New Earth like Planet Discovered

[Clint]

No it doesn't. I'm not even going to respond to the rest of this statement because your chain of thought is completely off-base and doesn't have a shred of scientific sense behind it. When you can provide one single scientific statement that says the Moon has anything to do with our planet's magnetic field, I'll listen. Until then, you can keep spouting nonsense and insults until the cows come home.

"The Earth's axis of rotation is tilted 23.4° away from the perpendicular to its orbital plane,[18] producing seasonal variations on the planet's surface with a period of one tropical year (365.24 solar days). Earth's only known natural satellite, the Moon, which began orbiting it about 4.53 billion years ago, provides ocean tides, stabilizes the axial tilt and gradually slows the planet's rotation."

Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can't look up earth on Wikipedia? Since I've just proven that the moon stabilizes earth's axis, then it's safe to assume that I was right about the magnetic field, as well, considering that if earth didn't have a stable axis, the magnetic field wouldn't be stable, either. So, I guess this argument is done... No, you have something else to complain about? Damn...

I'd read them if you would show them to me. But you seem unable to support anything you've said since the beginning with a single outside source. I am fully aware of what gorillas are capable of learning, but there are limits, and those limits are imposed on them by biological differences between their brains and ours. Of course, I fail to see how proving that gorillas have the intelligent brains you say only humans can possess actually helps your argument to begin with.

"The intelligence of gorilla is still being explored. However, it's known that they are not as curious or excitable as its nearest relative, the chimpanzee, instead, gorilla shows more persistence and memory retention in solving a problem and is more likely to perform a task out of interest than to earn a reward, It also discriminates between geometrical shapes more effectively. After some success with chimpanzees, researchers in the mid-1970s turned their attention to communicate with gorillas by means of the American sign language, and one gorilla mastered more than 1000 words."

http://www.geocities.com/bioeureka/gorillas.htm

Since you can't google anything, here's something for you. If you want to learn more, do research, because I'm not doing it for you.

[espritduo]

"The Earth's axis of rotation is tilted 23.4° away from the perpendicular to its orbital plane,[18] producing seasonal variations on the planet's surface with a period of one tropical year (365.24 solar days). Earth's only known natural satellite, the Moon, which began orbiting it about 4.53 billion years ago, provides ocean tides, stabilizes the axial tilt and gradually slows the planet's rotation."

Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can't look up earth on Wikipedia? Since I've just proven that the moon stabilizes earth's axis, then it's safe to assume that I was right about the magnetic field, as well, considering that if earth didn't have a stable axis, the magnetic field wouldn't be stable, either. So, I guess this argument is done... No, you have something else to complain about? Damn...

If you're going to use wikipedia, use it right.

Tidal acceleration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tidal locking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Earth's magnetic field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dynamo theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Moon will never "stop" the rotation of the Earth, merely synchronize with it.

Also, the Moon keeps the Earth's axis within a small obliquity as compared to other planets, but this has no impact on the sustaining of magnetic fields. An overly stable axis is not a requirement for a magnetic field, as evinced by the numerous magnetic fields present on other planets, as well as stars. You need to show me an article that actually connects the Moon with Earth's magnetic field, not an article that connects the moon with something else that you think should connect with the magnetic field.

Although I will give you this - I misspoke earlier when I agreed that a longer orbit could cause longer winters. Earth's seasons(and that includes winter) are caused by the gradual changing of its tilt towards and away from the sun, not by its variable distance due to an elliptical orbit, a common misconception that I fell prey to, despite the fact that I should know better. So no, a longer orbit would not necessarily cause a longer winter. Also, the temperature difference between summer and winter at the equator, where life is most abundant, is almost non-existent, as any Floridan who marvels at that thing called "snow" will tell you.

"The intelligence of gorilla is still being explored. However, it's known that they are not as curious or excitable as its nearest relative, the chimpanzee, instead, gorilla shows more persistence and memory retention in solving a problem and is more likely to perform a task out of interest than to earn a reward, It also discriminates between geometrical shapes more effectively. After some success with chimpanzees, researchers in the mid-1970s turned their attention to communicate with gorillas by means of the American sign language, and one gorilla mastered more than 1000 words."

Gorilla

You showed me nothing that you hadn't already stated, and that I didn't already know. Nothing there suggests gorillas are capable of human-level intellect, merely that they're very smart for animals. As I already said, I am fully aware of just what gorillas can do, and while it is impressive, nothing there is noteworthy to the argument at hand.

Since you can't google anything, here's something for you. If you want to learn more, do research, because I'm not doing it for you.

