Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Earth-sized exoplanet ‘habitable zone’

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 95 posts

Re: Earth-sized exoplanet ‘habitable zone’

#81

Post by ppeetteerr »

Chathamization wrote: post #68
ppeetteerr wrote: post #16

I've been pondering this for a while: once we have artificial gravity in space (from rotation, for instance), would we ever want to shackle ourselves to the gravity of a foreign planet? It would be so much easier just to create the ideal environment in a large, rotating cylinder instead of having adjust a planet's environment to our needs. Take this new discovery for instance. Imagine that this planet is 400m years y…

I wouldn't be surprised if we develop brain uploads sometime in the next 400 years, at which point the focus on trying to recreate earth-like environments anywhere will look silly. There's probably a lot of other advancements over the next few centuries that we can't imagine. Our current view of space colonization is probably going to have as much of a connection to the future as the Tower of Babel had to the Apollo…

The concept of identity might change as well.

If your biological brain is you (to you only), then a digital copy is not you, it's a clone of you.

Also then, the only immortality we can hope to achieve is through those head jars so famous in Futurama.

Re: Earth-sized exoplanet ‘habitable zone’

#82

Post by ppeetteerr »

ur-whale wrote: post #41
ppeetteerr wrote: post #16

I've been pondering this for a while: once we have artificial gravity in space (from rotation, for instance), would we ever want to shackle ourselves to the gravity of a foreign planet? It would be so much easier just to create the ideal environment in a large, rotating cylinder instead of having adjust a planet's environment to our needs. Take this new discovery for instance. Imagine that this planet is 400m years y…

I think the reason earth-like exoplanets generate so much interest is not because of the terraforming / colonization potential but rather because they are more likely places where we might find alien life.

Totally agreed

Re: Earth-sized exoplanet ‘habitable zone’

#83

Post by VonBraunsGhost »

pharke wrote: post #73
VonBraunsGhost wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can direct the 'you people' at yourself. I once believed in the pseudo-science promoted as truth, then I took some time to educate myself. You should do the same.

So your educated opinion is that there is a grand, generations long conspiracy involving millions of people to cover up the fact that the universe works based on magic? That sounds more like lazy thinking, if you were serious about educating yourself without relying on "mainstream science" you'd do some research that does not involve watching YouTube videos or staying up all night reading comments from random forum d…

Refute the point then Cleetus. Reality is reality, no matter what story you've been told, by who, and for how long. Facts are facts and there isn't a curve.

Re: Earth-sized exoplanet ‘habitable zone’

#84

Post by VonBraunsGhost »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #78
VonBraunsGhost wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typical NASA fanboy response. Ad-hominem, no substance. Refute the point. You can't. No curve = no sphere

You took maybe thirty second to write your rant and demand others spend hours or maybe even weeks coming up with an entire education program to fill in the gaps you have in your knowledge. This is a huge discrepancy in effort required. Perhaps if you volunteered to do push ups for the entire time posters went through the primary school education you missed, it would be equal effort and you'd get a better reception. A…

I'm being lazy? Look in the mirror. I made a point and backed it with evidence you can check on your own. The only lazy people in this thread are the armchair wannabe astrophysicists trying to protect there space fan fiction without doing any research.

Re: Earth-sized exoplanet ‘habitable zone’

#85

Post by VonBraunsGhost »

ChrisClark wrote: post #61
VonBraunsGhost wrote: post #44

Downvote me to oblivion, but riddle me this Neil DeGrasse Tyson. If the Earth is an 'oblate spheroid' (it used to be a perfect sphere, you've seen the pics, right?) with a roughly 25,000 mile circumference, then why do all the curvature calculations fail? The rate of curve on a sphere that size is 8" x the number of miles squared and modern optics have completely debunked that. We can see too far. There is no curve.…

You can literally see the curve by watching ships on the ocean. :D

You literally can't.You're repeating a myth that's been perpetuated since the 1500s. Look up some of the shots taken with the Nikon P9000, then come back.

The limitation of what you can see is caused by both the vanishing point, and the amount of moisture in the air. What is assumed to be a ship going 'over the horizon' is merely a limitation of your ability to see it. Modern optics have proven that theory false.

Re: Earth-sized exoplanet ‘habitable zone’

#86

Post by VonBraunsGhost »

tiborsaas wrote: post #70
VonBraunsGhost wrote: post #44

Downvote me to oblivion, but riddle me this Neil DeGrasse Tyson. If the Earth is an 'oblate spheroid' (it used to be a perfect sphere, you've seen the pics, right?) with a roughly 25,000 mile circumference, then why do all the curvature calculations fail? The rate of curve on a sphere that size is 8" x the number of miles squared and modern optics have completely debunked that. We can see too far. There is no curve.…

> why do all the curvature calculations fail? Please, show a calculation that fails. Or two.

It fails in the sense that the rate of curvature expected on a sphere of that size cannot be seen or measured anywhere. Here's a curvature calculator from a non-geocentric site

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=...

Re: Earth-sized exoplanet ‘habitable zone’

#87

Post by VonBraunsGhost »

dgritsko wrote: post #67
loblollyboy wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about pics from space? I see the curve. I don’t think every country is making fake pictures. Also there are plenty of amateurs with balloons and go pros and I don’t think they’re part of some grand conspiracy either. Also gravity.

Wasn't there some guy who was crowdfunding a rocket so he could go up and see for himself? Whatever became of that?

That guy was 'controlled opposition', just like most of what you see promoted as 'flat Earth'. An attempt to make someone look foolish, therefore making the general public disinterested in looking any further into it.

"Oh, there's some wack job shooting himself into the air to prove the Earth is flat"

Just like the picture of a flat Earth floating in space. THAT IS NOT THE MODEL

The simple reality is there is no curve. It's a deep rabbit hole, but I'm not here to lie to anyone.

Do your own research, be honest with yourself, and you'll see we've been fed a lie about where we live

Re: Earth-sized exoplanet ‘habitable zone’

#88

Post by nwallin »

pushpop wrote: post #80
nwallin wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the atmosphere and weather is global. Meaning that snow that falls on the cold side will never melt or evaporate. Therefore there's probably no liquid water. Liquid oxygen is dense enough for icebergs to float over to the warm side, but there won't be any oxygen before life can start photosynthesizing, and it would boil off long before ice could float close enough to the hot side to melt or evapor…

Last year there was a discovery where some single cell organisms were extracting electrons directly from solid rock. So I don’t think ice is a barrier. I do agree that it’s unlikely that life would exist on that planet. But I think the chances of life being slim are more down to the difficulty in the bootstrapping stage rather than the environment being too inhospitable to host life. By that I mean DNA forming (for e…

> But I think the chances of life being slim are more down to the difficulty in the bootstrapping stage rather than the environment being too inhospitable to host life.

I'm 100% in agreement on this.

My argument is that with no oceans, abiogenesis is basically impossible. There's not really a useful starting point if everything is rock and ice.

I have no doubt that in 200 years a prepared group of humans could be dropped there and thrive. (transportation issues not withstanding) But life couldn't start there from nothing.

I don't think silicon based life is plausible. It can't form double silicon silicon bonds. Overall its chemistry is utterly boring compared to carbon's, and carbon is far more common than silicon is. Again, same argument. If silicon based life were intelligently created, sure, it would probably thrive. But there's no way it would spontaneously create itself. And honestly, it would probably evolve to being carbon fairly quickly.

Re: Earth-sized exoplanet ‘habitable zone’

#89

Post by slater »

VonBraunsGhost wrote: post #83
pharke wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your educated opinion is that there is a grand, generations long conspiracy involving millions of people to cover up the fact that the universe works based on magic? That sounds more like lazy thinking, if you were serious about educating yourself without relying on "mainstream science" you'd do some research that does not involve watching YouTube videos or staying up all night reading comments from random forum d…

Refute the point then Cleetus. Reality is reality, no matter what story you've been told, by who, and for how long. Facts are facts and there isn't a curve.

terrible trolling attempts.

Re: Earth-sized exoplanet ‘habitable zone’

#90

Post by pushpop »

nwallin wrote: post #88
pushpop wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last year there was a discovery where some single cell organisms were extracting electrons directly from solid rock. So I don’t think ice is a barrier. I do agree that it’s unlikely that life would exist on that planet. But I think the chances of life being slim are more down to the difficulty in the bootstrapping stage rather than the environment being too inhospitable to host life. By that I mean DNA forming (for e…

> But I think the chances of life being slim are more down to the difficulty in the bootstrapping stage rather than the environment being too inhospitable to host life. I'm 100% in agreement on this. My argument is that with no oceans, abiogenesis is basically impossible. There's not really a useful starting point if everything is rock and ice. I have no doubt that in 200 years a prepared group of humans could be dro…

I’ve read plenty of material which would disagree with your skeptisim there eg (top link in DDG)

https://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/possibility-silicon-...

Regarding life, I don’t just think human life could thrive in such environments, I think even single cell organisms could...if implanted there that is. As I said earlier, we have life on Earth in seemingly less hospitable environments like naked rock faces, sulphur-rich volcanic lakes, etc. We even have microbial life on Earth that uses arsenic as one of the chemical elements for DNA. So while 99.99% of life here does fall into a narrow spectrum, even on Earth we are constantly surprised by the ability for life to thrive and adapt in environments it classically shouldn’t. Therefore I think we should be open minded to the possibility of surprises outside our own ecosystems. Albeit bootstrapping aside.

Post reply on HN