[CarrieSexy]

Even then, using the term "fact" is something that should be avoided where possible, as they usually are temporary things, awaiting review and modification. I rather doubt a 'scientist' would be as casual in it's use as you seem to be.

Read my first post in this thread and then read this.

You're agreeing with me.

[markbila]

If the universe is forever expanding at the speed of light or whatever, which makes it pretty much limitless, there must be life somewhere. If there are planets so close to use that can or at one time could have supported life, then there must be others somewhere.

[TamreuddyRada]

Proof of something is always necessary if you're going to make claims that something is indisputable fact. When I look out over the vast ocean I know there's life there, because we've discovered numerous organisms that have made it their home. When I look out over the stars I may hope life is out there and maybe even believe life is out there, but I don't know life is out there.

But just for fun, tell me what the odds are of extraterrestrial life existing.

Not when you're talking about probability. Note, i never claimed anything i said was fact, I said it was a virtual certainty. As for telling you what those odds are, that's an equation that's beyond my capability. It's not however beyond me to know that the odds of life being out there are greater than the chances of it not being there, due only to the vastness of the universe, the number of stars and planets and the resilience and persistence of life itself. You are correct though, my opinion is more from a philosophical viewpoint, than a scientific one, that doesn't make it any less probable though.

[BliliBoopsy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

[RotsLoado]

Not when you're talking about probability. Note, i never claimed anything i said was fact, I said it was a virtual certainty. As for telling you what those odds are, that's an equation that's beyond my capability. It's not however beyond me to know that the odds of life being out there are greater than the chances of it not being there, due only to the vastness of the universe, the number of stars and planets and the resilience and persistence of life itself. You are correct though, my opinion is more from a philosophical viewpoint, than a scientific one, that doesn't make it any less probable though.

In your first post that I responded to you did actually say it was certain and that it was "impossible" that there isn't other life out there. If that's not saying that you believe something is a fact, then I don't know what is. The answer I was expecting regarding the question of odds is...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

A number of aspects (the most important, for example) of the Drake Equation are based on conjecture and so the equation is certainly not proof of anything. It has its place, but you should be aware of its limitations instead of blindly using it as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial life.

[emuffette]

A number of aspects (the most important, for example) of the Drake Equation are based on conjecture and so the equation is certainly not proof of anything. It has its place, but you should be aware of its limitations instead of blindly using it as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial life.

You really are as stupid as you come off. All I did was post the link, not once did I say that I put any weight in the equation. I'm very familiar with the Drake equation's failings, it doesn't make it any less interesting to speculate.

[textarchive]

You really are as stupid as you come off. All I did was post the link, not once did I say that I put any weight in the equation. I'm very familiar with the Drake equation's failings, it doesn't make it any less interesting to speculate.

You seem pretty angry.

[Sleflanna]

You seem pretty angry.

Not at all.

[KuevDulin]

In your first post that I responded to you did actually say it was certain and that it was "impossible" that there isn't other life out there. If that's not saying that you believe something is a fact, then I don't know what is. The answer I was expecting regarding the question of odds is...

As i said, we were talking about the probability of life being out there. It is a statistical certainty.

A number of aspects (the most important, for example) of the Drake Equation are based on conjecture and so the equation is certainly not proof of anything. It has its place, but you should be aware of its limitations instead of blindly using it as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial life.

I didn't use it, for good reason. It takes into account the probability of intelligent life and the odds of us being able to contact that life. So the equation is actually trying to calculate the probability of mankind being able to discover and contact intelligent extraterrestrial life. Which is a different proposition altogether.

[avodeinst]

As i said, we were talking about the probability of life being out there. It is a statistical certainty.

So you don't think it's a fact but you do think it's certain?

I didn't use it, for good reason. It takes into account the probability of intelligent life and the odds of us being able to contact that life. So the equation is actually trying to calculate the probability of mankind being able to discover and contact intelligent extraterrestrial life. Which is a different proposition altogether.

Then what formula did you use to determine the "statistical certainty"? I know you're not coming at this from a strictly scientific standpoint, and I'm fine with you saying that you believe there's life outside of Earth, but I just don't wish to see people making these claims in the name of science, especially while deriding others who may believe otherwise, or may be agnostic on the matter (not saying you've done this, but others have).

If you have no proof of something (and we don't at this point in time) then you have no basis for calling it a fact, a certainty, or even a probability. It's okay to say "we don't know at this point in time".

[Promalada]

So you don't think it's a fact but you do think it's certain?



Then what formula did you use to determine the "statistical certainty"? I know you're not coming at this from a strictly scientific standpoint, and I'm fine with you saying that you believe there's life outside of Earth, but I just don't wish to see people making these claims in the name of science, especially while deriding others who may believe otherwise, or may be agnostic on the matter (not saying you've done this, but others have).

If you have no proof of something (and we don't at this point in time) then you have no basis for calling it a fact, a certainty, or even a probability. It's okay to say "we don't know at this point in time".

