youtube link: YouTube - New Earthlike planet discovered Gliese 581c
It's got the same climate as Earth, plus water and gravity. A newly discovered planet is the most stunning evidence that life - just like us - might be out there.
Above a calm, dark ocean, a huge, bloated red sun rises in the sky - a full ten times the size of our Sun as seen from Earth. Small waves lap at a sandy shore and on the beach, something stirs...
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/578...et2468x194.jpg
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/pla...jpg/1/w468.png
This is the scene - or may be the scene - on what is possibly the most extraordinary world to have been discovered by astronomers: the first truly Earth-like planet to have been found outside our Solar System.
The discovery was announced today by a team of European astronomers, using a telescope in La Silla in the Chilean Andes. If forced bookies to slash odds on the existence of alien beings.
The Earth-like planet that could be covered in oceans and may support life is 20.5 light years away, and has the right temperature to allow liquid water on its surface.
http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/5...net468x457.jpg
http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/p...jpg/1/w468.png
his remarkable discovery appears to confirm the suspicions of most astronomers that the universe is swarming with Earth-like worlds.
We don't yet know much about this planet, but scientists believe that it may be the best candidate so far for supporting extraterrestrial life.
The new planet, which orbits a small, red star called Gliese 581, is about one-and-a-half times the diameter of the Earth.
It probably has a substantial atmosphere and may be covered with large amounts of water - necessary for life to evolve - and, most importantly, temperatures are very similar to those on our world.
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/620...504800x526.jpg
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/pla...jpg/1/w800.png
t is the first exoplanet (a planet orbiting a star other than our own Sun) that is anything like our Earth.
Of the 220 or so exoplanets found to date, most have either been too big, made of gas rather than solid material, far too hot, or far too cold for life to survive.
"On the treasure map of the Universe, one would be tempted to mark this planet with an X," says Xavier Delfosse, one of the scientists who discovered the planet.
"Because of its temperature and relative proximity, this planet will most probably be a very important target of the future space missions dedicated to the search for extraterrestrial life."
Gliese 581 is among the closest stars to us, just 20.5 light years away (about 120 trillion miles) in the constellation Libra. It is so dim it can be seen only with a good telescope.
Because all planets are relatively so small and the light they give off so faint compared to their sun, finding exoplanets is extremely difficult unless they are huge.
Those that have so far been detected have mostly been massive, Jupiter-like balls of gas that almost certainly cannot be home to life.
This new planet - known for the time being as Gliese 581c - is a midget in comparison, being about 12,000 miles across (Earth is a little under 8,000 pole-to-pole).
It has a mass five times that of Earth, probably made of the same sort of rock as makes up our world and with enough gravity to hold a substantial atmosphere.
Astrobiologists - scientists who study the possibility of alien life - refer to a climate known as the Goldilocks Zone, where it is not so cold that water freezes and not so hot that it boils, but where it can lie on the planet's surface as a liquid.
In our solar system, only one planet - Earth -lies in the Goldilocks Zone. Venus is far too hot and Mars is just too cold. This new planet lies bang in the middle of the zone, with average surface temperatures estimated to be between zero and 40c (32-102f). Lakes, rivers and even oceans are possible.
It is not clear what this planet is made of. If it is rock, like the Earth, then its surface may be land, or a combination of land and ocean.
Another possibility is that Gliese 581c was formed mostly from ice far from the star (ice is a very common substance in the Universe), and moved to the close orbit it inhabits today.
In which case its entire surface will have melted to form a giant, planet-wide ocean with no land, save perhaps a few rocky islands or icebergs.
The surface gravity is probably around twice that of the Earth and the atmosphere could be similar to ours.
Although the new planet is in itself very Earth-like, its solar system is about as alien as could be imagined. The star at the centre - Gliese 581 - is small and dim, only about a third the size of our Sun and about 50 times cooler.
The two other planets are huge, Neptune-sized worlds called Gliese 581b and d (there is no "a", to avoid confusion with the star itself).
The Earth-like planet orbits its sun at a distance of only six million miles or so (our Sun is 93 million miles away), travelling so fast that its "year" only lasts 13 of our days.
The parent star would dominate the view from the surface - a huge red ball of fire that must be a spectacular sight.
It is difficult to speculate what - if any - life there is on the planet. If there is life there it would have to cope with the higher gravity and solar radiation from its sun.
Just because Gliese 581c is habitable does not mean that it is inhabited, but we do know its sun is an ancient star - in fact, it is one of the oldest stars in the galaxy, and extremely stable. If there is life, it has had many billions of years to evolve.
This makes this planet a prime target in the search for life. According to Seth Shostak, of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence Institute in California, the Gliese system is now a prime target for a radio search. 'We had actually looked at this system before but only for a few minutes. We heard nothing, but now we must look again.'
By 2020 at least one space telescope should be in orbit, with the capability of detecting signs of life on planets orbiting nearby stars. If oxygen or methane (tell-tale biological gases) are found in Gliese 581c's atmosphere, this would be good circumstantial evidence for life.
Dr Malcolm Fridlund, a European Space Agency scientist, said the discovery of Gliese 581c was "an important step" on the road to finding life.
"If this is a rocky planet, it's very likely it will have liquid water on its surface, which means there may also be life."
