hundreds of water world remakes and the level of pain that would bring is too much to bare.

Re:For all our sake... (1)

Nesetril (969734) | more than 7 years ago | (#17865770)

I think it's all but impossible to avert this calamity, since those remakes have smokers as a built-in audience.

Re:For all our sake... (1)

silentounce (1004459) | more than 7 years ago | (#17865774)

You're like a turd that won't flush!

Re:For all our sake... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17865784)

I really hope they don't find any of them. If they do, we'll have hundreds of water world remakes and the level of pain that would bring is too much to bare.
One can bare ones breasts, or bear great hardships.

"You keep using that word. I am not sure it means what you think it means"

Re:For all our sake... (1)

Nesetril (969734) | more than 7 years ago | (#17865930)

Uhuh, I think I speak for everyone here when I say that the original wording is hotter than the alternative. Say it ain't so.

Re:For all our sake... (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866228)

the level of pain that would bring is too much to bare.
One can bare ones breasts, or bear great hardships.
I could have rejoindered(*), "Hear! Hear!" (or, more ironically, "Here! Here!") but instead I offer this thought:

If one can bare one's soul, cannot one bare one's pain?

True, "bear" is more apt in the GP's usage and "share" in mine, but I offer that neither his nor mine is a wholly erroneous usage.

(*) Except for this verbifying of a noun. And that one, too.

Re:For all our sake... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17866246)

Fuck that. COLONIZATION FOREVER!

Captcha: breeder

Re:For all our sake... (1)

Reverend528 (585549) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866582)

we'll have hundreds of water world remakes and the level of pain that would bring is too much to bare.

Well, at least it will be less painful for the investors, who will be able to cut costs on the production by sending the cast and crew to another planet to film.

Re:For all our sake... (1)

noigmn (929935) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866756)

And the the article claims that a Frenchman named Alain Léger proposed the existence of such worlds in 2003. The movie came out in 1995. Could they really have taken that long to release it with french subtitles?

Nitpick (2, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 7 years ago | (#17865578)

...we are closer than ever to detecting them.

I know it's a nitpick, but of course we're closer than ever to detecting them. Guess what, we're closer to detecting them now than when you began reading this reply (by a couple seconds, but still closer).

Re:Nitpick (1)

lazlo (15906) | more than 7 years ago | (#17865952)

Unless someone's already found them. In which case we're further from finding them now than we have been since as long before they were found as we are past when they were found now. Yeah. That parses well.

Of course, this all assumes that the terms "closer" and "further" are being used to measure a temporal distance. If I'm looking for my keys, I could have been closest (physically) to finding them this morning when I was in the kitchen where they're under the newspaper, even though in only a few minutes I'll go back to the kitchen and actually find them, thus making me currently closer (temporally) to finding them right now than I was this morning.

Not that I actually think that's how the author meant it. It was probably meant to be just as bad as it sounds. But a similar statement could theoretically have been useful. Just not here.

Re:Nitpick (1)

Thuktun (221615) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866904)

I know it's a nitpick, but of course we're closer than ever to detecting them. Guess what, we're closer to detecting them now than when you began reading this reply (by a couple seconds, but still closer).
You're older than you've ever been.
And now you're even older.
And now you're even older.
And now you're even older.

You're older than you've ever been.
And now you're even older.
And now you're older still.

        - They Might Be Giants, "Older"

A better name for the craft... (2, Funny)

countSudoku() (1047544) | more than 7 years ago | (#17865594)

CRo T. Satellite

Of course, on said ocean planets inhabited by cetaceans one could exclaim:

"Admiral, there be whales here."

Ackbar said it best (1)

User 956 (568564) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866044)

Of course, on said ocean planets inhabited by cetaceans one could exclaim: "Admiral, there be whales here."

Or more likely, "It's a trap"

Re:A better name for the craft... (1)

Viper Daimao (911947) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866072)

But what if... "It's a trap!"?

Re:A better name for the craft... (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866718)

Sounds like crotch-rot satellite - doesn't inspire much confidence...

