A possible 'water' planet discovered.

[ZeroID]

http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/05/first-planet-in-habitable-zone-discovered/?hpt=hp_t2
600 light years .. it's almost next door...

[CraigS]

What a load of gobbly-gook !

All they know is the distance between Kepler-22b, and its host G-type star (which is about 25% cooler than our Sun). They haven't measured the surface temperature of the planet, they have no idea of the composition of the planet ... and it is 600 light-years from Earth!

Out of 2,326 planet candidates, they've found one which is positioned such that its solar derived temperature is believed to be 22 degrees C???? And from that, they rave on about possible liquid water and thence life???

What a load of drivel ! ….


… at 600 light years from Earth we'll never know in our lifetimes !

The accurate, default assumption is simply: "We don't know .. and are likely to not know for a long, long, long time (if ever)" !

Sorry … but the purpose this article serves, is nothing more than a pile of science-fiction and pure fantasy!

Cheers

[shane.mcneil]

See Craig, it's about life. It's popular and popular leads to funding.

[SkyViking]

Craig, I don't think the article is proclaiming this to be a sensation, they are just pondering the possibilities.
While it is of course speculation that this planet may be habitable it is still a natural first step in the process of establishing it's properties. Surely big telescopes cannot examine each and every exoplanet in detail, so why not focus on those that are deemed to lie in the habitable zone?

[mswhin63]

Craig, maybe life will not be detected in our lifetime but we have to start somewhere. It is exciting to see that the discoveries are locating smaller and smaller planets. I know that looking at the Keplar data is quite challenging to locate dips in the luminosity of the star.

What is hopeful is now we are at the science stage to locate planets smaller than larger Jupiters and now we are entering the stage of locating potential water bearing planets.

It is truly exciting stuff.

[CraigS]

Ok … so can someone tell me how anyone is ever going to be able to verify the possibility of life at 600 light-years distant, (in say our lifetimes)?

If we can't distinguish life remotely on Mars, then why would anyone assign a more optimistic chance to this planet, with it having so many more unknowns, and no prospects foreseeable from future technologies, other than those which can only ever continually lead to yet another inference of surface temperature, purely caused by local solar irradiance ?

They need to get down to a more detailed level of scale granularity in order come anywhere near to discussing the real prospects of life, meaningfully.

The only way 'Habitable Zone' can ever step beyond an inference tool, is for a single case of exo-life to be discovered in a life-tolerance-constrained environment.

Quality scientific speculation takes into consideration the many variables involved, and results in an honest default position of 'unknown'. I don't see this anywhere when it comes to exo-planet announcements.

I fully recognise that the view, (which leads to further research of possible value), is one which proceeds along the lines of 'plausible, possibility of life' ... as opposed to the 'unlikely life' view, but why is the balanced scientific perspective almost never presented … and why is the fantasy-perspective never challenged openly?

Frankly, I'm starting to adopt the view that if the honest perspective is unable to roll of the finger-tips of researchers, then funding research should be directed away from their investigations and directed towards projects which aim at getting away from the ridiculously pointless quest of inference from 600+ light years distant. Put the funding towards local investigation, which attempts to more closely associate the relationship between possible exo-life, and more clearly definable 'Habitability' parameters.

Announcements about the numbers of exo-planet discoveries having increased, adds zero value to anything other than science-fantasy and public manipulation … which is the antithesis of the quest for understanding about physical reality. Its inconsistent with the scientific investigation process.

This is how religion got a foothold amongst the ignorant masses … by manipulation of emotions … do you all want science to be come that (as if it isn't well on that path, unopposed by the informed anyway) ?

Cheers

[Keltik]

It reads suspiciously like Craig would abandon all attempts at finding an "Earth-twin" planet, simply because it's a difficult scientific challenge. Way to go, "scientist"! :)

[CraigS]

So here is what I'm talking about…

Good and bad news comes with NASA’s 2012 budget (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-good-bad-news-nasas.html)


So, we're talking about priorities for research .. its a real, issue folks!

