Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 42

Thread: expanding our univrse, and new habitable planets.

  1. #1

    Default expanding our univrse, and new habitable planets.

    for a while ive seen news stories of rioting, floods cyclones and constant debates on the same topics of rligion and politics

    heres something that follows a topic far more positive, i wish the comments were more intelligent.

    'Life-friendly' planets found - Yahoo!7

    when i see this and the comments, it makes me thing of carl sagans 'the cosmos'

  2. #2

    Default

    "Life-friendly" for a vast majority of these discoveries means that, based solely on one qualification of the planet (temperature) that they may be supportive of simple life forms like bacteria, usually after extensive terra-forming technologies that have not yet been invented have been applied to the planet's surface (you'll note in the article they mention that the planet's surface is capable of sustaining water on the surface.

    I would be interesting in knowing if this means a full water cycle (something necessary for complex life, and even most simple life), or simply retention of water. There's a reason we look for water, specifically - it is a solvent for carbon. Out of all the elements in the universe, carbon is the only element capable of forming the sort of complex chains necessary for higher life forms - silicon is a very distant second (and despite silicon being present in vastly higher amounts on earth than carbon - we have carbon-based life, suggesting that the formation of life is highly biased toward carbon. The only elements we have yet to discover are insanely unstable and only present in conditions created by an atom smasher. They have half-lives of mere attoseconds.

    The capability to support complex life seems to be confined exclusively to earth, at least as far as we have discovered. If there is extraterrestrial life, I would be shocked to find that it is anything other than incredibly simple prokaryotes.

    But, of course, you were talking about colonization - I was just refuting the way Yahoo presented this - as though there are scores of planets "out there" just teeming with life. And even then, they are talking about temperatures capable of sustaining life - not just human life. We are essentially looking at extremes somewhere between a planet with no atmosphere that is barely warmer than space, and a planet that hasn't had its surface turned into molten rock via its proximity to the sun (or even being tidally locked to the sun). I am presuming, since the telescope was examining "habitable zones" in various star systems, that they are looking for planet temperatures capable of holding either liquid or solid water - both of which hold extremes that are not particularly conducive for human colonization.

  3. #3

    Default

    all good points. but then again yahoo is known to have a few errors, once ive seen an article updated as more info on the issue came in over the space of an hour. its a good start for us to narrow it down as to which planets might just have life or a least might be, with abit of technological help, able to be colonised

    though youll note alot of the comment posters, mostly australians, seem to have no idea as to how apparently pun y nasa sopending is compared to defence spending, i dont have the exact figure, maybe someone else could dig it upbut im pretty sure american millitary spending is gigantic. compared to science funding. which is worrying

  4. #4
    yojojo

    Default

    Lets get realistic here we are talking about a percentage of space in the reigon of an atto-scale when comperd to the rest of the universe. We are just 1 Galaxy, and we are only just begining to explore the outer limits of our own soler system. The fact remains that there are thosands, if not hundreds of thosands, of soler systems in our own galaxy. We have at least the same amount of galaxys, if not more in the universe, and the universe is still expanding.

    There is no doubt in my mind that humanoid extraterrestrial life does exsist elseware in the universe, but i doubt that the human race will survive to see it. Unless we do something about out own planet first and clean up the poloutants that we pump in to the atmosphere every day 24/7 around the clock, Global Warming is going to get worse. The hole's in our atmosphere over the artic and antartic will get bigger, and the global weather system will break down.
    Just look at whats happening in Queensland Australia !
    Certain parts of the world are not prepaird for certain extreme weather conditions, if a volcano were to erupt in Birmingham City Center I wouldent know what to do, i would probably run along with every one else.

    Back to the point.
    Colinisation of planets may be a very real option in the future, and while technology advances everyday and science is making ground breaking discoveries almost at the speed of the Space Shuttle, this is something that can not be rushed. We currently do not have the technolagy or the science to colinise another planet. Eaven if we did it is a long way of, at least several generations.
    Unfortunatly this will not be happening in our life time, and as much as i wish i could colinise a planet with them, i doubt i will still be around to join them on there Star Trek to new worlds.

    It is much more fesable to start a colony of humans underwater, the only issues here are preashure, atmosphere and biodome integrity. The technolohy is around to do this, but the cost involved in building an underwater city on the ocean floor is in the range of billions, so the powers that be dont really consider it an option or a valid use of the money.
    Another problem with it would be underwater construction, its easy to maintain preashure in a underwater structure of suffecent size once built, but sending construction materials and construction workers down to those kind of depths would be leathel as the preashure would crush them. I dont know exactly how they overcome this obstacle, but i think they build the city modules above water and sink them down, then use robots built for the job to conect the modules together.