It's called the weak anthropic principle. Link. Try it, it's an interesting read. [yes]

[Pateeffelty]

So you don't think it's a fact but you do think
If you have no proof of something (and we don't at this point in time) then you have no basis for calling it a fact, a certainty, or even a probability. It's okay to say "we don't know at this point in time".

It's not a fact or certainty but is a probability, given we know life can exist in the universe, and there are a billion billion galaxies with a billion billion other stars surely it can be called a probability?

[Thigmaswams]

Even if this newly discovered planet had breathable air and liquad water, would we even be able to go to it given the mass and gravity on the planet?

Let's just say the planet has 2.4 times the gravitational pull as Earth. I'm about 100kg in weight so I would weigh around 240kg? I could handle that weight given my lower/upper body strength but wouldn't my internal organs, brain etc be put under a lot of strain? Woul my blood not be forced downwards causing me to faint or my heart having to work twice as hard?

Just curious to know how this works?

[XinordiX]

Even if this newly discovered planet had breathable air and liquad water, would we even be able to go to it given the mass and gravity on the planet?

Let's just say the planet has 2.4 times the gravitational pull as Earth. I'm about 100kg in weight so I would weigh around 240kg? I could handle that weight given my lower/upper body strength but wouldn't my internal organs, brain etc be put under a lot of strain? Woul my blood not be forced downwards causing me to faint or my heart having to work twice as hard?

Just curious to know how this works?

If a planet is bigger than Earth it doesn't necessarily mean it has higher gravitational pull. (? My english term might be wrong here)

But if it indeed had 2.4g pull you would be able to stay there for short while with exoskeleton help. And some system that would feed blood to your brains. Heart can't feed your brains efficiently enough in those conditions.

[drugsprevi]

If a planet is bigger than Earth it doesn't necessarily mean it has higher gravitational pull. (? My english term might be wrong here)

I'm probably way wrong in my assumption but I was under the impression that gravity is directly related to the mass of an object.

So being 2.4 times the size of Earth I am making the 'made-up' assumption that the planet in question has 2.4 times the gravitation pull as Earth (although wikipedia suggests the actual mass of the planet in question is more like 35 Earth masses which I would assume crush us).

I don't know what the actual gravity is, just making things up and asking question to ease my curiosity.

But if it indeed had 2.4g pull you would be able to stay there for short while with exoskeleton help. And some system that would feed blood to your brains. Heart can't feed your brains efficiently enough in those conditions.

I can handle twice my body weight for a short time without the help of an exoskeltion, I have no issue when it comes to strength requirements. But a higher gravity doesn't just affect the weight of your body, but also your internal organs which would put a lot of strain inside your body.

I would imagine your brain would feel like someone is pushing down on it. Your hearth and lungs being forced downwards from the inside of your body. Your stomach/intestines to be cramped and squashed. Your eyes droopy.

I doubt the bodies digestive system would work efficiently.

And what about water and air, wouldn't the air be more dense and difficult to breath, along with water being more dense and heavy to drink?

I think it's awesome we are finding planets that could possible host some form of life. But would it not be more difficult to find one that we can survive on?

[JeremyIV]

The gravitational force of an object is tied to its mass, but since they don't know the composition of Kepler-22b, they don't know its mass either. The "size" they're referring to is the radius, which is 2.4 times that of Earth. That alone won't tell you what its gravitational force is.

[harriettvanders]

The gravitational force of an object is tied to its mass, but since they don't know the composition of Kepler-22b, they don't know its mass either. The "size" they're referring to is the radius, which is 2.4 times that of Earth. That alone won't tell you what its gravitational force is.

Yes I know, my comment was a little OT, I was merely suggesting if we ever find a habitable planet and it's gravitational pull is twice that of Earth, would we ever be able to live on it (given we have FTL travel)?

I understand the longer you are exposed to zero gravity your body reacts negatively (called 'chicken legs' I believe, correct me please). Exposed to a much stronger gravity for a lengthy time would you come out much stronger? not only in physical strength but internally? Would you be able to go back to Earth and live or would your body react negatively to Earth gravity?

Would it be similar to different time zones of the planet where one travels a lot his body reacts negatively to the different times until his body adapts?

[Jellowstrom]

Yes I know, my comment was a little OT, I was merely suggesting if we ever find a habitable planet and it's gravitational pull is twice that of Earth, would we ever be able to live on it (given we have FTL travel)?

I understand the longer you are exposed to zero gravity your body reacts negatively (called 'chicken legs' I believe, correct me please). Exposed to a much stronger gravity for a lengthy time would you come out much stronger? not only in physical strength but internally? Would you be able to go back to Earth and live or would your body react negatively to Earth gravity?

Would it be similar to different time zones of the planet where one travels a lot his body reacts negatively to the different times until his body adapts?

In time humans would quite possibly adapt to higher G. But it would take generations.
People would be smaller (height), more muscular - i.e. heart would grow bigger etc etc.