Posted on 05/29/2013 4:30:15 PM PDT by lbryce
Please note that this article was originally published on March 20, 2008.
The possible detection of methane in the atmosphere of a distant planet could be the next big step in the search for life outside our solar system
Everyone seems to be double-extra-cautiously optimistic about this finding, so don’t go running out to your telescope tonight looking for greetings from friendly space creatures.
But in work reported today in Nature, astronomers say they used the Hubble Space Telescope’s infrared imager to pick up signs of methane in the atmosphere of a Jupiter-sized planet orbiting a star some 63 million light years from Earth. And methane, an organic molecule, is an indicator of the possible presence of life.
The bad news, for ET fans, is that the planet is probably too close to its host star to support the kind of life we’re all really looking for. The good news is that the very presence of methane, and water, in the planet’s atmosphere could be evidence that some form of life may be out there, either on this planet or others. Methane is key to the formation of amino acids, the basic building blocks of organisms.
Another key takeaway from this work, scientists say, is that astronomers have now moved from simply finding these planets—a not-so-simple job in and of itself—to exploring them chemically.
I think we're going to be surprised to run into traffic when we get out of this little backwater solar system.
Thank you so much for letting us know about this new thread on a similar topic!
They always have an agenda. Namely... secure funding for next year.
When you find free oxygen on an exoplanet get back to me.
I’m not arguing anything, silly goose.
***If it walks like a duck, acts like a duck, quacks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and isn’t a goose, it’s probably a duck. You silly duck. Welcome to the world of inductive reasoning. Here’s a hint: don’t attack a 3-headed dog with a 2-pronged pitchfork.
I am offering the notion
***Such things are called “arguments”. But, what, are you somehow above it all... until you “offer a notion” and then stoop to call someone else’s offering a “strawman” argument? Get a grip.
See how far you get trying to raise another strawman.
***Well, now you seem to want to revert to actually calling this kind of exchange “argumentation” and suppose the other side is engaging in classic fallacies. Weren’t you supposed to be “above it all”, only offering a “notion”? And a notion that derives from silence, historically known as the invalid argument from silence.
Mathematicians’ theory means Earth may be the center of the universe http://wallacegsmith.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/mathematicians-theory-means-earth-may-be-the-center-of-the-universe/ Posted by Wallace G. Smith ⋅ October 22, 2010⋅ 17 Comments Filed Under Accelerating universe, Big Bang, Copernican Principle, Dark energy, Earth-centered Shockwave Theory Dark Energy, or an Earth-centered Shockwave? (Image via Wikipedia)
OK, how did I miss this article? On the Popular Science website (popsci.com), dated 9/25/2009, is an article titled “Mathematicians’ Alternate Model of the Universe Explains Away the Need For Dark Energy” — subheading: “An alternative theory eliminates dark energy by placing Earth at the center of expansion.”
Actually, it is a “Reader’s Digest” version of a larger article from Seed magazine titled “Erasing Dark Energy” — pre-story tease: “Why do we need dark energy to explain the observable universe? Two mathematicians propose an alternative solution that, while beautiful, may raise even more questions than it answers.”
Here’s the gist of it. Since about 1998, physics has believed that there is some sort of “dark energy” causing the universe to accelerate its expansion. This “dark energy” is supposed to make up about three-quarters of the universe, with its equally mysterious cousin, “dark matter,” making up another 20%, leaving plain-old matter (like you and me and cheeseburgers) making up about 4%. However, physicists have yet to really agree on the nature of this mysterious “dark matter.” Its inclusion solves some of their baffling observations about the universe, but it remains an uncomfortable mystery.
Enter two mathematicians, Blake Temple and Joel Smoller. Their results, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, suggest a solution to the accelerating universe that doesn’t require conjuring up anything like “dark matter” — in fact, it doesn’t require conjuring up anything new at all. Their solution works with the current laws of physics we already have.
Their solution? That the acceleration seen is due to an expanding shockwave that occurred after the Big Bang–a shockwave that would have originated very near the Earth. Did you catch that? A shockwave, plowing through the universe and spreading out the galaxies that originated near the Earth. To say that such an idea unnerves many modern cosmologists would be an understatement. Modern cosmology takes as an article of faith that the Earth is nothing special. It’s called the Copernican Principle, named after Copernicus who concluded that the Sun and not the Earth was the center of our solar system. In modern science, Earth and the area around it is not allowed to be special or “favored” in any way compared to the rest of space — and it is certainly not allowed to be the center of the universe.
But Temple & Smoller’s theory suggests just such a thought. Their shockwave has some things in its favor and some not so much so. For the former, the Earth-centered shockwave theory would also explain another phenomenon: the fact that Earth seems to be sitting in an odd “bubble of underdensity” — a region of the universe that doesn’t have much in it. Against it is the fact that dark energy also may account for some other observations, such as certain characteristics of the cosmic microwave background we observe in the universe. But the biggest strike against it in the eyes of physicists? According to the article, it is the fact that it puts the earth at the center of the universe. As one particular cosmologist, Michael Wood-Vasey, is quoted in the Seed article concerning such a possibility: “It’s very philosophically disconcerting… It’s not very satisfying.”