The Good News... (4, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17865610)

With global warming, we will have plenty of practice on surviving an "ocean" world when it comes time to send ships out to colonize these strange, new worlds.

Re:The Good News... (3, Informative)

Thuktun (221615) | more than 7 years ago | (#17867456)

I'm pretty sure we already have plenty of experience surviving on an ocean world, since we already live on one. What we're not used to is surviving while sea levels rise, perhaps uncontrollably, which is probably what you meant.

The projected maximum rise in sea level due to total melting of glaciers is around 80m. [usgs.gov] The average elevation of exposed land is about 2870m, [ilstu.edu] which is about 35 times as high. Melting everything won't inundate the globe, but it will require relocation from low-lying areas.

sigh (-1, Flamebait)

rehtonAesoohC (954490) | more than 7 years ago | (#17865618)

We're getting really close to finding those planets that the scientists are almost done theorizing about. In fact, the theories have resulted in hypothetical tests being done to possibly link the unproven cause of AIDS to the disassociated evolutionism ideas.

And the big bang...

And... and... Aliens exist!

One example (1)

ockancc1701 (703931) | more than 7 years ago | (#17865630)

The formation of such planets is fairly likely, reports the PhysOrg article, despite the lack of an obvious example in our own
solar system.

Hmm what about Earth then?

Re:One example (2, Informative)

Orange Crush (934731) | more than 7 years ago | (#17865776)

Hmm what about Earth then?

The Earth is a very large lump of iron and rock with just enough water for a few puddles to thinly cover 2/3 of its surface. The article is talking about whole planets composed almost entirely of water. Think of a bunch of melted comets that got smooshed together.

Re:One example (1)

Nesetril (969734) | more than 7 years ago | (#17865968)

So, it's like one giant game of Blitzball?! WOAH...

Re:One example (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17866192)

No the article is talking about plants composed of 50% Rock %50 water by weight with an average depth of the water around 100 km, not entire orbs of floating water.

The earth doesn't qualify as an ocean planet because it is composed of only 1 part water which covers 3/4 of the earths surface and we do not have an average of 100 km depth the Mariana Trench is only 10.91100 kilometers deep which is believed to be the deepest point in all the Oceans on Earth.

Re:One example (2, Informative)

KillerBob (217953) | more than 7 years ago | (#17867018)

Minor nitpick, but by volume Earth is mostly Silicon, and by mass it's almost half oxygen. (Silicon makes up another quarter of the Earth's mass total mass).

Earth is called a "water world" because it has a hydrosphere, though. The presence of water on a planet is by no means unique (Europa, Mars, most of the asteroids in our solar system), but the presence of water in abundance in the star's green zone hasn't been seen anywhere else. Earth is the only planet in the solar system where the *surface* temperature and pressure is in the appropriate range to find a lot of liquid water.

There's a difference between a "water" world and an "ocean" world, though. A "water" world has a hydrosphere. An "ocean" world has no surface other than the hydrosphere. Europa doesn't even count, but if it were warmer it would be an "ocean" world.

hm (5, Funny)

UPZ (947916) | more than 7 years ago | (#17865646)

I, for one, welcome our beautiful mermaid overlords!

Re:hm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17866314)

That's overLADIES thank you very much.

I'm a Merman, you insensitive clod!

Re:hm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17866522)

I, for one, will fuck one in the fin.

No ocean planets in our own solar system... (4, Funny)

wile_e_wonka (934864) | more than 7 years ago | (#17865650)

The formation of such planets is fairly likely, reports the PhysOrg article, despite the lack of an obvious example in our own solar system.
Ummm...what about EARTH?

Re:No ocean planets in our own solar system... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17865880)

*sigh* RTFA. An Ocean planet is 100% ocean surface with depths ~100 km. Earth is just a tiny surface puddle covering a slight majority of the surface.

Re:No ocean planets in our own solar system... (0)

bouis (198138) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866286)

The oceans cover 71% of the Earth's surface and are, on average, about 2 miles deep. Puddles my ass.

