Announcement of discovery of 54 possible habitable planets

[renormalised (Carl)]

if the numbers stack up

Notice, Craig, I prefaced my statement with the above

However, I'd say the majority of the candidate worlds will turn out to be the real thing...given past history on the subject.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

The rest of what you say, could've just as easily been said before the Kepler discovery and is still speculation.



Cheers

There's nothing speculative about a little scientific politics

Get the public/politicians interested with the possibilities and they'll see the reasoning behind the project. That's the way you get your funds and a little pork barreling never hurt to achieve that aim

The rest of what I said was purely scientific and no different to anything else written here

If no one considered the possibilities or didn't speculate in science, no one would want to do the work...it would be as boring as listening to a Vulcan trying to make gossip

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

The parameters of the Drake equation are speculative and frequently disputed, (for the same reasons .. no data).

All they can point to is the equation itself .. which really doesn't mean anything without measured parameters.

Cheers

Of which we now know a lot more than when Frank Drake first proposed the equation. However, the most important factors of the equation (the last three variables) are still an unknown quantity.

[CraigS]

Yep Carl;

I notice they're expecting them to be reclassified, as well.

(I did notice your preface )

We're both saying the same thing, I think. Its just that I'd like to keep myself clear on where the reality finishes and speculation begins.

As far as pessimistic and optimistic speculation is concerned .. one is as valid as the other.



Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Speculation adds some spice to the reality, gives it a bit of bite

They maybe equally valid but one makes life as a scientist miserable, the other gives them hope and keeps them cheery, motivated

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Of which we now know a lot more than when Frank Drake first proposed the equation. However, the most important factors of the equation (the last three variables) are still an unknown quantity.

Errr …. all the factors are still unknown quantities.

'Importance' would suggest a weighting factor .. I'm not aware of any of those yet ..

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Errr …. all the factors are still unknown quantities.

'Importance' would suggest a weighting factor .. I'm not aware of any of those yet ..

Cheers

No they're not....they know how many stars are born each year in the galaxy and they have a reasonable guesstimate of the fraction of stars that have planets that form around them. The next two are more speculative, but the last three are the most important. How do you know how many contactable civilisations are out there if the last three factors are not so fundamental the equation?? Regardless of the other factors, you would really want to know if life developed intelligence (and just how intelligent it was), you'd also want to know that they developed a technology capable of making contact with and just how stable (long lived) their civilisation was. No point in trying to make any sort of contact if there are no advanced civilisations out there or they only last 1000 years before they blow themselves to smithereens. It'd be like talking to a ghost

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

True Carl, if we consider our own civilisation and it's suicidal tendencies the time frame to capture intelligence signal would be so small. But i would hope to think that our society can evolve from that.

[CraigS]

So, some follow-up news on this … they're going to use HARPS-N (and doppler shift spectrographic radial velocity detection) to analyse the 'Candidates' produced from the Kepler transit data ...

HARPS-N instrument will help confirm Kepler's planet finds

.. and HARPS-N gets an upgrade to improve its RV detection resolution ..

It will be augmented by technology now under development, such as a laser comb for wavelength calibration, which will allow it to detect subtle radial-velocity signals.
…
HARPS-N will pursue the most interesting targets found by Kepler, at a level that no one else in the world can do," said Dimitar Sasselov, Director of the Harvard Origins of Life Initiative. "HARPS-N will partner with Kepler to characterize worlds enough like Earth that they might be able to support life as we know it."
First light for HARPS-N is anticipated in April 2012.

So, probably won't hear much until the end of next year, folks …

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

We won't be getting science from HARPS until mid year or later in 2012.

....and then the world ends, but luckily we'll have a few places to goto

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

We won't be getting science from HARPS until mid year or later in 2012.

....and then the world ends, but luckily we'll have a few places to goto

Perhaps some validated or confirmed places … but not necessarily habitable.
(I'd include some emoticons .. but some get upset if we're not serious (see post #3)).

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Perhaps some validated or confirmed places … but not necessarily habitable.
(I'd include some emoticons .. but some get upset if we're not serious (see post #3)).

Cheers

That's something we won't know unless we look.

Some of the best serious discussions I've had in science have been inherently funny or turned to humour at some point. If you can't have a serious conversation without some break in the tediousness, then why have it in the first place. Overly serious conversation either becomes boring or devolves into arguments and shouting matches...something which never comes to any fruition or conclusion either way.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

That's something we won't know unless we look.

Yep .. agreed.

Originally Posted by renormalised

Some of the best serious discussions I've had in science have been inherently funny or turned to humour at some point. If you can't have a serious conversation without some break in the tediousness, then why have it in the first place. Overly serious conversation either becomes boring or devolves into arguments and shouting matches...something which never comes to any fruition or conclusion either way.

A little off topic but YES .. I fully AGREE and support these perspectives !

Its time for the rules of the Science Forum to be reviewed as this 'ruling' is asking for us to be something other than HUMAN.

It doesn't get much more unfair than that !!

So called 'Spam', whilst annoying in the midst of value-adding conversations, differs from humour amongst legitimate contributers !

Fair enough, legitimate contributions furthering the knowledge of the topic under discussion should take priority, but that's easy to enforce … just make a legitimate contribution based on knowledge of the topic !!

Deletion of humorous contributions and expecting moderators to take these actions, in my view, is overkill.

We should bring this up in the Website Feedback & Faq's section, as I do feel that the boundaries for Science related discussions aren't clear nor understood … by anyone.

Cheers