    Gravity underwater is much less then on land so this could one day be a potential training option for colinists who will one day be going to settle down on a new planet in the future.

  5. #5

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by yojojo View Post
    It is much more fesable to start a colony of humans underwater, the only issues here are preashure, atmosphere and biodome integrity. The technolohy is around to do this, but the cost involved in building an underwater city on the ocean floor is in the range of billions, so the powers that be dont really consider it an option or a valid use of the money.
    Another problem with it would be underwater construction, its easy to maintain preashure in a underwater structure of suffecent size once built, but sending construction materials and construction workers down to those kind of depths would be leathel as the preashure would crush them. I dont know exactly how they overcome this obstacle, but i think they build the city modules above water and sink them down, then use robots built for the job to conect the modules together.

    Gravity underwater is much less then on land so this could one day be a potential training option for colinists who will one day be going to settle down on a new planet in the future.
    First thing first: the gravitational force acting on your body is not "much less" underwater. In a pressurized cabin 500m underwater, the gravity would be virtually identical as what I'm be feeling now. The only place on Earth where gravity is "much lower" is near the core, and it would probably be easier to build a base on Mars that near the centre of the Earth anyway ^^

    I'll say it now: the odds of there not being life elsewhere in the galaxy is minuscule to nil. There is something like 3 septillion (or 3 million billion billion) stars in the observable universe, so even if the odds of a solar system harbouring life is one in a million billion we should still be left with at least a billion solar system that contain life. Do I think there are civilizations in other solar systems? Yes, because we know for a fact that it happened once, which implies it could happen again (or that it could have happened before).

    Now, I doubt any of this will have an immediate impact on any of us. We're not even at a stage where we have a permanent Moon base, and we're generations away of having the technology to make it to Proxima Centauri, let alone to all those planets that may or may not contain life. One day maybe humans won't depend on Earth, but by that day we shall all be long gone and forgotten. Still, nice to dream...



    Quote Originally Posted by Carl Sagan
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.

  6. #6

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by yojojo View Post
    There is no doubt in my mind that humanoid extraterrestrial life does exsist elseware in the universe, but i doubt that the human race will survive to see it. Unless we do something about out own planet first and clean up the poloutants that we pump in to the atmosphere every day 24/7 around the clock, Global Warming is going to get worse. The hole's in our atmosphere over the artic and antartic will get bigger, and the global weather system will break down.
    You make it sound like the oceans won't evaporate or the atmosphere itself wll be set on fire, or whole forest's won't be incinerated... Not from global warming, but how our sun is theorized will die. Slowly expanding killing/incinerating everything the 3 closest planets... thankfully earth isn't the 1st, 2nd or 3r..... wait... it's the 3rd... FUCK.

    As for global warming, forgive me into not believing that human's are just now starting to destory earth. After thousands of years of our continued existent and mere decades of fossil fuel use. However, I do advocate of genocide of cows. (Sorry Moo.) since they do expel a LOT of Co2. Plus hell, we get steaks and meat. FUCK YEAH.

  7. #7

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Fire2box View Post
    You make it sound like the oceans won't evaporate or the atmosphere itself wll be set on fire, or whole forest's won't be incinerated... Not from global warming, but how our sun is theorized will die. Slowly expanding killing/incinerating everything the 3 closest planets... thankfully earth isn't the 1st, 2nd or 3r..... wait... it's the 3rd... FUCK.

    As for global warming, forgive me into not believing that human's are just now starting to destory earth. After thousands of years of our continued existent and mere decades of fossil fuel use. However, I do advocate of genocide of cows. (Sorry Moo.) since they do expel a LOT of Co2. Plus hell, we get steaks and meat. FUCK YEAH.
    destroy is a misnomer first of all, we cant destroy the earth in any way short of blowing off the atmosphere by detonating all our nukes, or by blowing a hole in the mid atlantic ridge or set the nukes off near the mantle or some silly thing like that

    everything else that happens, like cutting down the rainforest or having massive global warming or an ice age, that is merely a transitional event that changes the landscape for a while. as any geologist or geomorphologist will tell you, the landscape changes on its own, for example completely of their own accord, the profile of a rier will go from deep and narrow to ide and shallow,

    we just say its being destroyed because we are reletively shaort sighted, and secondly, we were most likely used to things being in a particular way, for example the river being straight rather than meandering.