Re:No ocean planets in our own solar system... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17866954)

Oh for Christ's sake, it's a relative term meant to put things into perspective.

Re:No ocean planets in our own solar system... (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 7 years ago | (#17867384)

so 3.2Km verses ~100 for a water planet...
yup, they're puddles. you don't grasp the enormity do you?
-nB

Re:No ocean planets in our own solar system... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17866380)

No the article is talking about plants composed of 50% Rock %50 water by weight with an average depth of the water around 100 km, not entire orbs of floating water There can be land just not very likely it'll be above sea level but who knows maybe it'll be a huge mountain.

The earth doesn't qualify as an ocean planet because it is composed of only 1 part water which covers 3/4 of the earths surface and we do not have an average of 100 km depth the Mariana Trench is only 10.91100 kilometers deep which is believed to be the deepest point in all the Oceans on Earth.

Re:No ocean planets in our own solar system... (2, Funny)

wile_e_wonka (934864) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866408)

Just after writing this I actually RTFA and felt a bit stupid. I had wondered why more commenters had picked up on the whole "Earth" thing. Judging from the fact my comment got modded up (so far, anyway), it goes to show some of the moderators don't RTFA either.

Re:No ocean planets in our own solar system... (1)

David_Shultz (750615) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866822)

Ummm...what about EARTH?

RTFA.

Ocean planet == planet entirely/mostly composed of water. The Earth is .02% water, so not quite a water planet. These planets oceans would have an "average depth [...] on the order of 100 kilometers".

Re:No ocean planets in our own solar system... (5, Interesting)

BrianH (13460) | more than 7 years ago | (#17867216)

Interestingly, any truly "Earthlike" planets we find ARE more likely to be covered in water. We have oceans here on Earth only because we also have continents. While the exact origins of the continents are still debated, the one common theory is that they're remnants of the same impact that formed the moon e.g. the impact blew off much of the surface of the original Earth, and that our "continents" were formed from the portion of the original crust that wasn't destroyed. Since the new crust was formed from denser materials deeper in the planets core, the lighter original crust rode higher on the mantle than the rest of it. That original crust cracked apart, became the foundations (cratons) for the continents we have today...or at least kicked off a cycle of crustal formation that lead to the continents we have today. Comparable planets in our Solar System that did not experience similar impacts (Mars and Venus) have relatively flat surfaces and nothing resembling continents.

What if that impact had never occurred? The Earths surface would be level, like the other terrestrial planets, and instead of the water settling into the lower basins (the oceans), it would cover the entire surface of the planet to a depth of several kilometers. Only a few of today's highest peaks would extend above that water level. Those peaks, in all likelihood, wouldn't exist either. Not only would the tectonics needed for their formation be absent, but a world without continents would have monster surface waves and erosion would scrub them below the waterline in a few million years. If there were ANY life here, it would be no more advanced than the fish which exist today.

Unfortunately, if we DO ever get out into space and find "Earth-like" planets of comparable mass and temperature, they will probably be water-bound just as the Earth would have been.

but... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17865694)

I'm willing to bet these ocean planets are infested with sharks, alien sharks, alien sharks with lasers on their frickin' heads.

  -AC for a reason.

Re:but... (1)

dotoole (881696) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866430)

I for one am glad Bush had the insight to take steps to improve Human-Fish relations thus avoiding an intergalactic war. And you noobs called him imcompetant.... sheesh.

watery worlds (0, Redundant)

symes (835608) | more than 7 years ago | (#17865728)

Oh no! Reruns [imdb.com] !

Let's colonize these worlds! (1)

Quaoar (614366) | more than 7 years ago | (#17865744)

But first we gotta make sure it has fresh water. I don't want to have to drink my own pee.

When you get mod points, mod people down (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17865756)

When you get mod points, it's in your interest to mod logged-in users down. If a user has negative karma, that user won't be eligible for mod points anymore, reducing the size of the moderator pool. Since you're still in that pool, every time you moderate a logged-in user's post down, you get your mod points back faster.

Mod this offtopic because it is. But just remember that it's a waste to moderate ACs because that's one point that you could have spent decreasing the moderator pool wasted.

