Spock: Jim, it appears to be yet another earth-like planet--3rd this month.
Kirk: The series is on a tight budget these days. They can't afford the more elaborate special effects.
Posted on 07/27/2015 4:38:59 AM PDT by bob_denard
NASA's discovery of Earth-like exoplanet Kepler-452b, nicknamed "Earth 2.0", has social media buzzing about the chances of finding a faraway world, possibly with alien life or key resources such as water.
Science or fiction? The experts respond.
- Is 'Earth 2.0' like our planet? -
Currently we don't know if this planet is terrestrial -- rocky -- or a small gas planet. If Kepler-452b turns out to be a terrestrial world, it will be the most Earth-like known which also orbits a G-class star like the Sun. The other leading competitors have mostly be found to orbit cooler dwarf stars.
There's a real chance we're talking about a terrestrial, potentially habitable exoplanet, with more similarities to our home world than any other place in our Solar System.
- Tom Kerss, astronomer at the Royal Observatory Greenwich
- Could we settle there? -
With our best available technology, we have no chances of reaching any exoplanet in the near future! The fastest spacecraft in the Solar System -- NASA's Juno probe -- is currently travelling at almost 86,000 miles (138,000 kilometres) per hour relative to the Earth. At this speed it would take about 33,000 years to reach the nearest star after the Sun, and almost 11 million years to reach Kepler-452b!
(Excerpt) Read more at spacedaily.com ...
No wonder that scientists (and the media) buy into global warming if they get this anticiparyily excited about a (suspected) habitable planet that 33 THOUSAND YEARS AWAY FROM US! Geeeeze.
Spock: Jim, it appears to be yet another earth-like planet--3rd this month.
Kirk: The series is on a tight budget these days. They can't afford the more elaborate special effects.
Science uses a pretty wide definition of “earthlike” that would include everything from Mercury to Mars. I wish they would use another term but that’s the only one the media is interested in.
To me these planets are no less interesting but the idea of finding a truly “earthlike” planet is nearly astronomical. “Life supporting” or “potentially habitable” are better words.
I’m sure for a few hundred billion tax dollars the science scammers can find a planet several thousand light years from Earth that no one can ever get to to prove their guesses wrong. It’s government subsidy for those who do not believe in God, the Creator, and want us to pay for the employment of their secular priesthood.
The most “Earth like” planet ever discovered is almost exactly the same size and mass and orbits an identical star at close to the same orbit.
It is called Venus. Not very habitable though.
The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery by Guillermo Gonzalez is a fascinating read. Life as we know it is possible only within an extremely narrow set of parameters. Distance from the sun/star, size & type of sun, size of planet, moon and size of moon with gravitational pull, liquid H2O, liquid iron core with magnetic field, plate tectonics redistributing crust materiel & building mountains (dry land), etc.. Any number of variables determine whether there’s an atmosphere and the planet keeps it.
For 85 years we have a great deal of speculation about a planet within our own solar system, Pluto. Turns out a lot of that stuff was wrong. You’ll pardon me if I’m skeptical of what they think of this latest discovery.
Scientists try to dumb things down for us but they wildly overestimate the intelligence of the audience.
I know what you mean about Venus being earthlike but I’ve always had an interest in science and recognize the terminology.
That is an extremely important caveat. Since our sample size of planets with life is n=1, we have a very limited idea of under what circumstances/conditions life is possible.
For all we know, there are many planets containing life, and conditions on earth are extreme with respect to the "bell curve" of habitability.
In any case, it is highly unlikely that we will ever contact an extraterrestrial civilization. Even if they are common, and there are millions in the Milky Way alone, the time it would take to travel, or even just to send messages back and forth, puts the possibility of contact firmly into the realm of science fiction. Too bad, it would be fascinating to study an extraterrestrial civilization or biome.
It’s not Earth 2.0. Small minds seize upon this discovery and construct an image of Earth’s sister planet, just like Earth in every way.
Little is known about it. Little more will be known about it. Talk about settling there is ridiculous and stupid.
The article didn’t mention that it’s 1,400 light-years away. It’s impossible to travel at the speed of light, so a round trip would take much more than 2,800 years.
Is it possible that all the hype is because this is sure to “disprove” the biblical account of creation?
Extra dimensional travel is the ONLY way we will ever be able to get anywhere.
Actually, life as we know it isn’t a big caveat, not if we are talking about an organism with a larger capacity brain capable of intelligent thought. The larger brain to body mass requires diverse and abundant food sources driving the energy requirements to direct a higher percentage of fuel to the brain. That drives a whole raft of requirements on the host planet.
If you are talking about a single cell amoeba, then I’ll agree with you.
there may be other life out there, but the “bell curve” of live is limited.
Nail on head!!!
As a side note, I got into a discussion with someone on another board and had to convince them the artist rendering of Kepler 452-B wa not an actual picture of the planet...
I mean it's ONLY 1,400 light years away.../S
No wonder Obama got into office twice with people who are so easily convinced something is real because they made a nice picture...
“...not if we are talking about an organism with a larger capacity brain capable of intelligent thought.”
Isn’t that only if they think with brains and that they do so with the same size ratios and efficiency as the examples we know about so far? I mean, it seems to me that it is still the ‘example of one’ problem.
Freegards
Even if you are talking from an evolutionary standpoint you don’t start at a higher state organism, but you go from single cell... It’s still a higher energy requirement for “something” that “thinks” that must be met by “something else” above and beyond fueling whatever “body” requirements this organism may have.
Like I said in the book recommendation, if you have any interest in the subject beyond gee whiz what about x, I would suggest reading The Privileged Planet.
It is called Venus. Not very habitable though.
WOW! Our "objective" scientists think they have found a rocky planet in orbit around a "G" class star and, voilà!, it suddenly is described as "earth-like" and "habitable".
I guess "Greenland" is no longer the winner of "History's Most Outlandish Real Estate Brochure" award. (actually, at the time Greenland was named (the Medieval Warm Period) it probably did have green meadows for the Viking cattle to graze)
Your reality check wins the prize! Runners-Up are Mars & Mercury.
I suppose I’m just the gee whiz what about x sort. Thanks for the reply.
I was just wondering why thinking must require the same energy amounts for everything everywhere just because that is the way it works here for us.
Freegards
33,000 years away from here? These stories are always stupid. For all they know the planet isn’t even still there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.