The real importance is not so much the discovery of this planet itself, but the fact that it shows that Earth-like planets are probably extremely common in the Universe.
There are 200 billion stars in our galaxy alone and many astronomers believe most of these stars have planets.
The fact that almost as soon as we have built a telescope capable of detecting small, earth-like worlds, one turns up right on our cosmic doorstep, shows that statistically, there are probably billions of earths out there.
As Seth Shostak says: "We've never found one close to being like the Earth until now. We are finding that Earth is not such an unusual puppy in the litter of planets."
But are these alien Earths home to life? No one knows. We don't understand how life began on our world, let alone how it could arise anywhere else. There may be an awful lot of bugs and bacteria out there, and only a few worlds with what we would recognise as plants and animals. Or, of course, there may be nothing.
The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence Institute uses radio telescopes to try to pick up messages sent by alien civilisations.
Interestingly, Gliese 581c is so close to the Earth that if its putative inhabitants only had our level of technology, they could - just about - pick up some of our radio signals, such as the most powerful military transmitters. Quite what would happen if we for our part did receive a signal is unclear.
"There is a protocol, buried away in the United Nations," says Dr Shostak. "The President would be told first, after the signal was confirmed by other observatories. But we couldn't keep such a discovery secret."
It may be some time before we detect any such signals, but it is just possible that today we are closer than ever to finding life in the stars.
William Hill said it had shortened the odds on proving the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence from 1,000-1 to 100-1.
Spokesman Graham Sharpe said: "We would face a possible eight-figure payout if it were to be confirmed that intelligent life of extra-terrestrial origin exists. We felt we had to react to the news that an earth-like planet which could support intelligent life had been discovered - after all, we don't know for sure that intelligent extraterrestrial life has not already been discovered."
The new planet, so far unnamed, is 20.5 light years away and orbits a red dwarf star called Gliese 581.
Youtube link: YouTube - New Earthlike planet discovered Gliese 581c
Life like us could only exist if the same circumstances took place on that planet as they did on this planet. If the dinosaurs hadn't got annihilated, there wouldn't even be intelligent life on this planet. Plus, there's a few billion years of evolution after that, so if the planet isn't that old to begin with, the species wouldn't be evolved yet. From a rational perspective, the chances are very slim that life as intelligent as humans live anywhere else besides earth.
I beg to differ. Thing of how many other stars there is. Billions, and last time I checked we aren't even the furthest out. That is if the big bang theory has any truth. I think that there may be intelligent life somewhere...out there...
Big Bang theory. Something of nothing blew up and this was formed.
Anyways, as I see this is either this planet could have life and whatever we wont have technology in this generation to see anything allowing us to travel that far, communitcate? sure. Other then that, if the find more, cool.
Indeed. I am so going to enlist into the Air Force in 1,000 years. Oh yeah....
I'm not saying that other life doesn't exists, just not intelligent life. Think of the circumstances that occurred on earth for humans to be where we are today. Billions of species were wiped out by natural disasters. The chances of those disasters happening exactly the same way to exactly the same billions of species is astronomically low. The atmosphere on the new planet would have to be exact to that of earth's, and the evolution of the brain would have to be exact to that of humans. It's impossible. No intelligent life will ever be found, because no other intelligent life exists besides humans. Whoever disagrees obviously didn't look into the matter and is living in a world of science fiction. Real science will tell you that it's astronomically impossible.Originally Posted by BladeofKnight
There will never be any technology that would be able to travel that far. A ship would have to be piloted, and no matter how fast the ship is going, it would take thousands of years to reach the planet, so by the time the ship would arrive, everybody would already be dead. As for communication, radio waves break up, and if they do manage to reach that far, it would take about 10,000 years. I'm no rocket scientist, but I don't think any of us will be alive in 10,000 years. It's not likely.
Last edited by Clint; 02-27-2009 at 11:40 PM.
I think intelligent life could exist elsewhere, just likely radically different from humans. It's not that big a stretch when you think about how many stars and planets might be out there.
Who knows, they might be that intelligent they stay away from us knowing full well how violent and destructive humanity can be at times. We kill more of ourselves than many other things do combined, and that probably wouldn't go across too well. Chances are though as because life seems to need a specific environment and even then it needs several other things to happen to force development along, if there is intelligent life out there, it probably isn't all too close. Though it might be *shrugs*. I'm only speculating and that's as useless as anyone else's.
victoria aut mors
So you're assuming that:
1. Intelligent life can only exist if the planet follows the same process that the Earth did.
2. In the vast universe, these same processes could not possibly take place simply because of its improbability.
3. Intelligent life must be just like humans and evolve exactly the same way. Thus, it also requires the same exact atmosphere as humans.
4. That you know these things to be true without possessing facts showing them to be true.
Did I get that right?
You do have a point. That does make kudos of sense. Thence there may be life, but no intelligent life: That sounds about right.
Seeing http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/pla...jpg/1/w468.png plastered all over the post makes me believe that it's a load of crock. Otherwise why else would it be in there?
Also, does anyone notice how it was discovered and how far away it is? Found by a telescope? Really? ...Yet it's over 20 light years away? ....Right.
Does no one else see the problem?
No, you didn't get that right.