No. The burden of proof is on YOU to provide evidence to back up your claims. And I have done the research as I've been arguing with you, and found nothing to support the five points I stated before, including the links you just posted(although I commend your effort at actualy providing links for a change). All the facts I've stated so far are well-known scientific ideas that can be easily verified by a quick google search. All the "facts" you've stated have absolutely nothing to back them up, and the fact that you didn't answer a single one of the five points I asked you to address with conclusive scientific support is proof of that.

[Clint]

The Moon will never "stop" the rotation of the Earth, merely synchronize with it.

I never said it would stop the rotation.

An overly stable axis is not a requirement for a magnetic field, as evinced by the numerous magnetic fields present on other planets, as well as stars.

You're correct. Axis stability isn't a requirement for a planet to have a magnetic field, but once again, I never said that. I said that without a proper axis, the magnet field would go haywire, meaning that there would be no stability within the magnetic field.

As I already said, I am fully aware of just what gorillas can do, and while it is impressive, nothing there is noteworthy to the argument at hand.

Too bad I don't know the argument. This just seems like a bunch of bullshit relating to earth's magnetic field and the brains of gorillas, but not actually about the topic that this thread is about.

All the facts I've stated so far are well-known scientific ideas that can be easily verified by a quick google search.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I never have been. But for some reason, you keep bickering like a little schoolgirl.

didn't answer a single one of the five points I asked you to address with conclusive scientific support is proof of that.

Well perhaps that's because I never saw any five points, considering that I discard most of what you say.

What's to say that other variables cannot allow life to, y'know... have intelligence? It may not be life EXACTLY like us, because they would probably have different laws, weather and the such- or different elements, as it may. Keep in mind that even if the same exact parameters did not exist, the environment is one of the keys to evolution. Whoever or wherever those beings on that particular planet are, even if they aren't intelligent, you can't deny that they are the building blocks to an intelligent race.

I agree. They could be the building blocks to intelligent life, but nobody knows how an undiscovered species is going to utilize their brains. Despite what the E-Sprit Duo thinks, I never denied alien life from existing. It's very likely that it exists, but the circumstances that it took for humans to, not gain intelligence, but to utilize intelligence may not be present on that particular planet. Concerning that only one species on earth utilized intelligence, out of trillions more species, the chances of it happening on that other planet are unlikely, but just like on earth, it could happen. Let me guess, Espritduo has a complaint about this comment as well, even though I wasn't addressing him?

You need to show me an article that actually connects the Moon with Earth's magnetic field, not an article that connects the moon with something else that you think should connect with the magnetic field.

It's hard to find them on one source, but information from multiple sources will give you your answer.

Reville, W., "Looking on the bright side of the moon," The Irish Times, May 30, 2002.

McWilliams, B., "Our primordial indebtedness to the moon," The Irish Times, August 21, 2002.

Put them together, and you have your answer. If you want to know more, do the research yourself. Plus, anybody with half a brain would be able to figure out that a stable axis equals a stable magnetic field, because without a stable axis, the magnetic poles would be out of place, and continuously moving.

[espritduo]

I never said it would stop the rotation.

You're right, you didn't. I just assumed that's where you were going, since I don't really know what else you would be implying by saying there was any importance in the moon stabilizing Earth's axis in regards to life on Earth. And honestly, I still dont. More on that later.

You're correct. Axis stability isn't a requirement for a planet to have a magnetic field, but once again, I never said that. I said that without a proper axis, the magnet field would go haywire, meaning that there would be no stability within the magnetic field.

Go haywire, huh. Define stability of the magnetic field, since you seem to be misunderstanding what that actually means as far as the field goes and how it impacts life. A stable field is not required for life as we know it, only a sustainable field. There's a difference.

Too bad I don't know the argument. This just seems like a bunch of bullshit relating to earth's magnetic field and the brains of gorillas, but not actually about the topic that this thread is about.

You're the one that insisted on bringing them up in the first place in defense of your "no intelligent brain possible anywhere else" statement. I've simply been trying to get you to see that they, in fact, do not have anything to do with your statement, which whether you like it not, is now the topic this thread is about. If you've finally agreed that neither of them have anything to do with your original statement on the uniqueness of intelligent brains, then we may finally have a breakthrough here, folks.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I never have been. But for some reason, you keep bickering like a little schoolgirl.

Sure you are. Every time I try to explain why your assumptions surrounding your "unique intelligent brain" theory are wrong on a basic scientific level, you disagree and make up some other reason as to why they aren't, forcing me to continue correcting you ad infinitum.