    but what we ARE doing, is devestating the current biomes and ecosystems which we have adapted and evolved alongside with and therefore rely on quite alot for survival.

    and its entirely possible to cause changes in a short period of time, the key is intensity and volume of an event.

    to explain ths in terms of basic ecosystem dynamics, lets look at an old predator prey relationship , i.e the numbers of rabbits and wolves at any one time,

    1.-to start we have alot more rabbits then wolves, therefore wolves have room to expand their population, due to increased availability of food
    2.-greater nmbers of wolves means more rabbits killed.
    3.-therefore wolves go up rabbits go down,
    4.-now in the natural world its rare for a species to go extinct like this so their population just drops to a quite low point,
    5.-therefore all of a sudden theres not enough food for the wolves, which begin to decline in numbers, this is known as reaching an areas carrying capacity
    6.-less predators then gives the rabbits a chance to restock their numbers,
    7.-since theyre numbers have been low, they havent been keeping the grass and vegetation down, giving THEM plenty of food.
    8.-and so the wolf numbers go down and the rabbits go back up returning to the populations that existed at the very start, where things are balanced,
    9.-this is known as a state of equillibrium,
    10.-then the whole cycle repeats itself again and again.

    1-to sum that up what happens is, growth de to consuming a resource,
    2-species then reaches and exceeds the areas carrying capacity, or how large a population at a certain rate of consumption the area can sustain
    3-results of overpopulation like starvation and disease or being predatedon by another animal, cause the population to drop back down again
    if you were to plot the amount of rabbits and grass, or wolves and rabbits, what youd get would be a long chain of parabola curves with one being peaked while the other is low.
    http://www.greatchange.org/images/ophuls_3.4.gif this gives an idea of carrying capacity and demand and how they fluctuate for those who do chemistry they would recognise this as similar to a plotting or a chemical equillibrium reaction largely because its rougly based on similar principles of demand.

    this can also be roughly applied to, for example retail demand.


    now to explain what all this has to do with global warming.

    The key concepts to remember are the principles of carrying capacity and population growth.

    Humans are just like the wolf and the rabbit, we consume resources at a certain rate, and there resources reaccumulate at a certain pace for example a generic tree takes, for example 10-15 years to properly mature. whereas in a certain amount of time a perso will consume a certain biomass of wood in hose 15 years. A habitat that is being consumed or a population hunted and eaten, this is known as stress on a population. Each habitat has a differing ability to return to a near normal state, this is known as resilance. think of it like stretching a rubber band



    What humans are doing, is consuming too much, too frequently we are essentially not giving the planets ecosystems time to recover, and thus are stressing them such that it cant return to its original state. The reason for this is NOT, i repeat NOT just because of the types of activities we are undertaking, like metallurgy, or industrial chemistry or nuclear waste production. It is purely because we are that bunch of wolves that have eaten the rabbits to very low numbers. our population, at our level of demand per person, is beyondour carrying capacity. And like that bunch of wolves,. our population will probably peak, then decline, probably in the next century or two.


    How does this relate to global warming, and how could we have done so much in such a reletively short period of time? simple.
    Youll note that the greatest boom of human populations occured during the adoption of agriculture, and the industrial revolution.
    that leaves us roughly 150-200 years of industrial activity with rapidly growing populations. were essentially doing two things at once, its not JUST our industrial smog output thats the culprit in our part in global warming, its also our massive sprees of deforesation, which have tipped the balance in favour of a net INCREASE in gasses

    But dont be fooled into thinking our fuels alone will cause all the strife the IPCC is talking about. thats not it alone. if it was just left up purely to our gasses in space , we wouldnt heat up very fast. but whatthe case s in actuality, is that we are a catalytic event, like the first lit match, or proton torpedo shot into the death star, will cause a positive feedback event explained best by potholer 54
    YouTube - 1. Climate Change -- the scientific debate as our CO2 causing a positive feedback loop betterknown as a vicious cycle where the actions before amplify the next round.
    which is HOW we can cause such problems over such a short period, fact is its short, but quite intense.

  8. #8

    Default

    Over-consuming?

    No. I say we are under-utilizing.

    Let's get out there and make that life our bitch now, before it can stop us!

  9. #9

  10. #10

    Default

    SDA, and where in your argument does the 500 year lag between average global temperature change and Carbon Dioxide concentration in the atmosphere figure?

    The adoption of agriculture was roughly 12,000 years ago: there have been at least two mini-Ice Ages since then.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.