1. Only one species of intelligent life exists on earth; humans. Without the processes that it took for humans to evolve, we wouldn't be where we are today. So what's to say that if humans didn't migrate, and therefore stopped evolving, that we wouldn't all be stupid gorilla-men right now? In that perspective, other intelligent life would have to go through the same circumstances that humans went through.
2. The same processes taking place exactly the same way twice is impossible, unless if you take that quantum theory perspective. Although, with the quantum theory perspective, the same processes happen on the same planet, just in a parallel universe. But the probability that two planets, not connected to each other whatsoever, having the same events, is near impossible.
3. The brain is what makes humans intelligent. Without the exact evolution of the brain, no other intelligent life could exist. This corresponds with the environment. The brain needs earth's environment to function.
4. It's not about possessing facts, it's about thinking logically. Science fiction is what puts the idea in people's heads that intelligent alien life is real. Science fiction, though, is just that; fiction, not logic. I enjoy reading science fiction, but I don't claim it to be true.
Not just any telescope. A telescope with HARPS. But I do believe it's mostly a load of crock. I wouldn't even be posting here if it wasn't for...
So then I got it right. All you did is say the same thing in a different way.
What's to say that if that didn't happen, that we wouldn't all be in the same place we are now? Just because it happened does not mean that was a cause.So what's to say that if humans didn't migrate, and therefore stopped evolving, that we wouldn't all be stupid gorilla-men right now?
Care to explain...The same processes taking place exactly the same way twice is impossible
1. Why?
2. Why does it have to be exactly the same? I'm not asking for why we'd need the same process to find other human life. I'm looking for the answer to intelligent life.
Fixed that for you.The human brain is what makes humans intelligent. Without the exact evolution of the human brain, no other human life could exist. This corresponds with the environment. The human brain needs earth's environment to function.
There's a difference when you're saying you believe something, and when you're stating something as fact. To only say "It's impossible." or "It will never happen." is to state it as fact. You need facts to support such statements. When you're simply stating what you believe, then logic is sufficient.It's not about possessing facts, it's about thinking logically.
I do think there could be intelligent life other than our own, after all we still are a very young race and a young planet compared to the older planets out there, and because we can never explore the entire of the universe we can never be sure if there is intelligent life out there. As for the planet there is quite a large possible chance that there are hundreds maybe even millions of planets like ours giving the size of the universe. So there is that remote possibility that it is livable.
A mouth of a perfectly happy man is filled with beer.
--Ancient Egyptian Wisdom, 2200 B.C.
Crao Porr Cock8, Go and get a Cock8 up ya.
The finer details of a signature:
Gliese 581c is a real planet and the facts stated here are more or less accurate, if not out of date. Problem is, the exoplanet was discovered almost two years ago, not just yesterday. Since that time it's been determined that life is not nearly as likely on the planet due to a probable runaway greenhouse effect similar to Venus. Gliese 581d, however, is still a good candidate. Just check out it's wikipedia page if you like: Gliese 581 c - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Or if you have some ineffable disgust for wikipedia, try space.com. Or even msnbc.
SPACE.com -- Major Discovery: New Planet Could Harbor Water and Life
Scientists find most Earthlike planet yet - Space.com- msnbc.com
For a more recent view of our current search of earthlike exoplanets, this may be of interest: Super-Earth in sight - Cosmic Log - msnbc.com
20 light-years is right in our own backyard, galactically speaking. We've discovered hundreds of exoplanets(over 300) and most of them are hundreds and even thousands of light-years away. We don't detect these planets the same way we detect planets around our own sun, ie visibly seeing them. We detect them by the effect they have on their parent stars, which is very much detectable through gravity fluctuations and light dimming due to the planet crossing in the star's path, similar to a solar eclipse.
If by "life like us" you mean an exact duplicate of homo sapiens sapiens, down to the exact genome, then yes, you're probably right. If you mean intelligent life in general, then you're horribly, horribly, near-sighted on what that actually means.
If the dinosaurs hadn't gone extinct, then mammals would still have had a decent chance of evolving into something intelligent. They had to be smarter than the overwhelmingly more powerful dinosaurs in order to survive at all. More intelligent mammals would have had a better chance at survival, and thus mammal evolution favors an increasing intelligence. The lack of dinosaurs simply jump-started this evolutionary process as mammals exploded to fill in the growing gap left by the dying dinosaurs. There's no reason to state without a doubt that mammals wouldn't have still gotten more and more intelligent even with dinosaurs around.
Even assuming no mass extinction 65 million years ago, dinosaurs would most likely have been wiped out or severely decreased in population when the last Ice Age hit, about 2 million years ago. Dinosaurs are not equipped to handle cold temperatures like mammals are, and that's a major part of the reason they went extinct in the first place. Sooner or later, dinosaurs would have gone extinct, and mammals would have taken their place. It just means that homo sapiens would have come about a few million years later than it did. A drop in the bucket when talking about planetary timescales.
And that's not even taking into account the fact that there were plenty of surprisingly smart dinosaurs as well. The troodons and baryonyx, for example, both had very large craniums and were much smarter than the big plodding beasts we usually think of when it comes to dinosaurs. Either one of these could have evolved increasing intelligences just like mammals did.