Was predicted a while ago (5, Funny)

bendodge (998616) | more than 7 years ago | (#17865788)

Before the Voyager got to Uranus and Neptune, Dr. Russ Humphreys proposed that the plants were originally made of water, and made very accurate predictions of their magnetic fields based upon that theory.

Look under the section "Water: The Raw Material of Creation" *tranquilizers recommended* http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/ 21_3.html [creationresearch.org]

(Please be sure to actually read is before axing my karma.)

for the dumbass retards out there who didn't RTFA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17865798)

They're talking about planets with a roughly 50-50 mix of solids and liquids. This means the Earth doesn't count.

Try to read a little before confirming the fact that you're a moron who can't be bothered with the small stuff, like facts for instance.

Re:for the dumbass retards out there who didn't RT (0, Redundant)

exi1ed0ne (647852) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866558)

You must be new here.

The "God Ratio" (1)

bhsx (458600) | more than 7 years ago | (#17865826)

I was trying to explain this theory about fifteen years ago to an x-girlfriend.
The way I thought about it was:
Heat(scale? strength?)of Star vs Mass of Planet vs Distance from Star
I called it the God Ratio in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way. I have no idea what calculations I was playing with and was way off of any "real" science about it, but the basic gist is the same.

Re:The "God Ratio" (1)

bhsx (458600) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866020)

OK, now that I've RTFA it's not quite the same thing. My "God Ratio" was talking more about life on other planets. More precisely, the "God Ratio" dealt with planets with polar ice caps. The polar caps, imho are a necessary part of a stable planet.

Re:The "God Ratio" (1)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866344)

I thought you might be talking about the idea of Galactic Habitable Zones [astrobio.net] (which deals with characteristics of our solar system as well.) But it sounds more like you might be thinking of the Rare Earth Hypothesis [wikipedia.org] which focuses more on the planet and the solar system they reside in. While there is a good deal of consideration given to glaciation, it focuses more on it's possible impact on evolution. It's a wonderfully interesting book, if you haven't read it. It also gives an equation based on the Drake equation.

Re:The "God Ratio" (1)

bhsx (458600) | more than 7 years ago | (#17867064)

Rare Earth Hypothesis is definitely what I was getting at, though I wouldn't have known it back then. Where was Wikipedia 15 years ago, huh?
I could be happily married right now, but to a different woman(I am happily married)!
It's funny in a way, in that her basic premise, which prompted my theory, was basically the Fermi paradox. "If there are intelligent beings from other worlds, we would know by now, we'd have proof..."
My answer to that was my own version of the REH, which I'd never heard of; but would've loved to be able to access both sides of the debate via internet. Gopher just wasn't cutting-it for me I guess.
Interestingly(or maybe not), we also had different definitions of "god." My definition at the time was "the cumulative knowledge and will to live of mankind," while hers was even more wishy-washy. Most of our friends were Gardnerian Wiccan, and none of them appreciated my explaining to then how Wicca works:
Mind over matter being just another means of sticking-to, and attaining goals(I'd started-out getting more "psychological" than that, but at one point a good friend of ours[hers] started screaming at the top of her lungs[in my own apartment, nonetheless] about how EVIL I was[she wasn't kidding] and that I needed to shut-up before I destroyed everything magical[yeah, cause knowledge is evil and ignorance is bliss ya know]).
Wow, that was rambling; but completely true.(and scary and hilarious at the same time)

Atlantis! (1)

tbcpp (797625) | more than 7 years ago | (#17865854)

Okay, everyone listen, this is important...when we get there and raise the city of Atlantis, don't even think about waking up the goth aliens.

Re:Atlantis! (1)

myowntrueself (607117) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866932)

don't even think about waking up the goth aliens

And their queen; Marilyn Manson.

Honestly, that was my first thought when I saw a Wraith queen for the first time "gaaaahhh!! Its Marilyn Manson!!!". Turned out that it was a different actor (actress even).

But he'd be a great special guest star. I wonder if they've approached him about it?