So why bother raving about the possibility of liquid water on a planet 600 lyrs distant ?
Catch up with the time, folks !
Its time to get real .. especially if you are truly interested in discovering exo-life … as opposed to living inside a fantasy-world propped up by a belief-based fantasy notion destined to return zilch …. due to the near implausibilty of remote exo-life detection at huge distances !

Time for a dose of reality !

Cheers

[CraigS]

So that's all your conjecture … not my words … kindly do not speak on my behalf and expect me to defend your straw-men.

[mswhin63]

Curious Craig to understand what you consider good science or not, what are you qualifications relating to science. Just trying to understand why there is so many theories in your posts that seem to be a waste of time?

[CraigS]

Why not demonstrate your own qualifications by addressing the issues you consider to be 'a waste of time', and stop worrying about my qualifications?
Qualifications mean nothing if understanding cannot be repeatedly demonstrated … and that view is qualified.

[shane.mcneil]

It can be argued that money could always be better spent elsewhere. It is hard to know which investments will "payoff" even in unexpected valuable ways.

[mswhin63]

Actually it was the answer I was looking for, :thumbsup:

At least I am trying to achieve qualification. It is purely a matter of defining what science and personal opinion. The thread is based on science simple calculation to determine the Goldilocks zone and the potential for what can exist in these zones. Whether the media sensationalise the result is up to those with science in mind to determine the real results of what is found.

Water bearing - Possible
Venus Twin - Possible
Mars twin - possible but least likely
Gas Planet - highly unlikely

and so on. Something for our children and children's children to discover once our population increases to a point where we have to seriously look at colonisation. Forward thinking is what science is about. Engineering is mostly working with what science has discovered.

[Keltik]

Why is it a "straw-man" argument, Craig? I simply extrapolate from your rather angry denunciation of this announcement that you are not happy at the emphasis placed on the possiblity that this planet may harbour suitable conditions for life-forms similar to those on Earth; and that, because it seems currently beyond our scope to definitely establish life at this distance, that the funding is best directed elsewhere. Nothing straw about that argument- I have no need to quote your posts to prove it.
There is one line of yours I'd like to quote, however:

If you replaced the word "life" with the words "evidence of a planet", and published this sentence in Sky and Telescope Magazine 30 years ago,(when I started buying it) you might get an inkling of just how far we've come, and how much we can still achieve.
I hope I don't give you the impression that I scorn your opinions. I did attempt a smiley in that previous post. But I find your derogatory tone the very antithesis of why I love astronomy.
best wishes

[CraigS]

… not 'seems' … it IS beyond our scope … if not .. then can someone explain, even in theory, how this can be done ?
The more I think about it, the concept of remotely sensing 'life' at such distances, is implausible, improbable and unverifiable. A concept doesn't get more unscientific than that.

The 'straw' comes from your attempting to answer a hypothetical question using me as the hypothetical speaker. I am quite able to express, with reasonable precision, what hypothetical actions I would, and wouldn't take.
I request that some courtesy be shown, by directly asking me the question, in the first place.

The concept of the ability to distinguish 'life' from 'no life', must draw heavily from many other aspects of science, (which go way beyond remote exo-planet sensory technologies), which clearly, have not progressed at the same rate, or direction. Constructing an analogy which attempts to compare the progress of one, as an indicator of the other, is meaningless. Using the past (ie: '30 years ago'), to justify likely progress in the future in this specific area, is similarly meaningless, especially in the light of the unpredictability of the quest for exo-life discovery, underwritten by zero prior evidence.
Go ahead … my opinions, as anyone's else's ... are irrelevant.

You're right if you find that I'm exhibiting anger … I am angry about this.
I find the perpetuating of mythology, conjured as an attempt to seduce others into somehow accepting exo-life as a given, coupled with a refusal to acknowledge the unsupportable nature of the mythology and unscientific approach, to be plain offensive. You won't catch me drinkin' that 'Kool-Aid' .. so expecting others to, is plain disrespectful of them, and of rational thought.

I'm more than happy to engage on both sides of a hypothetical discussion, provided the subjective basis of beliefs, are laid bare round the discussion table, prior to that discussion. There is a clear, sizeable record of such prior discussions involving myself here at IIS.