You're a few billion years off there. After that(that being the extinction of the dinosaurs), it only took 65 million years for our ancestors to get to where we are today. And all of the technological and cultural wonders we've created to set us apart from the dumb beasts of the world have only happened in the last 10,000 years or so. Again, another even smaller drop in the bucket as far as planetary timescales go.Plus, there's a few billion years of evolution after that, so if the planet isn't that old to begin with, the species wouldn't be evolved yet. From a rational perspective, the chances are very slim that life as intelligent as humans live anywhere else besides earth.
As far as Gliese 581c is concerned, the planet's sun is 7-10 billion years old, almost twice as old as our own sun in fact. According to current planetary theory, Gliese 581c would have formed in a relatively short amount of time after the star itself(a few million years or so), thus meaning Gliese 581c is most likely far older than Earth, and thus any life there would have had much more time to develop.
Natural disasters(and I'm assuming you mean global-scale catastrophic disasters like asteroid impacts, super volcanoes, and ice ages, not insignificant things like floods or tornadoes) don't account for even a fraction of the total extinctions that have taken place throughout the Earth's history. Extinction is a natural and inevitable part of evolution, and billions of species are going to go extinct over the course of billions of years, natural disasters or not. Anywhere you have darwinian life at all, you're going to have extinctions at a relatively consistent rate.I'm not saying that other life doesn't exists, just not intelligent life. Think of the circumstances that occurred on earth for humans to be where we are today. Billions of species were wiped out by natural disasters. The chances of those disasters happening exactly the same way to exactly the same billions of species is astronomically low.
Any atmosphere that protects the planet's surface from solar radiation and minor bombardment, as well as allows a pressurized gas-filled environment without becoming too thick and causing a runaway greenhouse affect will do just fine for life similar to our own. There's a Goldilocks scenario for atmospheres just like there is for planets. Not to thin like Mars to prevent gases from escaping, but not to thick like Venus to allow some of the gas to escape and keep the temperature down. As long as you're between those two extremes, there's no reason to count out life as absolutely as you are. And if our search for exoplanets has shown you anything, it's that the Goldilocks zone is anything but "astronomically impossible".The atmosphere on the new planet would have to be exact to that of earth's, and the evolution of the brain would have to be exact to that of humans. It's impossible. No intelligent life will ever be found, because no other intelligent life exists besides humans. Whoever disagrees obviously didn't look into the matter and is living in a world of science fiction. Real science will tell you that it's astronomically impossible.
The same thing goes for the brain. We have a very limited knowledge of just what makes our brain so special to begin with. There's no way you can state that our brain is something unique and unreproduceable when we don't even know how it works. As far as evolution goes, there's no reason to state with any certainty that our brain is anything more than the continuation of a theme - a theme of growing cranial capacity that has been going on for millions of years. And don't forget about Neanderthal Man, a seperate species from our own that also had brains just as developed, if not more developed than ours. A seperate species, but with a brain just as good as our own. Unless you can tell us just what you think is so special and unmatchable about our brain, there's no reason to think it isn't something that could have evolved in any number of mammals, or even other animals.
And as far as "astronomically impossible" goes, you really have no idea what a term like that means. 1 in a million is not astronomically impossible. 1 in a billion is not astronomically impossible. 1 in a trillion is not even astronomically impossible. Heck, you don't even start getting into astronomically improbable until you start getting into the 1 in a quadrillion range. There are hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy alone, and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, and there has been 13 billion years of time for things to happen around those thousands of billions of stars. If there is even a 1 in a billion chance of something happening, it is almost guaranteed 100% that not only has it happened, but it has happened countless times throughout the universe.
Wow, never? We already have technology that has left our solar system completely and is happily on its way into deep space(the Voyager spacecraft, anyone?). There's absolutely no reason to suggest that we'll never have technology that can reach the next star. Never is a long time, man. If everyone thought like that, we would never have gotten off the ground to begin with. With new advances in fusion power and beyond, we are well on our way to acheivable timeframes when it comes to interstellar travel.There will never be any technology that would be able to travel that far. A ship would have to be piloted, and no matter how fast the ship is going, it would take thousands of years to reach the planet, so by the time the ship would arrive, everybody would already be dead.
And by acheivable timeframes, I don't mean minutes or hours. 2000 years is perfectly possible. I don't see where you're pulling the idea that a ship has to be piloted by a human to go anywhere in the universe from. The vast majority of the spacecraft we've sent to other planets already has been doing so without any human pilots. Computer controlled spacecraft is the time-tested method by which we've been exploring space for the past 60 years. As far as the time involved, there's no reason one single person has to be manning the project. There's more than one person in the world, and there are always new people coming along to take the place of the old people. 10,000 years is a long time, but we as a species have already been around that long, and even assuming your narrow-minded claim that we'll never reach a technological level to make interstellar travel possible on a short-term scale, we will always have new scientists coming along to take over the reigns of any long-term projects we may have going. And of course, there's always the rather well-known idea of generational ships if you really want that human experience for journeys to other stars over thousands of years. Ever see Wall-E? Yeah, something like that, only without the human blobs. But that might be too "science-fiction-y" for you, so we'll just settle for computer controlled spacecraft.
