Possible New Earthlike Planet

[Justin24]

Discovered. 20,000 light years away. Near the constilation Sagitaris.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/01/25/space.planet.reut/index.html

 

[nbcrusader]

The definition of "earth-like" is very generous.

 

[deep]

i agree,

the likelihood of a proper size moon in the right orbit,
among other things
make a true earth like planet very remote

 

[angelordevil]

Can we send George Bush there?

 

[Justin24]

I think after watching some TV they decided they dont want him either.

 

[Justin24]

Send a probe to the planet

 

[Kieran McConville]

wow, only 20,000 light years... that means that if we invented a probe that travels at the speed of light (which we wont and can't), it would take... 20,000 years to get there!

Good times!

 

[Justin24]

Who knows what the future holds.

 

[indra]

Do people really think this can be the only place like earth anywhere? If it can occur once (by whatever means) it can occur again.

That we haven't found any other most likely speaks more to how far we have yet to go, than to whether or not other similar planets exist.

 

[angelordevil]

wow, only 20,000 light years... that means that if we invented a probe that travels at the speed of light (which we wont and can't), it would take... 20,000 years to get there!

Good times!

Wormholes, my friend, wormholes...

 

[the rockin edge]

Can we send George Bush there?

why bother? mars is much closer & he says we need to go there, he can be the first

 

[nbcrusader]

Do people really think this can be the only place like earth anywhere? If it can occur once (by whatever means) it can occur again.

That we haven't found any other most likely speaks more to how far we have yet to go, than to whether or not other similar planets exist.

The answer can be achieved based on mathematical analysis. The results you get, however, varies greatly on the number of factors you consider unique and necessary for a life sustaining planet compared to the number of stars with planets. I've seen estimates from "likely" to "highly improbable".

 

[A_Wanderer]

i agree,

the likelihood of a proper size moon in the right orbit,
among other things
make a true earth like planet very remote

We do not have any figures for this and we cannot declare if terrestrial planets are a direct concequence of stellar formation yet.

This is important because we are developing techniques to discover smaller worlds, eventually with space based arrays we may be able to actually find earth sized planets and their equivalent distance from their parent stars, components of their atmospheres.

The rare earth hypothesis treats Earth as the best of all possible worlds, however in the infinite variety of the universe conditions conducive to life may be present in innumerable permutations.

The size of the universe may be infinite, if populated by matter then by definition an infinite number of earths exist, an infinite number of varied earths exist.

 

[Maoilbheannacht]

We do not have any figures for this and we cannot declare if terrestrial planets are a direct concequence of stellar formation yet.

This is important because we are developing techniques to discover smaller worlds, eventually with space based arrays we may be able to actually find earth sized planets and their equivalent distance from their parent stars, components of their atmospheres.

The rare earth hypothesis treats Earth as the best of all possible worlds, however in the infinite variety of the universe conditions conducive to life may be present in innumerable permutations.

The size of the universe may be infinite, if populated by matter then by definition an infinite number of earths exist, an infinite number of varied earths exist.

The size of the Universe(in terms of mass) is finite and its been shown that there is not enough mass in the Universe to reverse the expansion.

"Life" in the Universe may be widespread, but it depends on what your definition of "Life" is. If your talking about bacteria, single celled organisms etc. it could be very widespread. But if your talking about complex lifeforms, like animals, its probably very rare.

We now know that without the Moon, the formation of complex lifeforms on earth would not have been possible. The only reason the Earth has the Moon is because of a collision with another planet early in its history. How many earth sized planets are really out there at the right distance from the right type of star, in a circular orbit, not hindered by other planets in the solar system? Then, how many of those planets had a colision early in its history that formed a moon with the right type of orbit, so it would not eventually colide with the planet it was orbiting?

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

maybe that's where the edge is from

 

[A_Wanderer]

The size of the Universe(in terms of mass) is finite and its been shown that there is not enough mass in the Universe to reverse the expansion.

Are we distinguishing between the observable universe and the universe? The gravitational effect of mass beyond the observable universe would be null because gravity acts at a finite speed. How can we prove or disprove the existence of mass at

"Life" in the Universe may be widespread, but it depends on what your definition of "Life" is. If your talking about bacteria, single celled organisms etc. it could be very widespread. But if your talking about complex lifeforms, like animals, its probably very rare.

I am not even sure if the rise of the single celled organisms is such a cosmic inevitability.

We now know that without the Moon, the formation of complex lifeforms on earth would not have been possible.

Firstly we are not talking about Earth, we are talking about other terrestrial planets. Or the planet earth where the collision with what has become the moon never occured.

Secondly we are talking about the formation of life, we cannot say it's formation is entirely dependent on tidal forces. Plate tectonics is a feature much more important in maintaining an atmosphere and replenishing it chemically. It also puts a much more effective threshold on planet/moon size when searching for life.

The only reason the Earth has the Moon is because of a collision with another planet early in its history.

Yes, one collision of many during the formation of the solar system. In the absence of more observed terrestrial planets we can only speculate on the odds of this occuring.

The presence of a moon in stable orbit is a feature of the planet Earth, it may not be by definition a factor required for the formation of life.

How many earth sized planets are really out there at the right distance from the right type of star, in a circular orbit, not hindered by other planets in the solar system?

Planets that are not in stable orbits are naturally weeded out in interactions.

Then, how many of those planets had a colision early in its history that formed a moon with the right type of orbit, so it would not eventually colide with the planet it was orbiting?

Again to great a focus on the moon issue. We have a single data point for life, until we have more then it may be unwise to assume anything.