Cheers

[Keltik]

Angry? over an article that postulates possibilities in space? Best of luck to you craig, and goodbye.

[Keltik]

but before I go:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17120124
Don't be so rigid, is my advice. You never know what might be possible.

[CraigS]

Detection of remote spectral characteristics at hundreds of light-years distant, will still lead to inference only. Without verification of extant exo-life, there will only ever be correlations and inference.
Extrapolating from Earth-life's spectral data is extrapolating from an instance of one ... not a valid basis for exo-life determination.
'Bio-signatures' is not a definitive term, anyway.

Irrelevant.

[CraigS]

And that's not what I was referring to.

[CraigS]

Buried amongst a lot of unproductive chatter in this thread, is a question which I think does deserve some quality discussion about the search for exo-life. It begins with the question:

"Why does the reader think NASA has chosen specifically not to look for life on Mars with MSL/Curiosity ?"

Curiosity's primary mission is to search for past and present signs of habitability. The laboratory is equipped with spectroscopic technologies to examine chemical and isotopic composition, which can be used to characterise present or past organic chemistry ... but there are no specific experiments aboard to detect life.

Why might this be so ?

Cheers

[ArcaneMagik]

Wow.

Anyway this discovery while it is interesting for the possibility of life, is also wonderful for the study of planetary system formation and the types of planets that can form.

Also, these planets can become SETI targets for future study. That's one sure way to confirm life :P


As far as I understood with the NASA thing, that was a hang on from the previous administration who's religious outlook disliked the idea of someone trying to find life elsewhere.

[rally]

Craig,

I rarely bother with the science forum because of this sort of carry on.

I suggest you consider moderating yourself from the Science Forum until you can respond in an appropriate manner.

Highly emotive words bordering on aggressive and rude about a piece of published news from CNN posted by a member.

"What a load of Gobbledygook" (mispelled)
"What a load of drivel"
That's the sort of considered reply we all look for in response to our threads !

I wont bother adding in the rest of your dismissive and even insulting comments in the other posts.

You then go on to assume that you know and understand what the physics and technological developments of the 21st century are going to bring on in the next 50-80 years as far as planetary analysis goes or rather what it cannot detect and on that basis make your comments.

Now that is astounding and about as close minded as could be.
This just happens to be about just one of the 100's - 1,000's of exoplanet discoveries that interests people.

It was only 16 years go they even confirmed the discovery of the first exoplanet and only recently that the science had progressed to the capability of being able to detect smaller than Earth sized planets with Kepler etc.
This is a field of science in its infancy.

But you know this.

Spectrographic capability of the future is quite likely to be able to detect some of the atmospheric characteristics of planets, it can already under the right circumstances detect details about exoplanetary atmospheres - so who is to say that they will not detect hydrocarbon related signatures or similar indicators of potential life or of habitable atmospheric conditions in the near future ?
Without Kepler we would not know about literally 1000's of new exoplanets (it found over a 1000 in its first 6 months) - the next space observatory aimed at planetary research will hopefully be all the bigger and better because of the discoveries before it and because it will have been proved successful in its research and justifiable to go to the next level with all sorts of demonstrated opportunities.
To me at least then, it would seem a very plausible near term progression of existing capability.

Exoplanet detection is not all about discovering life ! although that of course does generate enormous amounts of interest from the public and scientists alike.
Planetary formation, evolution, variation and classifications and that of the exo Solar systems they are found in is very relevant to the pursuit of science, discovery and understanding.
The more that can be discovered the more we can understand the universe we live in.
Why ridicule that whole process by narrowing it down to the claimed futility of discovery on one potentially habitable exoplanet ?

Habitable zone exoplanets are of high interest to science.

The purpose the article serves is to release information about the details surrounding a planet that could have water and just a little bit of discussion about the what ifs !
Would you rather have science written up so dry and boring that nobody other than the scientists involved in that particular field could either understand it or even be bothered reading it since it would be full of statistical analysis, spectrographic analysis . . . - no, we have published papers and research information for that.
This makes for interesting news for everyone, it serves to stimulate young minds (and old ones) and maybe even help a few of them to pursue a career in science or better yet astrophysics !