You...don't really have a very good grasp on science do you? Radio waves will not break up after 10,000 years. If they did we wouldn't have any idea of what's going on outside of our solar system. We receive radio waves from stars and galax'es millions, billions of light-years away, meaning they are millions and billions of years old. And of course, any radio waves coming from Gliese 581c would not be anywhere near 10,000 years old. Radio waves travel at the speed of light, meaning it would only take them 20.5 years to get to us from Gliese 581. That means it would only take 41 years for us to send a message to Gliese and get a message back in return! That is well within both our lifespans. I'll be sure to come back here in 40 years and say "I told you so" if we happen to get anything back from Gliese 581.As for communication, radio waves break up, and if they do manage to reach that far, it would take about 10,000 years. I'm no rocket scientist, but I don't think any of us will be alive in 10,000 years. It's not likely.
Last edited by espritduo; 02-28-2009 at 04:30 PM.
Like the history of FFVI? Check out my prequel! FFVI: The Sands of Time
If you want a different answer, ask a different question. If you ask the exact same questions that I already answered, you're not looking for a new answer, you're looking for clarification.
I don't know. Why don't you go back in time and stop humans from migrating, and then come back to 2009 and see if anything is different? Since you're so into science fiction, you ought to know about time paradoxes.
For the development of the brain.
Using logic isn't stating what you believe, it's stating the most reasonable conclusion. You don't need hard evidence to use logic.
You people really need to learn how to shut up. Yes, the Voyager did leave the solar system, but how long will it take for it to travel 20 light years? As for the rest of your comment, it's too long, drawn out, and stupid, and I don't have the time to waste on people who's main purpose in life is to piss me off with ridiculously ridiculous comments.
Last edited by Clint; 02-28-2009 at 10:00 PM.
Human brain. There a might be intelligent life with a different way of thinking than ours. Possibly still a brain of some kind, possibly Lord knows what. None of us have been out there to see for ourselves, have we?
victoria aut mors
Voyager is travelling at 50,000 Kph. It would take it a very long time indeed to make it to 20 light years(about 400,000 years). Considering it was never inteaded to go to Gliese, or even as far as it has, that's an irrelevant comparison and not the point I was trying to make. You said we'd never have technology to go that far, and yet the very first, most primitive thing we've sent out so far is already out of our solar system, and we 're getting faster and better all the time. We're making better spacecraft all the time, and at the rate we're going we'll probably have something that can go a hundred times faster than Voyager within your lifetime(we already have vehicles that have gone around 150,000 kph out in space right now - the Helios probes). Sustained fusion power is at the cusp of being commercially viable, and that alone with bring us a good bit of the way towards viable interstellar travel.
I systematically and categorically disproved and knocked down every uninformed comment you made. If that pisses you off, well I'm sorry but you need to grow up and learn how to debate instead of throwing a tantrum when someone disagrees with you.As for the rest of your comment, it's too long, drawn out, and stupid, and I don't have the time to waste on people who's main purpose in life is to piss me off with ridiculously ridiculous comments.
When you can answer even one thing I said with an informed argument based on facts(protip - facts have sources to back them up) instead of your own personal opinion, come back and see me.
Like the history of FFVI? Check out my prequel! FFVI: The Sands of Time
What did you think that "Did I get that right?" meant? I was indeed asking for clarification. It was a question with a yes or no answer, you ansered no, then proceeded to explain by stating the same exact assumptions, which leads me to believe that the answer is yes. The only conclusion I can come to is the same as the first one I came to.
That was exactly my point. You don't know. Yet you proceeded to use something that you don't know as a reason why it'd have to happen that way.I don't know. Why don't you go back in time and stop humans from migrating, and then come back to 2009 and see if anything is different? Since you're so into science fiction, you ought to know about time paradoxes.
And just so you know, I'm not into science fiction at all. You seem to enjoy far more science fiction than I do.
Do you mean the human brain? Because that's not what I was asking for.For the development of the brain.
You really seem to have misread what I said there. I never said that using logic is stating what you believe. I said that to support what you believe, you can use logic.Using logic isn't stating what you believe, it's stating the most reasonable conclusion. You don't need hard evidence to use logic.
You stated "It's impossible." The only way to support such a statement is not through mere logic, but through facts. Without facts, you could only reasonably state that you believe it's impossible.
Also, logic isn't stating the most reasonable conclusion. It's a means to a conclusion. It's also good to note that logic can be flawed, and from what I see, yours is very much so.
You would do well to apply some self-reflection.You people really need to learn how to shut up. Yes, the Voyager did leave the solar system, but how long will it take for it to travel 20 light years? As for the rest of your comment, it's too long, drawn out, and stupid, and I don't have the time to waste on people who's main purpose in life is to piss me off with ridiculously ridiculous comments.
You should also learn to interpret what others are saying. The Voyager was not the point of espritduo's paragraph. How long it would take the Voyager to travel 20 light years is irrelevant to his point. The rest of his post was also not as you suggest, but rather well thought-out and informative. It also had many facts to support it. A much better read than a claim that something is impossible based only on assumptions.
Then there's you stating that our only purpose in life is to piss you off? I'm sorry, but that is not my intent. I'm asking these questions so I can learn from you, since you clearly know so much more than me.
