A possible 'water' planet discovered.

ZeroID (Brent) · #1 06-12-2011, 06:19 AM

http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2011...red/?hpt=hp_t2
600 light years .. it's almost next door...

CraigS · #2 06-12-2011, 07:30 AM

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 ! ….

Quote:

Is life restricted to Earth, or could it exist somewhere like Kepler 22-b?

… 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 · #3 06-12-2011, 07:45 AM

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

SkyViking (Rolf) · #4 06-12-2011, 07:59 AM

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 (Malcolm) · #5 06-12-2011, 09:11 AM

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 · #6 06-12-2011, 09:49 AM

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 (Trevor) · #7 06-12-2011, 10:00 AM

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 · #8 06-12-2011, 10:04 AM

So here is what I'm talking about…

Good and bad news comes with NASA’s 2012 budget

Quote:

On November 14, President Obama signed an Appropriations bill that solidified NASA’s budget for fiscal year 2012. The space agency will get $17.8 billion. That’s $648 million less than last year’s funding and $924 million below what the President had asked for.

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

Quote:

Planetary missions will likely take the hit. And a funding cut now could seriously affect NASA’s long range plans, such as its planned missions to Mars through 2020. Prospective missions to Europa will face difficulties too, a real shame since liquid water was recently discovered under the icy surface of that Jovian moon.

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 · #9 06-12-2011, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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"!

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 (Malcolm) · #10 06-12-2011, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · #11 06-12-2011, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

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 · #12 06-12-2011, 11:22 AM

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 (Malcolm) · #13 06-12-2011, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Actually it was the answer I was looking for,

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 (Trevor) · #14 06-12-2011, 11:55 AM

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:

Quote:

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 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 · #15 06-12-2011, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keltik

it seems currently beyond our scope to definitely establish life at this distance,

… 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keitik

Nothing straw about that argument …

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keltik

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keltik

I hope I don't give you the impression that I scorn your opinions.

Go ahead … my opinions, as anyone's else's ... are irrelevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keltik

But I find your derogatory tone the very antithesis of why I love astronomy.

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 (Trevor) · #16 06-12-2011, 04:24 PM

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

Keltik (Trevor) · #17 06-12-2011, 04:35 PM

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 · #18 06-12-2011, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keltik

but before I go:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17120124

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KJeltik

Don't be so rigid, is my advice. You never know what might be possible.

Irrelevant.

CraigS · #19 06-12-2011, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keltik

Angry? over an article that postulates possibilities in space?

And that's not what I was referring to.

CraigS · #20 06-12-2011, 06:13 PM

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