It seems to me you have entirely missed the point of the Article and possibly also the breadth, purpose and importance of the Science of exoplanetary astronomy.

Thanks Brent and others for contributing.

Rally

[CraigS]

What a classic !
Soo many criticisms about my delivery technique, and yet so few addressing the central issue ! Goes to demonstrate the irrational depth of emotion which exists behind the almost desperate need for exo-life to exist … no matter the cost ! Of course, I'm not the only one who recognises this … the media uses it to manipulate enthusiasts every day, and US funding decision-makers seemingly recognise it also.

I shall re-iterate my point:
In the light of impending NASA budget constraints, there is a need to prioritise. Presently, remote exo-life detection is constrained by our inability to verify its success, (or failures), because we have no means to verify its precision.

The search-template for the type of life we might detect, is constrained to a model based on life which exists here. In terms of priorities, if we are serious about finding life in a Habitable Zone (HZ), concentrating efforts locally with the aim of establishing a direct association between an HZ and a discovered instance of exo-life, it seems, would be a more effective way to progress remote exo-life detection, beyond the currently inevitable outcome which by necessity, is solely based on inference and faith. Even if exo-life is not discovered locally, directly obtained scientifically verifiable evidence on environments which don't support life, will still add hard data to the knowledgebase. The alternative, ie: searching spectroscopically for indeterminately caused 'bio-signatures', has no chances of contributing such hard, verified data.

Titan, Europa, Enceladus, Mars and many local moons, either generate their own 'HZ-like' conditions, (or exist in an HZ, courtesy of proximity to the Sun). Exploration of these, is thus more likely to return hard results ... and yet these programs are currently being dropped! If we are serious about the search, then I assert that we should drop the rhetorical, emotively based facade about the foregone existence of exo-life, and take steps which at least have a verifiable outcome and may as a flow-on effect, result in technologies which enable us to reduce the travel-time (amongst many other direct benefits). We should downplay inferences drawn between possible exo-life and distant nebulous 'bio-signature' measurements, and regard them as meaningless chatter.

My outlook in this regard, is entirely consistent with my past posts on this matter, might add.


This, I agree with. Generating short-term public interest however, with no chance of a payoff, also virtually guarantees long-term cynicism about scientific research. The cost outweighs the potential payoffs.

Note that the rest of Rally's words seem to be in support of exo-planet detection in support of other objectives. I have no problems with such research, nor have I criticised this anywhere. My focus is on remote exo-life detection .. which is a different, and unfortunately emerging domain, entirely.

Cheers

[xelasnave]

Thanks for posting this link Bret:thumbsup:.

I think they draw a long bow however they are not the only folk to do that:).

I get upset sometimes because I think speculation goes just too far but think thats it is OK to get passionate about science matters even though science demands the opposite;).

I do think it must be hard for folk reporting on "new finds" as they have to summarise complex material and present it to a public wanting sensational news ..what do you do?...

Its all good peace to all and best wishes.


alex:):):)

[CraigS]

Be honest and authentic !
Humans are notoriously sensitive to the smell of a bad prawn !
To assume otherwise is demeaning and disrespectful.
Cheers

[xelasnave]

So what sort of life do they think we should find:rolleyes:?

alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

I agree Craig with most everything you say... I am a little unhappy to see folk getting upset.

alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

Scientists recently discovered a new frontier in the race to find life outside our solar system. Dying red giant stars may bring icy planets back from the dead. Once-frozen planets and moons may provide a new breeding ground for life as their stars enter the last, and brightest, phase of their lives.

Now the above is from NASA:)

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2005/0801frozenworlds.html

IS there even a hint of specualtion?


alex:):):)

[Karls48]

I totally agree with you. This forum got now few contributors because of this attitude.

[sjastro]

So you agree with this piece of sanctimonious claptrap which in itself is designed be highly insulting. Then of course there is the childish reference to the spelling of "Gobbledygook".

A wonderful piece of hypocrisy to pontificate on the behaviour of other people while at the same engaging in personal attacks.