Speaking of which, you never answered my question earlier, about why it's impossible. You've also not explained why the brain must be exactly that of the humans, nor why it couldn't possibly take another path to reach the same end.
Let me try another approach... I'm an idiot. I need you to explain why to me.
It's impossible.
Why?
Because it'd have the happen exactly the same way.
Why?
To develop the brain to exactly the same as the humans'.
Why?!
Please explain the whole thing to me. Please tell me why it must be so, and why there are no other alternatives.
Last edited by Fluffy; 02-28-2009 at 11:22 PM.
Will you be alive in 400,000 years? If so, where is the fountain of youth?
I stopped arguing about this topic yesterday. If you're trying to debate, you're talking to a brick wall. I don't care about your wasted copy and paste comment. Go do another one. I'll be sure to not read it.
Good point. That must have slipped my mind.
Not the human brain, because any form of intelligent alien life wouldn't be human. I mean the literal development of the brain, because that is what made humans so smart to begin with. And if you weren't asking for that, then what, exactly, were you asking for?
Humans have been known to grow wings spontaneously and fly around the world in less than thirty minutes. I believe that this is impossible, but according to your theory, I can't be too sure.
Yes, and I came to the most reasonable conclusion. I'm pretty sure I said that before.
Can you lend me a mirror?
It's also plagiarism. Nobody thinking clearly would ever waste that much time responding to a comment on something as petty as an internet forum, unless if since the invention of the internet, people have begun to go insane... I think that might be right.
Okay, if you say so. I wouldn't have put it that way and in that sarcastic manner, but thank you.
You really shouldn't put yourself down like that.
The brain is what makes us smart. In order for high intelligence to be established, you have to have the brain. The human has the most advanced brain in the world, which is why the planet is run by humans. An alien of high intelligence would have to have either that exact same brain, or something so similar that there isn't hardly a difference at all. In order for this, planet circumstances have to be very similar, environment, evolution, and all that good stuff. It all comes down to the brain. Without it, you don't have highly intelligent beings, because that's just not possible... Well, according to your theory, it could be impossible, but I can't be too sure, because there are those out there who believe that intelligence doesn't come from the brain, apparently. How well does a man function if he has been shot through the head and survived? Usually not very well.
Last edited by Clint; 02-28-2009 at 11:41 PM.
Way to completely ignore every word I said besides "400,000 years". Selective hearing FTW.
You'll stop arguing when you stop commenting. A brick wall, indeed.I stopped arguing about this topic yesterday. If you're trying to debate, you're talking to a brick wall. I don't care about your wasted copy and paste comment. Go do another one. I'll be sure to not read it.
Like the history of FFVI? Check out my prequel! FFVI: The Sands of Time
Now im not going to pretend I know anything or even look up anything,(Im just to lazy)but I really dont see why having another planet with "Intelligent Life" is really so not possible.
I could see a possiblity that this other "Intelligent Life" is so intelligent that it will not let us find it.
One thing I say and ask to anyone who will answere: "How is it we can tell how old this planet is?"
I must say that this is your best post in this so far. But from what I can tell, it isn't sufficient to prove that it's impossible. I can see the logic behind some of this, but it's still filled with assumptions based on our very limited knowledge of the universe. The main assumption being that life, especially intelligent life, must be similar to that on Earth. While that may be true, and maybe it's very likely to be true, I don't think it'd be reasonable to say that it definitely is true.
For example, we don't really have a good grasp on how exactly the brain works. Do you really think, based on our limited knowledge of even our own brains, that it's reasonable to say that it's impossible that there could be a brain that's extremely different but still works in similar ways?
Last edited by Fluffy; 03-01-2009 at 12:22 AM.
As far as the human brain goes, it's actual physical makeup is for the most part identical to the brains found in almost every other organism. There's only a tiny, tiny portion that covers the surface of the brain(the neocortex of the cerebral cortex) that makes us any different from our pets. That's it. The rest of the brain below that layer is anatomically almost exactly the same as lesser animals. It's not like our brain is wholly different from an animal's brain. The brain has been evolving steadily for hundreds of millions of years before humans, and our sentience is only the latest development on top of the countless other parts of the brain that have already evolved. It's not very difficult to believe this one little development(which we still don't understand very well) could happen elsewhere, and there is no reason to believe it is something so remarkable, evolution-wise, that it could never happen again anywhere ever in the entire history of the universe.
And there's certainly no reason to think that any one specific environment has anything to do with brain development. The brain is an all-purpose tool that gives a distinct advantage to any organism that has one. It's not like lifeforms living in the desert or under the ocean don't need a brain.
If you mean the planet Gliese 581c, we can infer its probable age by the age of the star. The star Gliese 581 is a red dwarf star, which is a relatively slow-burning star with a very predictable(and long) lifespan. Based on the type of light it emits we can gauge how much of its hydrogen has been converted into helium, and thus tell how long it's been around burning that hydrogen. Assuming the planet followed what we understand as normal planetary formation, it would have formed from debris around the star a few million years after the star itself formed.
Last edited by espritduo; 03-01-2009 at 01:06 AM.
Like the history of FFVI? Check out my prequel! FFVI: The Sands of Time
Well then I suppose that could put some evidence twords the statement that life on this planet most likely has not had time to evolve as much as humans. I am however still open to thinking that there is a possibility that the planet was formed before the star.
