A possible 'water' planet discovered.

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Robh

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Robh

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Robh

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.

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

Cheers

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by rally

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

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

Scientists have found thousands of Earth-oceans' worth of it within the planet-forming disk surrounding the star TW Hydrae. TW Hydrae is 176 light years away in the constellation Hydra and is the closest solar-system-to-be.
…
Scientists had previously found warm water vapor in planet-forming disks close to the central star. But until now, evidence for vast quantities of water extending into the cooler, far reaches of disks where comets and giant planets take shape had not emerged. The more water available in disks for icy comets to form, the greater the chances that large amounts will eventually reach new planets through impacts.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by avandonk

I would not be to tough of those that do not understand ...

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

Originally Posted by 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]

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 (Malcolm)]

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/ForSc...ence/sessions/

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by 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

(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 (Jeanette)]

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 (Humayun)]

I have unmistakable proof of exolife.

If you want to know more, ask.

H

[mishku]

pics or it never happened

Originally Posted by Octane

I have unmistakable proof of exolife.

If you want to know more, ask.

H

[Octane (Humayun)]

Lunch time. School holidays. Mall.

H

[Jen]

Originally Posted by ZeroID

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

i think its exciting news Brent go...... kepler go........

[iceman (Mike)]

Originally Posted by 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.

Unfortunately this is very true.