Steven

[CraigS]

Hi Alex;
Good to have you back .. check out the Higgs thread ... your comments on that one are eagerly anticipated !

Well, that link is very dated, Alex. In the meantime (6 years) they have found that it was not possible to able to accurately pin down the proportions of water ice:CO2 ice, in that region (other than by assumptions in models) ... as I recall, the thick covering of solid CO2, thwarted the ground penetrating radar measurements and resulted in a heavier dependence on model assumptions. If there's a substantial proportion of water ice, then the reasons for assuming that it was once liquid are (i) geological erosion images ... (erosion which has also been shown to quite easily have been caused by both CO2 &/or H2O ablation .. not solely large volumes of liquid water erosion) and; (ii) the emotive need to couple the exploration of Mars to the inference of life (as inferred by hypothesising about abdundant volumes of liquid water in the past).

Lengthy human exploration might resolve the two competing theories.

The issue also set the scene for the upcoming mission which targets measuring the rate of escape of volatiles from the Martian upper atmosphere.

An interesting aspect the article raises is, that the numbers of potential HZs could quite easily, escalate to very sizeable numbers. What impact does the value of remote exo-life sensing searches then have in narrowing the search zone for exo-life ? It would seem to diminish as the numbers of potential HZs increases (?)

The seeking of hard, locally sourced, verifiable data from already established known HZs (based on the Earth model), on the other hand capitalises on what we already know ... as opposed to attempting to build on a faith-based perspective.

Cheers

[CraigS]

I'm actually finding it amusing that so far, about the only contributions to this thread, (apart from my own and one other), appear to serve purely the cause of turning it into a (dis)popularity contest.

I have no interest in being popular in this forum, with anyone who refuses to engage on discussions about the science issues.

Cheers

[supernova1965]

We need to look because it is the next hill to look over.

What would have happened if the early explorers of planet Earth had said we can't prove that other life exists on other land masses or even if there are other land masses existing therefore we should not go:screwy:.

And to early humanity before reliable shipping the other continents would have been no different than we consider travel to other star systems it is the dreaming which pushed those early explores to develop new ships as an example of new technology without imagination we will go nowhere.

The technology to do these things will come just as modern shipping enabled the discovery of and mapping and inhabiting of the Earth so shall we make the next leap of expansion into our Galaxy so we should be preparing for that exploration and simply wait to discover what is there but never stop dreaming as it is dreams that propel us forever onward and upward:thumbsup::welcome:.

[xelasnave]

Hi Craig.

My posting of the link was an attempt at calming the waters.
Here is another;)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111103190356.htm

I have been following the Higgs thread and the wonderful link Steven posted... I read everything every day in this forum and follow all the links but try to avoid posting opinions.

I have always suspected the job of the Higgs would be done by smaller particles ... only a guess as they say.

The unrest here is unfortunate as all are wonderful people and I hate to see folk upset for any reason. I hope all can settle and not take things personal.

With Xmas very near many folk can feel "press ur red";) and yet unaware of why... the why is complex however at this time of the year we can be more emotional and not understand why...add to that the crazy weather and we may gain an appreciation that forces are at play we dont recognise or accept...and so I say peace everyone... let anyone vent if they must and move on.

This is a wonderful forum and it is such because there is a wide range of levels that are engaged. It is a place where a mug like me can talk with wonderful folk who could be totally dismissive of my ideas or input because frankly they know their stuff.

I hope that all can offer input small or great without fear of being put down... and I do think your splat was at the reporter and not the poster of the the original link herein ..others may see it another way and maybe thats why things have got a little heated...I dont know as everyone has their personal reality which I can not second guess.

Merry Xmas may peace and goodwill prevail.