As for talking about brains, it is possible that this slight evolution in the brain has happened on other creatures far away from us. This would then show us other life that has a far more advanced brain then humans,but it still dose not define their intelligence.
No, it supports the exact opposite conclusion. This star is much, much older than our own sun(our sun is a little less than 5 billion years old, Gliese 581 is 7-10 billion years old). If the planet was formed a few million years after the star was formed, it too would be 7-10 billion years old. Our Earth is only 4.6 billion years old.
And there is no way the planet could form before the star it orbits around. Planets are formed from the leftover debris that didn't go into making the star. The star's gravity then gives the remaining debris the push it needs to clump together in orbit around the star. There's just no scientific precedent for a planet forming before its star - that flies in the face of all astrophysical knowledge and observation.
Like the history of FFVI? Check out my prequel! FFVI: The Sands of Time
Yes, that's true. You really know how to use those online encyclopedias. But what makes humans different from many other species with brains is the development of that top layer. It's true that our pets have the same brain as us, but their brain isn't as evolved.
Reptiles have only the old brain. Most other mammals have the old brain and the Limbic region of the brain. Humans, on the other hand have the old brain, the Limbic region, and the new brain, Neocortex region. Some other mammals do have all three sections of the brain, but their Neocortex isn't as developed.
The brain is remarkable. Right now, you are agreeing with me that it would take the brain to support intelligent life. The brain's evolution would be different if the dinosaurs weren't wiped out. There would be no highly intelligent life on earth, because the dominant species would still be dinosaurs, and humans wouldn't have the right opportunity to evolve. So if reptiles ruled that planet, which they would at first, considering that all life comes from water, and the oldest physical species after fish were reptiles, then that planet wouldn't be able to sustain highly intelligent life.
The brain developed in earth's environment. It wouldn't have developed if there was no atmosphere.
Last edited by Clint; 03-01-2009 at 09:46 AM.
You seem to be stuck on the idea that the part of the human brain that makes us what we are is so special that it could never have appeared ever anywhere else under any other circumstances, and yet you refuse to say why that is. There's no reason to assume our brain or something equivalent to it wouldn't have developed under a host of different circumstances.
Here, let me give you an example: Fish and whales. Both have evolved fins and strealined bodies designed for living under water. Both evolved these traits completely seperately and at completely different times. Whales were originally land-dwelling animals related to hippos. They gradually moved back into the water and evolved organs and body parts in order to live there. And remarkably, they look very similar to fish, despite not being fish at all. Even more remarkably, as similar as they are, they still are different, with blowholes instead of gills, and horizontal tail fins instead of vertical tailfins, to name a few differences. This shows that there isn't only one correct answer to evolution, and that the same evolutionary paths can be reached from completely different points.
Going back to my point, if the dinosaurs had survived for another 60 million years, there's no reason to say flat out they couldn't have developed intelligence just like mammals eventually did(like I said previously, there already were dinosaurs with remarkably developed and still developing brains when they were wiped out), and there's no reason to say mammals couldn't have eventually developed intelligence even with the dinosaurs around. Unless you're capable of predicting exactly how evolution will turn out(and you aren't), you cannot dictate terms on how life would or would not have evolved under differerent circumstances, or even under the same circumestances.
And yeah, an atmosphere is probably needed for advanced life as we know it, but most of the planets in our solar system have atmospheres, and even some of the moons. There's nothing special about an atmosphere, and there's no reason to suggest our atmosphere is the only exactly combination of gases that could support intelligent life, or even that you need any of those gases in the first place. You need to start explaining WHY you think all these unrelated circumstances are absolutely required for intelligence, instead of just saying they are because they are. Your snide remark about me using online encyclopedias, which I do not, is ironically some good advice that you should take yourself. Use facts to support your arguments, instead of your own unsupported convictions. If you're going to make a claim, especially a controversial and radical one, use a fact to back it up.
Like the history of FFVI? Check out my prequel! FFVI: The Sands of Time
The brain went through billions of years of evolution. From reptiles, to mammals, to migration, which leads to different environments and therefore leads to different ways of evolution. Those different styles of evolution occurring over those billions of years is what makes humans smart. In order for that part of the brain to be developed elsewhere would require circumstances, migration, and evolution to be near exact. Nobody knows what happened during those early years of development, but the slightest change could have sent humans back a notch on the food chain. In other words, there can't be any missing links.
Dinosaurs were reptiles. The reptilian brain is the old brain. Even though they are one of the oldest species on the planet, they still have only that old brain. If the dinosaurs had remained alive, there would be no development, as seen with today's reptiles.
The dominating species holds back all others. Think of Planet of the Apes, for example. In those movies, the apes are the dominating species on the planet, and the humans aren't even smart enough to talk.
It's true, other planets in our solar system can hold life. Microorganisms. In order for life to grow, however, earth's climate and atmosphere is needed. However, if earth was off it's axis by only a little bit; a bit further to the sun and we'd all fry, a bit further away and we'd all freeze. It's not just about climate, it's about the other planet being in exactly the axis around a sun exactly the same size, as earth is in.
There also has to be a moon corresponding to the scale of our moon. The moon is essential for the magnetic field. If there was no moon, or if the moon was too small, too much radiation would get into the atmosphere, and the planet would become like Mars. A barren wasteland.