Well perhaps that's because I never saw any five points, considering that I discard most of what you say.

That's a shame, because they're the entire crux of your pet theory, and if you'd bother to pay attention to them and answer them, you'd go a long way in the credibility department.

I agree. They could be the building blocks to intelligent life, but nobody knows how an undiscovered species is going to utilize their brains. Despite what the E-Sprit Duo thinks, I never denied alien life from existing. It's very likely that it exists, but the circumstances that it took for humans to, not gain intelligence, but to utilize intelligence may not be present on that particular planet. Concerning that only one species on earth utilized intelligence, out of trillions more species, the chances of it happening on that other planet are unlikely, but just like on earth, it could happen. Let me guess, Espritduo has a complaint about this comment as well, even though I wasn't addressing him?

The only complaint I have is that it now gives me nothing to argue because you've just recinded your original statement that intelligent life is not possible outside of humans, which is the core of what I've been arguing with you about from the beginning. In case you've forgotten:

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.

THAT is what I've been arguing against since the get-go.

If you're willing to admit that in the vastness of space there is the possibility that intelligent life other than ourselves could exist, then you've undone every other argument you've made since then, and I'm as pleased as punch to throw in the towel. Congratulations, and welcome to the other side of the fence.

It's hard to find them on one source, but information from multiple sources will give you your answer.

Reville, W., "Looking on the bright side of the moon," The Irish Times, May 30, 2002.

McWilliams, B., "Our primordial indebtedness to the moon," The Irish Times, August 21, 2002.

Put them together, and you have your answer. If you want to know more, do the research yourself.

I found one of those two articles online here, It appears "Looking on the bright side of the moon" is nothing more than a simple crash course on the basic facts of the moon. While informative, it states absolutely nothing about the moon's affect on Earth's magnetic field. I have found nothing on the second article you listed, so I can't say one way or another what it claims. I tried looking through the Irish Times, and it wasn't there, and there is no record of Brendan McWilliams ever writing that article. If you have access to it, post it here so I can read it. So here we stand again, with still not one single shread of evidence on your part requiring the moon for earth's magnetic field.

Plus, anybody with half a brain would be able to figure out that a stable axis equals a stable magnetic field, because without a stable axis, the magnetic poles would be out of place, and continuously moving.

And this is where you are right, and yet so wrong. You're right that a stable axis will allow for a stable magnetic field, but stable is completely different from sustainable, as I mentioned before. One of these is useful, but not vital, the other is vital. The only real impact an unstable magnetic field would have on life on earth is that we wouldn't be able to use things like compasses to find our way(and I guess birds would get lost more easily). The actual strength of the field and the beneficial effects of the magnetosphere would not be impacted in any meaningful way by moving poles. Even with moving poles, the field is still there, still sustaining itself through dynamo processes, and still protecting us from the solar winds. Heck, as long as the poles move in a predetermined and calculatable fashion, we could still use them to navigate, albeit in a more roundabout way.

And hey, look at this, you want an article about the moon's stabilization of Earth's axis and how it impacts life on Earth? Well here you go, I'm going to do the job you should be doing.

The Moon And Plate Tectonics: Why We Are Alone

This guy makes a much more compelling argument about the importance of the moon to life on Earth, and I wouldn't mind debating with him on the finer points of his theory, because it actually has real facts supporting it and is well reasoned and properly researched. Oh, and look at this excerpt from his article:

"The bulk of arguments about the Moon relate to its effect on the orbital dynamics of the Earth-Moon system (which is stabilised against spin-axis inclination variations, unlike Mars), and to the tidal influence on ecosystems (developing broad coastal flats with regular currents, water-depth variations, and monthly cycles).

None of these are compelling arguments for the origin or nature of life. Instead, we look here at plate tectonics as an essential engine for maintaining the continent/ocean duality on Earth, which enabled advanced life to emerge on land and develop to a tool-using electro-mechanical civilisation (our definition of "advanced life"?)."

So there you go. An actual scientific article written by a scientist saying flat out that the stabilization of Earth's axis by the moon(and thus anything related to this stabilization) does not have an impact on life. Of course he goes on to say that the removal of 70% of the earth's crust by the formation of the moon was necessary for highly intelligent life and technology to develop, but that's a whole other can of worms that I could debate with you on as well if you like, but I don't think you want to keep this going forever, do you?

[Clint]

If you're willing to admit that in the vastness of space there is the possibility that intelligent life other than ourselves could exist, then you've undone every other argument you've made since then, and I'm as pleased as punch to throw in the towel. Congratulations, and welcome to the other side of the fence.

There are trillions of species on earth alive today. There have been many more species on earth that are no longer alive today. That's a great number of species. Do you agree? One species, out of that great number, have been able to achieve intelligence. So the chances of that happening on another planet full of life is one out of a multi-googol. If you want to believe in those chances, then be my guest, but the chances of it actually happening are slim to none. I'm pretty sure I already stated that before, but there you go again. Get over it, and stop trying to change my mind via Wikipedia.

Of course he goes on to say that the removal of 70% of the earth's crust by the formation of the moon was necessary for highly intelligent life and technology to develop, but that's a whole other can of worms that I could debate with you on as well if you like, but I don't think you want to keep this going forever, do you?

You just proved my point of view even more. In order for intelligent life to form on another planet, 70% of the crust has to be removed and formed into an orbiting moon. Then, the orbiting moon will stabilize the axis, which will stabilize the magnetic field. So it's not one out of a multi-googol. With these circumstances, it's actually higher then that. So if you want to continuing to believe that it's more than likely possible for other intelligent life to begin, then please, continue bickering like a little schoolgirl.

[espritduo]

There are trillions of species on earth alive today. There have been many more species on earth that are no longer alive today. That's a great number of species. Do you agree? One species, out of that great number, have been able to achieve intelligence. So the chances of that happening on another planet full of life is one out of a multi-googol. If you want to believe in those chances, then be my guest, but the chances of it actually happening are slim to none. I'm pretty sure I already stated that before, but there you go again. Get over it, and stop trying to change my mind via Wikipedia.

So now you recant what you just said?

Concerning that only one species on earth utilized intelligence, out of trillions more species, the chances of it happening on that other planet are unlikely, but just like on earth, it could happen.

You need to pick a stance and stick with it. Also, you need to stop using unsupported and wild hyperbole to try and show that your ideas hold weight. Trillions of species alive today? No. It is estimated that there are, at most, 10 million species alive today, with only 2 million currently classified. And it is estimated that about 99.9% of the total number of species are now extinct. That means there have only been about 10 billion species in total throughout earth's history, and I'm being generous with that estimate, assuming the maximum number of species alive today. And the vast majority of those species were direct descendants of the species alive today, ie, they are all part of the same evolutionary path. You can't count every single step along the path to intelligent life as a seperate species that didn't become intelligent. We weren't just one lone species with nothing connecting us to the other species that have existed. We owe our current intelligence to millions of different now-extinct species that came before us and played their small part in the evolution of intelligence.

And a multi-googol? Now you're not even trying to use real numbers to back up your arguments. If you mean a googolplex, then you really have no idea how incomprehensibly large of a number that is. A googol is 10 to the 100th power. That's 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. There are very few natural phenomenon that can have that number applied to them. A googolplex is 10 to the googol power. That's 1 followed by so many zeros that it is literally physically impossible to write them all out within the confines of our universe. There is nothing in the universe, either observed or potentially possible, that is capable of having that number applied to it.

If you're going to use numbers to try and back up your argument, use numbers that are correct and applicable, please. And you're the one that linked to wikipedia, I merely followed that link to the proper pages to refute what you said and prove what I said.

You just proved my point of view even more. In order for intelligent life to form on another planet, 70% of the crust has to be removed and formed into an orbiting moon. Then, the orbiting moon will stabilize the axis, which will stabilize the magnetic field. So it's not one out of a multi-googol. With these circumstances, it's actually higher then that. So if you want to continuing to believe that it's more than likely possible for other intelligent life to begin, then please, continue bickering like a little schoolgirl.

No, that's his theory, not yours, and I'm not going to argue his theory to you if you can't even quote him correctly. Do you even know why 70% of the Earth's crust needed to be removed? It had nothing to do with stabilizing the Earth's axis.

And there you go again with the stabilization thing. The guy says flat out that the stabilization of Earth's axis by the moon has no impact on the origin and nature of life on Earth. How many more ways do you need that fact thrown at you before you just let it drop?

And let me throw some real numbers at you, since you seem to like quoting off the wall large numbers when the actual numbers involved are much smaller, and the scales those numbers are applied to are much larger. Like I said before, according to our best estimates there have only been about 10 billion species on this planet. And even ignoring the fact that many of them are interrelated and form a continuous chain of evolution towards intelligence, that's a woefully small number on the galactic scale. But just for the sake of argument, let's take your incorrect reasoning and say that the odds of intelligent life forming on Earth specifically were 1 in 10 billion.

Using our own Milky Way galaxy(which is not a particularly large or small galaxy) as an average, let' say there are 300 billion stars in a single galaxy. About 10% of all stars are sun-like stars, and at least 10% of all sun-like stars are assumed to have planets around them(it's actually probably a much higher number than that, and is continually rising as we find more and more planets). That leaves us with 3 billion sun-like stars with planets in our own galaxy alone. We don't know what the odds are of these stars having Earth-like planets are, but we've already found rocky planets comparable to Earth in size and orbit out of the roughly 300 planets we've discovered. So let's just use Gliese 581d(the best candidate found so far for an Earth-like planet) and the small number of planets we've found so far as a base here and say the odds of a planet around a sun-like star being Earth-like are 1 in 300(it's probably higher than that even, considering we have found other planets that are earth-like as well, but let's just use this one planet for the sake of argument). That leaves us with 10 million Earth-like planets in our galaxy.

Now, let's not forget that there are other galaxies besides our own. There are over 100 billion galaxies besides our own, in fact. So now we have 100 billion galaxies with 10 million Earth-like planets each. That's 1 sextillion Earth-like planets in the universe. That's 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Now if the odds of an Earth-like planet forming intelligent life is 1 in 10 billion, then there are a whopping 100 billion other civilizations just as intelligent as us out there.

But let's not stop there. Since you want to include the moon-formation theory into the equation, I will. The period when the moon was formed from the collision of a Mars-sized object with our early Earth was a chaotic period full of cataclysmic collisions between all sorts of large astronomical bodies called planetesimals, and there is no reason to consider that one particular collision among so many others of equal or greater magnitude as something truly one of a kind, or even rare, in the universe. But let's say the odds of the Mars-sized planetesimal colliding with Earth during that time was 1 in a billion. That's an extremely low estimate, and the actual odds during that time were undoubtedly much higher, but let's just use it to drive my point home. Even with the odds that ridiculously low(much lower than they probably are), there should still be at least 100 other civilizations out there. Whether we could ever contact or find them is still questionable, but that is irrelevant to the topic at hand. The odds suggest that they are out there, not the other way around.

[Clint]

So now you recant what you just said?
Trillions of species alive today? No. It is estimated that there are, at most, 10 million species alive today, with only 2 million currently classified.

You should pick a stance and stick with it. Are there ten million species alive today, or are there two million? If only two million are classified, doesn't that mean that there's only two million alive today? Because if an animal is discovered, it's given a name, which would therefore classify it.

And just for the record, I was talking about all species, including plant life and microorganisms. If my calculations are correct, they are, or for the ones that went extinct, were at one time, alive on earth. Therefore, my statement about a trillion alive today, and even more extinct was correct.

We owe our current intelligence to millions of different now-extinct species that came before us and played their small part in the evolution of intelligence.

Therefore, that other planet would have to have a similar species in each place of that intelligence-link species, correct? Isn't that exactly what I said earlier? Are you arguing with me, because the more you talk, the more you seem to agree with me?

And a multi-googol? Now you're not even trying to use real numbers to back up your arguments. If you mean a googolplex, then you really have no idea how incomprehensibly large of a number that is. A googol is 10 to the 100th power.

Yeah, it's a big number. But out of those trillions of species, plus the moon thing that you talked about earlier, plus the exact replacement of every intelligence-link species, the chances of intelligent life occurring on another world would be about a multi-googol to one.

And you're the one that linked to wikipedia, I merely followed that link to the proper pages to refute what you said and prove what I said.

Hey, I was just showing you how easy it could be to research. I usually use academic search engines such as LexisNexis and EBSCOhost.

No, that's his theory, not yours, and I'm not going to argue his theory to you if you can't even quote him correctly. Do you even know why 70% of the Earth's crust needed to be removed? It had nothing to do with stabilizing the Earth's axis.

I didn't call it my theory, I called it my point of view, and all I said was that you proved my point even more.

As far as the stabilization is concerned, the removal of 70% of earth's crust did stabilize the earth, considering that that crust removed formed the moon. Not thinking two-dimensionally, are you?

And there you go again with the stabilization thing. The guy says flat out that the stabilization of Earth's axis by the moon has no impact on the origin and nature of life on Earth. How many more ways do you need that fact thrown at you before you just let it drop?

Yes, that's probably true, but it does have an impact on intelligent life, which has been the main point of my entire argument for the last few posts.

The odds suggest that they are out there, not the other way around.

And I entirely disagree. How about we leave it at that?