AS you know I follow closely all the news on life (here and out there) and the hunt for it ...and thanks for your pointers above.

alex:):):)

[ZeroID]

If we suddenly received a bunch of radio signals from the direction of Kepler from a similarly advanced civilisation of 600 years ago ... might THAT sway your thinking ?
Who is to say that a year from now a sudden burst of decipherable signal from that zone, another life form attempting to make contact or learn in exactly the same way we are now. With the same interest and query of 'Is there anybody out there ?' ( with respect to Pink Floyd )

Well, I'm a bit sorry I upset Craig (not really ;) ) but otherwise this has been an interesting and elucidating discussion (for most that is ).
I'd suggest Craig that you remove the blinkers that rule your life and just open your mind up a bit, you never know what you might learn.

Cheers all :thumbsup:

[Robh]

Hi all,

I've only just bothered to read up on this thread, as I usually avoid the topic because of its highly speculative nature.

I think that the discovery and study of exoplanets is probably of no less importance than any other research e.g. massive stars and supermassive black holes in galaxies. Each piece of research adds more to our knowledge about the universe and how it functions. Obviously, only recent technology (e.g. advances in interferometry) has permitted the hunt for smaller planets. And as advances continue, it may be possible that signatures of specific atmospheric molecules may be detected.

However, I think we should not get ahead of ourselves. The detection of an Earth-like planet, although lending some credibility to the speculation that life might exist out there, says nothing about whether life actually does exist there. Until, one biological organism is found somewhere else, or at least the signature of its existence, then it remains what it is - pure speculation. Evidence of life on a local planet would certainly give more credibility to the exo-life concept but then there is the possibility of local "contamination". Maybe, life only exists in our own solar system.

As for the distances involved, it is highly unlikely man will be able to travel to any exo-planet to discover any possible life first-hand for a long time. I think we will be lucky to survive the next few hundred years as we may destroy life on the very planet we live on. We will need to make some extra-ordinary leaps in physics to migrate somewhere else and it seems man's intellect may fall-short at this important crossroad in our evolution.

However, I think it is possible to detect intelligent life if it exists elsewhere. By directing our searches to Earth-like planets, based on the assumption that life exists here on Earth, we may be increasing our chances of detecting intelligent signals from those planets. Of course the signals may take several hundred years, but assuming they have been around for a while and haven't destroyed their planet, we are in with a chance.

In my mind, there are two alternatives. Either, life on Earth is unique, brought about by an incredible singular interaction of non-repeatable events (i.e. probability of repetition equals zero) or this universe has a propensity for life everywhere, which is also extraordinary.

Regards, Rob

[CraigS]

Hi Brent;
It appears that I should clarify that my more emotional comments were certainly not directed at yourself. I don't feel that anyone should necessarily feel any ownership of the content of links published in a thread, unless we explicitly state our support for it .. your comments were very brief, and I had something to say .. so I did.

The argument you present above, is an argument from what may/may not have occurred 600 years ago … it never happened ... so from where I sit, I can see zero reasons to justify any changes in my direction. Pink fairies and purple goblins might once have existed, or might suddenly pop into existence, does this now change your direction in present-day life ?

Everyone seems to be warning me about wearing blinkers … I'm quite proud of being able to put them on when a situation calls for it ... and that I can explain exactly why they're on. If people were unable to do this, civilisation would have gotten nowhere. It seems that many others seem to think that an open mind is some kind of default 'virtue' … this idea is simply naive in many science discussions … and this is one of them.

Cheers

[Karls48]

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it, same as I'm entitled to to agree with Rally's replay to Craig's insulting tone.

[CraigS]

Except as I have explained .. the 'insulting tone' has come from within your own mind. Not from mine.

[RobF]

I couldn't help thinking of Arthur C Clarke while browsing through this one. His quote that went something like "when a distinguished professor says something isn't possible he'll often later be proven wrong by a young upstart scientist that suggests something might be possible".

This isn't meant to be a commentary on anyone's level of knowledge - I just hope we will have better tools for exploring for interstellar life during our lifetimes. The commentary on the trials and tribulations of identifying other planets in the latest S&T was a fascinating read too along these lines.

[mswhin63]

Thought i may add this link to an hour long Science meeting where you will get full appraisal without misleading media interpretation.

I have only just started to watch it so I am not influenced in anyway to the outcome of the video.

http://tomsastroblog.com/archives/11462

[rally]

Steve,

Maybe you should read back your own words and consider the blatant hypocrisy in every point you make !

