NASA Sets News Conference on Astrobiology Discovery

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by alltherage

Crazy to think how far behind we are compared to where they thought we would be by now.

No kidding, we are 9 years behind schedule on finding the monolith on the moon!

[CaptainCrunch]

Where's my jet pack and robot servant.

Ahead, we're about a century behind. Thanks a lot Bill Gates

[Flabbibulin]

Careful where you tread NASA- according to Stephen Hawking, ET is probably coming to suck out our brains.

[FlamesAddiction]

20 light years is practically in our lap compared to the vast size of our galaxy, so statistically speaking, it seems very likely it’s not unique. I don’t want to extrapolate from a data set of two (us and them), but if this is typical, there could be millions of such planets in the galaxy. Millions.

That's like finding a penny on the ground in your driveway, then walking a few feet away, finding another, and then jumping to the conclusion that there must be millions of dollars all over the city.

There is no reason assume it is typical.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Is a methane atmosphere that unusual? I was pretty sure that they had found evidence of extra solar planets with atmospheres similar to Titan. If it can happen in our solar system it probably is not the unusual?

Correct (March 2008):

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...asolar-methane

Astronomers report they have detected methane for the first time in the atmosphere of a planet outside our solar system. The finding comes from extrasolar planet HD 189733 b, a gaseous "hot Jupiter" locked in a tight orbit around a star 63 light-years away.

The observations "decisively show that methane is present in addition to water," writes the research team from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., and University College London. Members of the same team reported last year that they had identified water vapor in the atmosphere of HD 189733 b.

Although Earthlings may associate methane with gassy cows, it is a common and perfectly nonbiological constituent of other atmospheres in the solar system, including those of Mars and Titan as well as the gas giants Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. Researchers believe that methane and water would also be common components of planetary atmospheres outside of the solar system.

[3 Justin 3]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

That's like finding a penny on the ground in your driveway, then walking a few feet away, finding another, and then jumping to the conclusion that there must be millions of dollars all over the city.

There is no reason assume it is typical.

That's not how science works generally.

Unless Earth and this other unknown planet are complete anomalies, which I don't think this is the case, there probably are millions of planets (earth like).

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by 3 Justin 3

That's not how science works generally.

Unless Earth and this other unknown planet are complete anomalies, which I don't think this is the case, there probably are millions of planets (earth like).

Science works on evidence and not statistical extrapolation on data sets of two.

It doesn't work on "probablies".

We don't even know all of the parameters that are required to create a planet like Earth. For all we know, age of the solar system is a factor, which in that case, puts limits on where an Earth-like planet could exist at any given point in time. You couldn't extrapolate that data set to include the whole universe.

[North East Goon]

Damn - my money was on us finding extraterrestrial life BEFORE the next Oilers win!

[photon]

Science works on probabilities all the time, though those probabilities should usually be informed by evidence. Quantum mechanics is nothing but probabilities lol.

The cosmological principle is a good example of something driven by statistics and reasoning: " the cosmological principle is the working assumption that observers on Earth do not occupy a restrictive, unusual or privileged location within the universe as a whole, judged as observers of the physical phenomena produced by uniform and universal laws of physics."

It certainly could be shown to be incorrect, but is the more reasonable to start with the assumption you aren't unique or special in some way.

The earth certainly could be unique out of the 10^22 solar systems in the observable universe (ignoring the part of the universe we can't observe), but that's like balancing on the thin edge of a knife, that doesn't happen in nature. You expect there to either be zero, or plenty.

EDIT: Entropy is another thing which is statistical in nature. Entropy increases because of the number of probable states (or something like that, it's been a while).

[octothorp]

My guess is that they're announcing that NASA has acquired Matian distribution rights for all Beatles recordings.

[Knut]

I think NASA is conceding defeat to that lady that owns the sun. They are going to start paying her premiums for all the solar-powered instruments they use.

[3 Justin 3]

Between this (finding extra terrestrial life and new planets), finding the "god particle" and understanding more about matter/anti-matter and how particles work, this is a really exciting time in science IMO.

I still think the biggest and coolest mystery are black holes and worm holes. That and dark energy or dark matter.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

That's like finding a penny on the ground in your driveway, then walking a few feet away, finding another, and then jumping to the conclusion that there must be millions of dollars all over the city.

There is no reason assume it is typical.

http://www.planetary.org/news/2010/1...covery_of.html

How many habitable planets are there in our galaxy, worlds that can sustain liquid water and support life? A great many suggests Steven Vogt, professor of astronomy at the University of California Santa Cruz and co-leader of the Lick-Carnegie Exoplanet Survey. According to Vogt, 10 to 20 percent of planetary systems in our galaxy could contain at least one habitable planet. “When you multiply that by the hundreds of billions of stars in the Milky Way, that’s a large number. There could be tens of billions of these systems in our galaxy,” he mused.

And yet, despite monitoring such a small fraction of the stars that could potentially host a habitable planet, we have already found 2 -- Gliese 581g and, of course, the Sun. “If these are rare, we shouldn’t have found one so quickly and so nearby” said Vogt. The only reasonable conclusion is that habitable planets are, in fact, common in the galaxy. “The number of systems with potentially habitable planets is probably on the order of 10 to 20 percent” he estimated.

If Vogt and his colleagues are correct, the coming years should bring a flood of new discoveries of habitable planets around nearby stars. Given sufficient observing time, astronomers using existing technology with current levels of sensitivity should be able to detect a host of new habitable planets. “Our ability to find potentially habitable worlds is now limited only by our telescope time” said Paul Butler of the Carnegie institution, co-leader (with Vogt) of the Lick-Carnegie Exoplanet Survey.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by photon

Science works on probabilities all the time, though those probabilities should usually be informed by evidence. Quantum mechanics is nothing but probabilities lol.

A probability isn't the same as saying; "probably". I can look outside and see clouds and think that it will "probably" rain. Calculating the probability is something entirely different and would require a larger data set than two to be considered reliable... especially when inferring something as complex as this.

I can appreciate that there are "probably" countless Earth-like planets, but that just isn't good enough. If I said that there was "probably" global warming based on a couple of quick observations, I don't think many would argue that it wasn't exactly a scientific opinion.

[photon]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

A probability isn't the same as a "probably".

A probability tells you what the probably is.

There are no certainties, only levels of confidence given certain set of premises.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

That's like finding a penny on the ground in your driveway, then walking a few feet away, finding another, and then jumping to the conclusion that there must be millions of dollars all over the city.

There is no reason assume it is typical.

Maybe not millions of dollars...but how many pennys?

[CaptainCrunch]

Isn't anyone else thinking that a world with a methane atmosphere is probably home to the galaxy's largest and best taco bell?

[photon]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Calculating the probability is something entirely different and would require a larger data set than two to be considered reliable... especially when inferring something as complex as this.

That depends, it's complex, but is there reason to think that the situation is different elsewhere?

We do have a larger data set, we know the size of the universe and we know the properties of other galaxies and how it compares to our own, and the properties of other regions of our own galaxy and how that compares to our own region.

I appreciate your point from a philosophical point of view; we can't say there is an earth like planet out there somewhere until we actually find one, but it would be surprising if there weren't given what we know so far. If we are the only one there would likely be additional things that are known that would account for the seeming defiance of things like the cosmological principle.

We lack the hard data of all the planets in the universe, but we can make a prediction based on other known things.

If I find a hoof print in my yard, it could be a horse, a zebra, or a unicorn, and I can reasonably guess what it probably is. There is no certainty, but I don't really need it if I'm willing to change my mind when new info comes to light.

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I can appreciate that there are "probably" countless Earth-like planets, but that just isn't good enough. If I said that there was "probably" global warming based on a couple of quick observations, I don't think many would argue that it wasn't exactly a scientific opinion.

The information going into the probably is far more than a couple of quick observations in the case of earth like planets.

[Huntingwhale]

The discovery of life on another planet, even at a microbial level, would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of humanity. Imagine that was the announcement...

But it's probably not.

[CaptainCrunch]

Yes, and force us to develop the technology to drive to that planet and kick their microbial a$$.

I'm betting its an announcement based around a new flavor of tang.