All these worlds are yours except Europa. (4, Funny)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 7 years ago | (#17865888)

Attempt no landings there.

Re:All these worlds are yours except Europa. (1)

bendodge (998616) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866580)

My Linux NVIDIA Kernel installer is more insightful than that!

Re:All these worlds are yours except Europa. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17866828)

Well duh. You'd sink anyway!

Dry land (1)

C0y0t3 (807909) | more than 7 years ago | (#17865938)

is not a myth - I've seen it!

(sorry)

First Glance (2, Funny)

Camel Pilot (78781) | more than 7 years ago | (#17865944)

I first read the title as:

"Ocean Planets on the Brink of Destruction"

Oh my... were screwing up those too huh?

Re:First Glance (1)

twostar (675002) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866106)

I read it as such and then got pretty confused when reading the write up.

World (4, Funny)

alexj33 (968322) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866076)

Maybe we will someday find such a world- a peaceful pastoral world without war; a world without hate.

Then I can picture us attacking that world, 'cause they'd never suspect it.

Not for 3 more years (1)

darthservo (942083) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866152)

Europa doesn't go aquatic until 2010 [wikipedia.org] . This of course is a result from Jupiter becoming a star, which we'll call Lucifer.

After that, we can look at Europa. Just don't touch it.

They are on the way to detection. (3, Funny)

CelticWhisper (601755) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866236)

They have no chance to hide make their time.

Find and complete Water World... (2, Funny)

countSudoku() (1047544) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866240)

then Ice World, Fire World, Forest World and Cave World, then fight the big boss, view the crappy finale video and bask in the glory of a game well played.

Us (1)

alexj33 (968322) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866272)

All your oceans are belong to us....

Sea Monsters (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866404)

There, be Sea Monsters.

What about earth-sized planets then... (1)

gd23ka (324741) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866410)

If planets 10 x earth turn into planets with oceans a 100km deep it still
doesn't explain how planets like Earth develop.

The "best" theory I heard about that was the collision of Tiamat with Marduk,
that had supposedly taken place in the solar system, Tiamat being one of those
large 10 x Earth ocean planets and Marduk an extra-solar planet that came
wandering in. The remnants of both planets formed the asteroid belt with
huge chunks of water ice impacting the otherwise dry Earth.

More important however is if they find extra-solar water planets whether they
will actually let us know about them. Personally I think they sustainable
development / Agenda 21 would not be too pleased for us know about planets
like that, as they need us to focus on the fragile Earth without no alternative
to escape to. The discovery of earth-like planets could shift our attention back into space and increase interest in faster than light travel to get there.

Re:What about earth-sized planets then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17866576)

it still doesn't explain how planets like Earth develop.

How about
Universe:~ God$ make earth
gcc -o2 core.c
gcc -o2 mantle.c
gcc -o2 crust.c
Universe:~ God$ cat earth theia > earth+moon

Re:What about earth-sized planets then... (1)

myowntrueself (607117) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866960)

The "best" theory I heard about that was the collision of Tiamat with Marduk

We just have to keep an eye out for those Nefilim who come back every 12,000 years or so.

Did you by any chance read "The Twelfth Planet"?

Brink of "Detection"? (1)

Shinra (1057198) | more than 7 years ago | (#17866796)

For a second there I thought it said "Destruction", and I thought of Waterworld. Actually though, the prospect of an ocean planet doesn't seem as far fetched as you might think. Take Star Wars or Star Trek, who both feature worlds that are either entirely or a +90% covered by water, like Mon Calimari or Kamino.

We are all going to die! (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#17867048)

Or something like that anyway.. Oh wait, superbowl is on TV.......

"under such a crushing weight, water has no choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17867082)

"under such a crushing weight, water has no choice but to solidify"

Ocean planets will do our bidding and solidify their peoples god given right to a democratic government OR ELSE

OR ELSE what?

OR ELSE they will become the oppressors forbidding or enjoment of BBQ, bourbon, and boobs. Forcing upon on use instead, their favored burka, bombs, and buggery
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?