Or the slightest change may have made our brains even more developed than it is now. Like you said, nobody knows, so what makes you think you do? You don't even know what the links are, and yet you seem to think they are not only vital, but unique to our particular path, and that no other path could have ever worked. Tell me what links can't be missing, tell me why they can't be missing, and tell me why no other possible permutations of evolution could possibly work, and you'll have yourself a leg to stand on.
Dinosaurs were not anything like modern day reptiles. Dinosaurs were markedly different from any reptiles living today and are far removed from most of them, with crocodiles being the only reptiles even remotely related to them. Their "old" brain was the brain they had 65 million years ago, a brain whose basic set up was shared by most of the animals on the planet at that time. There wasn't anything "old" about it at the time. They got wiped out, so of course their brain never developed any further. If they hadn't, then certain species of dinosaurs like the troodons and Baryonyx very possibly would have continued their trend of growing brain size and complexity. You don't know what would have happend, so you can't say anything about what could have been with the dinosaurs.Dinosaurs were reptiles. The reptilian brain is the old brain. Even though they are one of the oldest species on the planet, they still have only that old brain. If the dinosaurs had remained alive, there would be no development, as seen with today's reptiles.
Besides, it is widely accepted by most scientists today that some dinosaurs did in fact survive, and they evolved into what we now know today as birds, which have a much more complex brain(in fact birds such as crows are considered some of the smartest animals alive today) and *gasp* the power of flight. Even us almighty humans never evolved that particular biological feat. Although there were plenty of other animals that did, completely seperately from birds. If something as amazing as flight(another biological process we do not fully understand) could be duplicated multiple times throughout evolutionary history in multiple organism at different times and under different circumstances, why is the brain so much more special? Why, why, why? Answer.
So now you're the one using science fiction to support your claims? It is true, though, that there was something about homo sapiens that allowed us to beat out our other primate competitors, but there's no evidence it was a superior brain. Like I said before, Neanderthals had the same brains as us, if not even more developed, and we still won the evolutionary struggle. There's a lot of things besides brain power that go into deciding which species becomes the dominant form in a particular niche, not just brains. And there's no reason to assume that a species would have to be the dominant lifeform to have intelligence, just because we happen to be on top now(and that's only from our perspective - I'm sure ants, bacteria, and other wildly successful organisms in their own right could care less about what us humans are up to). Unless you can point to something other than a B movie from the 60's as evidence, I'm afraid you don't have any reason to make the assumptions you're making.The dominating species holds back all others. Think of Planet of the Apes, for example. In those movies, the apes are the dominating species on the planet, and the humans aren't even smart enough to talk.
Again, why? Why, why, why? You say things like Earth's exact atmosphere and exact climate are necessary for any form of intelligent life, and yet you give no reasons, nor any reasons why these things are non-duplicatable in the vastness of space.It's true, other planets in our solar system can hold life. Microorganisms. In order for life to grow, however, earth's climate and atmosphere is needed. However, if earth was off it's axis by only a little bit; a bit further to the sun and we'd all fry, a bit further away and we'd all freeze. It's not just about climate, it's about the other planet being in exactly the axis around a sun exactly the same size, as earth is in.
As far as Earth's position, we've already found planets that have the right position in relation to their sun, and we're only going to find more, so there's no reason to state as a matter of fact that Earth's position in the solar system is anything unique.
The moon has nothing at all to do with Earth's magnetic field. Literally nothing. Earth's magnetic field is produced by the spinning of its metal core, not the Moon.There also has to be a moon corresponding to the scale of our moon. The moon is essential for the magnetic field. If there was no moon, or if the moon was too small, too much radiation would get into the atmosphere, and the planet would become like Mars. A barren wasteland.
Like the history of FFVI? Check out my prequel! FFVI: The Sands of Time
Evolutionary links. If you stop a species from evolving by not allowing that species to migrate, then those links are broken, and the span of events has changed from what it should have been. For example, if ancient primates hadn't been able to migrate, we wouldn't exist.
Modern reptiles tell what the brains of dinosaurs would have become. The crocodile is one of the oldest animals on the planet, and yet, it has only the old brain. The crocodile was around during the time of the dinosaurs, and yet, it's brain hasn't evolved. It doesn't know logic or reason. All it has are basic survival instincts.
Birds wouldn't know what to do with their wings if they didn't have a brain.
Who's to say that all the different primate species of humans didn't became the modern day human? You don't know what happened with the Neanderthals. They could have easily mated with other species of human. Also, it is safe to assume that the dominant life form is the most intelligent, because the most intelligent builds society focusing around itself, and dominates the entire planet. For example, humans run the earth.
Without earth's atmosphere, microorganisms can survive, but do you actually think that microorganisms are intelligent? There are basic elements that make up the structure of an organism, and those particular elements can't survive in just any atmosphere.
You also have to find a planet located at the same location of earth, orbiting around the same sized sun. If the sun was any bigger, we'd fry. If it was any smaller, we'd freeze.
Yes it does. The magnetic field is produced by the spinning of the core, but the moon is what stabilizes it. You didn't think the moon's only purpose was to serve the tides, did you?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks