NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star • Hacker News Board

Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star

#101

Post by einhverfr » Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 5:54 AM UTC

Sometimes us history buffs get laughs out of these things. I was listening to a Catholic thinker make a case for the uniqueness of Earth, and what came to my mind was how Augustine accepted the possibility of other continents and how the world was round, but concluded based on the Bible that humans could not possibly be inhabiting anywhere beyond Asia, Africa, and Europe. This view remained the standard view until after it became clear that Columbus had in fact not reached Asia but instead a new continent, and that it was INHABITED.

I wonder how much theology of so many people will have to be discarded or rethought as we find more reason to think there are inhabited planets elsewhere in the universe.

Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star

#102

Post by mirkules » Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 6:40 AM UTC

beambot wrote: post #96

mirkules wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans can withstand much more than 2.4Gs although the time is exponentially and inversely proportional (for example, 3Gs is a space shuttle launch for a number of minutes, 10Gs is the maximum force allowed during space capsule landing, but only for a few seconds). Therefore, I wouldn't say "uninhabitable," but probably less friendly (and not immediately lethal) to humans. Also, different animals have different thres…

That's curious... I would have thought a land-dwelling mouse would have more G-force tolerance than a whale living in neutral buoyancy oceans. Are you using that as an illustrative example (eg. mice and elephants), or does that still hold for mice and whales?

You're right, it was a bad example. I just looked through the book I referenced, this is what it said (p. 126):

"...a beached whale will die from an overdose of gravity... The whale's diaphragm and rib muscles aren't strong enough to expand its lungs and raise the now far heavier blubber and bone that press in on them, and the animal suffocates."

It goes on:

"You can see what a rat's organs look like inside its body at 10 G's and 19 G's [in] the February 1953 issue of Aviation Medicine... Anesthetized rats were immersed in liquid nitrogen while riding a centrifuge... Heavier blood in the heart has pooled at the bottom of the organ and weighed it down, elongating it like a wad of stretched Silly Putty... This is why the astronauts lie down during reentry -- so the blood doesn't pool in their legs and feet"

I wish I could say I was using it as an illustrative example... But I just remembered it wrong :)

Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star

#103

Post by keys1234 » Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 8:28 AM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #34

davedx wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 'habitable zone' is overly simplistic in general. Look at Europa - it's nowhere near the habitable zone, but is one of the most Earth-like plants in our Solar System. That's just inside the one Solar System we have a fairly complete planetary record of! It also assumes that liquid water and an oxygen atmosphere are prerequisites for life. Extremophiles [1] living on our own planet prove that this is not so. [1] h…

It also assumes that liquid water and an oxygen atmosphere are prerequisites for life. Extremophiles living on our own planet prove that this is not so. Maybe this is splitting hairs, but we have evidence that life can exist in such extreme condition. We have no evidence that life can arise under those conditions. I think it's perfectly plausible that it's path-dependent: life needs the friendlier conditions to first…

life needs the friendlier conditions to first develop.

Primitive Life on earth developed on not so friendly environment with poisonous gas (No Oxygen - Oxygen is a byproduct primitive living things created), regular meteor showers and boiling hot waters.

If Life evolved here under these conditions, it can evolve anywhere with such conditions

Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star

#104

Post by petewailes » Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 8:33 AM UTC

electromagnetic wrote: post #59

daliusd wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I heard theory that there will be no other sentient creatures on Earth because humans will destroy them. I read this theory from article about Birutė Galdikas ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birut%C4%97_Galdikas ) who is studying orangutans. Let's not forget neanderthals as well in this context.

Actually given that dogs score better than chimps, wolves and human infants in tests of social cognition would lend credence to the fact that humans are actually inadvertently creating sentience. Similarly dogs are the only non-primate species to look at the right side of a persons face to gauge their emotion and state, but unlike primates and humans, they don't do this with other species or dogs. Evidence points to…

Useless trivia - crows do very well at this too, as does that entire branch of birds

Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star

#105

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 10:33 AM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #34

davedx wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 'habitable zone' is overly simplistic in general. Look at Europa - it's nowhere near the habitable zone, but is one of the most Earth-like plants in our Solar System. That's just inside the one Solar System we have a fairly complete planetary record of! It also assumes that liquid water and an oxygen atmosphere are prerequisites for life. Extremophiles [1] living on our own planet prove that this is not so. [1] h…

It also assumes that liquid water and an oxygen atmosphere are prerequisites for life. Extremophiles living on our own planet prove that this is not so. Maybe this is splitting hairs, but we have evidence that life can exist in such extreme condition. We have no evidence that life can arise under those conditions. I think it's perfectly plausible that it's path-dependent: life needs the friendlier conditions to first…

[deleted]

Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star

#106

Post by extension » Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 10:51 AM UTC

marshallp wrote: post #15

blhack wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>sentience must (by sheer odds) be out there too. Why? Sentience just happens to be an evolutionary trait that was beneficial to us, like wings on a bird. There millions of species animals on our planet, and only a handful of them are sentient. We have a bit of a cognitive bias towards thinking that sentient life is something that evolution would work towards, but that isn't really how evolution works.

There's a fundamental flaw in that argument. Once a sentience, or as i would define it, a species capable of creating technology, exists, it is highly likely to not die out as other traits easily can. It only needs to occur once. One could argue it has -almost- occurred on earth many times, including dolphins, elephants, octopus along with apes right now.

Lots of animals have technology.. beavers, for example.

Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star

#107

Post by majmun » Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 10:52 AM UTC

eric-hu wrote: post #67

CWuestefeld wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also assumes that liquid water and an oxygen atmosphere are prerequisites for life. Extremophiles living on our own planet prove that this is not so. Maybe this is splitting hairs, but we have evidence that life can exist in such extreme condition. We have no evidence that life can arise under those conditions. I think it's perfectly plausible that it's path-dependent: life needs the friendlier conditions to first…

Adding onto this thought, even if life can arise under extreme conditions, the probability of necessary events could still be far lower than the probability of necessary events for life to arise under earth-like conditions. Thus, the habitable zone criteria is simply narrowing the search space to planets with a high(er) probability of developing and supporting life--while discarding planets with a low(er) probability…

there is probably more chance of finding intelligent life on planet that is not habitable and can't originate life. because once life becomes "intelligent" it will probably try to colonize more than one "uninhabitable" planet by intelligent machines designed for specific environment.

Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star

#108

Post by jerfelix » Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 11:50 AM UTC

colanderman wrote: post #97

jerfelix wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we defined intelligence as traits that only we possess There's also an article on HN right now about Dolphins proving to be intelligent beings [1]. It says: Our research has provided an answer to an age-old question highlighted by Dr Jill Tarter of the SETI Institute, ‘Are we alone?’ We can now unequivocally answer, ‘no.’ SETI’s search for non-human intelligence in outer spacehas been found right here on earth in t…

I laughed to think that HUMAN'S analysis of whether a dolphin is intelligent is whether WE can understand their language. Using that logic, it seems my dog is more intelligent than me: He can understand some of my language as well as his own, whereas I can only understand my own. I agree with your sentiment but your logic is backward. Substitute dog for dolphin in your first sentence: [a] HUMAN'S analysis of whether…

Therefore, I am not intelligent because I can't get my logic correct. :-)

Actually, I was hoping to slip that one by you guys, because I knew there was something wrong with it.

The point I should have made was that the species that understands less language (us) is considered more intelligent by humans than the one that understands more language (dog). This seems screwed up.

Taken to an extreme, there could be a theoretical species that can communicate among its own kind and understand every other species' communication, and we'd consider it unintelligent because WE can't understand them. That sort of logic makes US seem pretty unintelligent.

Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star

#109

Post by SeamusBrady » Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 12:07 PM UTC

petewailes wrote: post #104

electromagnetic wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually given that dogs score better than chimps, wolves and human infants in tests of social cognition would lend credence to the fact that humans are actually inadvertently creating sentience. Similarly dogs are the only non-primate species to look at the right side of a persons face to gauge their emotion and state, but unlike primates and humans, they don't do this with other species or dogs. Evidence points to…

Useless trivia - crows do very well at this too, as does that entire branch of birds

Crows have the same level of Encephalization Quotient (measure of brain size to body size) as many of the more intelligent mammalian species. They too have complex emotional and social lives, use tools and have complex language. There is even an argument that certain species of crows have co-evolved with us as hunter gatherers the way that dogs did CF - In the Company of Crows and Ravens (John M. Marzluff / Mr. Tony Angell).

Yes, I like crows :)

Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star

#110

Post by electromagnetic » Tue, Dec 06, 2011, 12:10 PM UTC

ComputerGuru wrote: post #72

electromagnetic wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually given that dogs score better than chimps, wolves and human infants in tests of social cognition would lend credence to the fact that humans are actually inadvertently creating sentience. Similarly dogs are the only non-primate species to look at the right side of a persons face to gauge their emotion and state, but unlike primates and humans, they don't do this with other species or dogs. Evidence points to…

Having lived with the "best friends" of humans (cats and dogs) for many years, I am no longer sure what "sentience" is because I find the difference between us and them in everything to be a matter of degree. We're _better_ at being 'sentient' than they are, but I can't find anything that we do that they don't. I'm serious here. You totally hit the nail on the head when you talk about anger and empathy. They can lear…

I have two dogs, both from the local SPCA. My first was a stray and came to us with full blown anxiety. She used to have separation anxiety from people she'd just met (literally a friend dropped in for 5 minutes just to see her and she spent 20 minutes panicked and crying when he left). However, she's the happiest dog anyone (and I'm really not exaggerating that) has ever seen.

My second dog was abandoned by his owner, completely neglected (skinny, no muscle mass whatsoever, he literally struggled jumping onto a couch, and the SPCA had to shave him almost bald to get rid of the mattes) but that has no effect on the fact that he was depressed and angry over it. When we started training him he became pissy, jumped up on our bed and took a giant shit on it and that's from a 4 year old dog that's never had an accident in our house.

However, the second dog has recently become the bodyguard for the first. We've only had him 3 months, but around other dogs that are overly aggressive in how they tell off another dog (she's barely 2 years old, so a lot of older dogs are very assertive in how they correct her) he has taken to blocking them. He doesn't become aggressive, but when she is nervous or panicked he seems to step in and block, and it's funny because you'll see him for 5 minutes just blocking a dog from getting to her. Even when he gets snarled or snapped at he carries on until the other dog backs off. It's when she submits (rolls on her back, occasionally pees) to other dogs that you see him become angry as he (normally a silent dog) will bark and growl at the other dog and guard her. This happens all the time with our trainers boarder collie (they don't like excitement and our first dog is a jack russell mix, so is basically excitement personified) and there'll be 5 minutes of them squaring off barking at each other and him keeping the trainers dog from our first.

Our first dog knows right from wrong and when she's done wrong. If she knows I've noticed something she's done wrong (like torn up a burger wrapper) she goes into full blown submission and often pees on herself (it's a girl dog way of stopping another dog from attacking her). Our second however either doesn't know or doesn't give a shit about right from wrong.