My argument is with the delivery and emotion and raising the point that life discovery is just one small side alley of the whole process, the goals of understanding solar system evolution are just as lofty if less emotion stirring.
Since you guys love to make the allegations of a strawman argument - this is just such a thing - arguing that we can never discover or confirm life on such a distant planet and then on that basis we should shut down the total program of exoplanetary research !

For 'scientists' the views expressed are like going back to the dark ages.

If Craig happens to have a bent on the wastefulness or prioritisation of exoplanetary discovery because it may or may not result in the discovery of life or potential life thats fine by me, he is allowed any opinion he likes, but he needn't do it in the way he did on two separate threads on exoplanetary discovery.
So that means that anyone who dares to put up a thread that has the barest hint of life associated with on a newly discovered exoplanet has this to contend with - well that simply isn't civil and since the moderators havent acted I made my comment.

In any other forum that behaviour would be called Trolling.

I avoid the 'science' forum like the plague, but I happen to view the forum via the new posts option so unfortunately I cant avoid it entirely.

The carry on here is what one expects from a completely unmoderated forum.

[CraigS]

Hi Rob;

I can't find it .. but I made a post somewhere in the past about the notorious 'Mike Brown' (of Caltech .. of Pluto demotion infamy, etc), who has been working on remote detection of atmospheres of some of our own planetary moons (it may have been Titan ???). They were able to infer surface temperatures and a whole bunch of other interesting parameters.
But this doesn't alter the overall points I've made in this thread about detecting life.
Whilst such technologies increase our technology base and theoretical modelling, being able to verify exo-life likelihood predictions, will take us quantum leaps further in knowledge.

The issue is about prioritisation and the way we think about these options is critical. At present, we are confronted with serious curtailment of planetary exploration missions.
The only way to confirm this .. is to find it onsite … and if we do, then the relationships between its presence and the HZ in which it was found, becomes more than conjecture. Detection technologies can then be verified.

I whole-heartedly agree. The breakthrough I'm suggesting is needed in this area however, is being severely inhibited.

Cheers

[CraigS]

I have not stated any such thing.
I have stated that remote exo-life detection over vast distances, is a fundamentally flawed justification basis for projects, in the face of forced mission prioritisation.

[CraigS]

So here's another reason for not getting excited about water in exo-environments …

Nearby Planet-Forming Disk Holds Water for Thousands of Oceans (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111020171448.htm)



So, detection of water on an exo-planet would be no great surprise … I mean it has to come from somewhere in the first place … and it seems to be very common throughout the galaxy. Even if we were to detect the presence of liquid water on a remote exo-planet, in a warm Solar irradiated HZ … what then ?

How would this discovery then take us further in understanding about life than the above one ..??.. and thereby represent a driver for prioritisation of this avenue of investigation? I mean, its already been remotely discovered according to the above announcement …

Even if remote detection of other terrestrial 'bio-signatures', (which are presently unassociated with other hypothesised instances of life beyond Earth), were accompanying such a discovery in an exo-planet environment, given the multitude of things also able to produce remotely detectable 'bio-signatures', how would this discovery further scientific knowledge about exo-life (ie: beyond more conjecture) ?

Cheers

[avandonk]

Craig I would not worry to much about irrational speculation. There is enough rational speculation.

When I was a young lad there were no other planets outside our solar system! We did not even have a satellite apart from the Moon! We were too poor to even use radio to talk to each other. We used to use a thing called letters.

Personally I think the Universe is teeming with life. I have no proof for this apart from the fact we exist! In an infinite Universe everything has already happened. Yes somewhere this communication is real in a billion realities.

I would not be to tough of those that do not understand. Even JC said 'forgive them father as they do not understand'. This is the real cop out as the mythical father is invoked as if we are children without knowledge or intelligence.

Remember the words of the the lost mariner 'water water everywhere and not a drop to drink'.

Bert

[sjastro]

Who are you trying to kid?
If you have such a high moral compass then why don't you comment on the virulent and aggressive posts that go unmoderated in the General Chat forum.
The Science forum is placid by comparison.

The fact it's your own bias on display here. The dead give away is how you extrapolate Craig's strawman comment and turn it into a "you guys" strawman comment. We guys whoever we are are, have our own thoughts.

All the spin in the world isn't going to the change the fact your objective was first and foremost to attack Craig.

Steven

[CraigS]

Hi Bert;

I appreciate your highly considered words of wisdom.

However, my resilience is in the defence of reason.

'Tis the personal attacks from ignorance which stand out the most.

I feel your familiarity with the phenomenon (from your recounts of a past life).

Thanks for the advice. Noted and duly actioned.

Cheers

[rally]

Steve,

No bias at all and I am not trying to kid anyone Steve, but you seem to be trying very hard to do so.

Search "strawman" by posts on the forum and you will see that you and Craig have used the term on multiple occasions in fact the most !.
I had never heard of it before reading one of your posts,
You and Craig have replied and hence you and Craig are the "you guys" I refer to in relation to the use of the term "strawman"

If I had been aware of the poor behaviour in the other forums I might have commented if I thought it was appropriate or not being dealt with by others which it usually is, but since I haven't, I didn't, its not about moral compass its about making a comment if I think its relevant.

As far as an attack on Craig that was never the object, although my comments for his moderation and use of emotive replies (as he graciously admits and genuinely apologises for) was directed at Craig. There is a big difference, if I wanted to attack Craig and I certainly dont, then there has been plenty of opportunity on a daily basis - do you see that anywhere ? No of course you don't.

I think my initial post is quite specific about what I had to say and why.

You have "attacked" me to far greater extent ! Extrapolated some amazing conclusions and false allegations and character assassinations of your own.
So it seems you are a hypocrite here.

There is room in this forum for everyone, but it requires some consideration and empathy for others, something that appears that not all possess or care for.
At least when it was pointed out Craig had the good courtesy to respond - even if he doesnt agree with me.

Thanks guys for tolerating my final hijack and intrusion on what is a fascinating subject no matter where our opinions sway us.

The Video link that Trevor posted is definitely worth the watch.

Cheers

Rally

[CraigS]

Rally;

I make no apologies for anything in this thread.

Also, from many past encounters, I find many of your responses to be highly inauthentic, off topic and off-focus. Your 'chiming in' on particular science forum threads, lines up almost entirely with fortuituous opportunities for your comments to be supported by others. These usually occur when I am facing majority disagreement and, as a consequence, yours face automatic impunity. I have no problems with facing disagreement, but I do have a problem with inauthentic responses such as your last one, and with your attempts to masquerade as a moderator.

You need to work on convincing me and others that you actually do posess genuinely authenticity. I will watch for it with much anticipation.

Cheers

[mswhin63]

Another link if anyone is interested in the science conference, some talks are completed and available to the general public.

http://kepler.nasa.gov/Science/ForScientists/keplerconference/sessions/

[sjastro]

(1) I haven't made any personal attacks on you unless you define the accusation of a personal attack on Craig as an attack on you. If this is the standard you want to operate at then it is a double standard.
The fact you accused Craig of being dismissive and insulting to others, is by your own definition a personal attack. Yet you deny this. You can't have it both ways.

(2) It's very easy to use the search function and count the number to times I have used the term strawman. So what?
You accuse me of using the term in a blanket context, I will use the term where appropriate. I have never used this term in this thread until now.
To drag up my use of this term from past posts has absolutely no relevance in this thread. Your attempts to misconstrue the discussion is noted.

(3) Craig has apologised? A futile attempt to create a wedge issue....

Enough said.

Steven

[jjjnettie]

geezus, no wonder no one wants to post in this section little own read any of the contributions.
The content of this thread is null and void because of the squawking and bickering going on.

[Octane]

I have unmistakable proof of exolife.

If you want to know more, ask.

H

[mishku]

pics or it never happened

[Octane]

Lunch time. School holidays. Mall.

H

[Jen]

:D i think its exciting news Brent :clap::clap:go...... kepler go........ ;)

[iceman]

Unfortunately this is very true.