Personally, regardless of how it turns out, I think one element of all of this is just rich. In the past, any ideas, such as Copernicus’, that suggested the Earth was not the center of the universe were (we are told) turned away as unacceptable and an affront to the truth — to be refused on principle, regardless of the facts or observations. Now, have we come to a point where the reverse bias is in play? Is a theory to be rejected solely on principle because it suggests the possibility that the Earth might be the center of the universe — again, regardless of the facts or observations?
Thankfully, the mere fact that their theory was published in the Proceedings speaks well of the scientific community, methinks. Astrophysicist Philip Hughes, who worked with the two mathematicians, says that we should be open to possibilities, especially given how much we still don’t know — and can’t even agree about — concerning “dark energy.” From the Seed article: “But Hughes, who calls [the Earth-centered shockwave theory] ‘a tour de force of mathematical analysis,’ argues that though it presents a radical philosophical shift, the wave theory could nevertheless be useful to cosmologists. “‘The concept of “dark energy” is a way of parameterizing our ignorance,’ he said in an email. ‘Given our shaky understanding of the physics behind it, I would hope that people are open-minded enough to see what might be learned from this work. We have for practical purposes no understanding of “dark energy”; there isn’t even a glimmer of consensus.’”
Is the Earth truly the center of the universe? Spiritually, we know it is the center of God’s plan, but is it actually physically the center, as well? Have we been so long in the God-must-be-banished woods of modern science that such a possibility is that hard to see? These articles are a little more than a year old. Does anyone know of any new developments? Temple & Smoller were planning on developing their theory further and preparing it for testing.
Any details out there about new news would be appreciated — feel free to post below. Theories are theories, and I am not married to either idea, to be sure. God says through Solomon that “[i]t is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings is to search out a matter” (Proverbs 25:2), and at this stage God is certainly holding many cards close to His chest. Yet, five centuries after Copernicus, it would be fascinating if modern cosmology concluded that Earth is, indeed, the center of the universe. What additional conclusions might follow?
Good read thanks.Hard on the eyes though....
***Sorry about that, the link is better.
It comes down to how it looks when it’s in the “Your Reply” box but avter HTML auto-detection it turns into goosefood.
Ever read the book “Alternative 3”?
Hint: It is fiction for a reason.
I'm picturing cows staring at a new gate.
Well, I give up. I now have to agree with several posters who have IDed you as having mental health propblems. Toddle off, son.
several posters who have IDed you as having mental health propblems. Toddle off, son
***Wait, what? You mean like what Betty Boop said? Toodle00 yourself, Mr. Identified Mental Health Problem.
This theory begs the question of the origin of the space aliens — so where does it really get you???
But then such folks as propose such patent nonsense are the sort that will propose ANY theory, just as long as it obviates the need of a Creator God — in their own imagination. They would turn themselves into pretzels if their “theory” needed it.
It’s just NUTZ, or — not to put too fine a point on it — psychotic. ~Betty Boop
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3014868/posts?page=147#147
You are a very sick individual. As you know Betty Boop posted a response to you trying to misuse her comment, inferring she posted that about me. To once again try and misuse her posts reveals a disturbing sickness in your soul. Get help.
Jeepers Kevmo, I didn't call MHGinTN a "psychotic." I don't understand how you drew that conclusion from what I wrote. Let me make this clear: MHGinTN is one of my oldest friends here, and I've been collaborating happily with him for years now. Especially I find his insights regarding time intriguing and valuable.
I am so sorry to see two friends "going at each other" in this way.
184 posted on Monday, May 13, 2013 12:31:29 PM by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Wow, such insults from someone supposedly so healthy in his mental state.
How is it a misuse of her comment? It is a straight copy & paste? Now, admittedly it puts you in a rather ... unpleasant light ... but that was her comment.
Perhaps you would like to rewind the issue back to her claiming it was about panspermia rather than “This theory begs the question of the origin of the space aliens — so where does it really get you??? “ Or am I missing something?
It would appear that what I am missing is the ability to shelter Betty Boop from her own comments in the light of the aggressive and heavy insults coming from you. Wouldn’t such insults be a sign of “Identified Mental Health Issues”?
Or am I missing something? What exactly is it that makes you prefer to engage in such aggressive insults rather than defend your ExtraTerrestrial Hypothesis?
Sounds like you might be ashamed of what was actually written. Notice that the very next response came from me saying something like “I don’t think MHGinTN is Psychotic” but no timely response from Betty Boop.
To be candid, in that light, I think that shame would be your appropriate response.
You are a very sick individual.
***Incredibly obvious example of a personal attack. Such things are frowned upon in Free Republic.
Read what Betty wrote to you on that thread. I posted it for ALL to see. Get help.
Sounds like you might be ashamed of what was actually written. Notice that the very next response came from me saying something like “I don’t think MHGinTN is Psychotic” but no timely response from Betty Boop.
To be candid, in that light, I think that shame would be your appropriate response.
YOU get help. Or maybe, just defend your grand hypothesis.
Perhaps you would like to rewind the issue back to her claiming it was about panspermia rather than “This theory begs the question of the origin of the space aliens — so where does it really get you??? “ Or am I missing something?
It would appear that what I am missing is the ability to shelter Betty Boop from her own comments in the light of the aggressive and heavy insults coming from you. Wouldn’t such insults be a sign of “Identified Mental Health Issues”?
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.