PDA

View Full Version : 2nd Earth Found???



Kidhuman
10-17-2007, 09:32 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/25/starsgalaxiesandplanets.spaceexploration/print

Found on another site I visit. Pretty interesting article.

DarthQuack
10-17-2007, 10:16 PM
I hope it's true that we aren't alone out there, live would just be boring if that's the case.

2-1B
10-17-2007, 11:01 PM
We should all go there on our toy hunts - I bet the scalpers haven't found that place yet.

stillakid
10-17-2007, 11:04 PM
Does this new world have hot women?

bigbarada
10-23-2007, 11:39 PM
Pretty cool! Would be awesome if it was true. Although I wonder just how much is fact and how much is based on educated guesses and Evolutionary assumptions.

JimJamBonds
10-23-2007, 11:44 PM
I hear the Al Gore of Gliese 581 is complaining about global warming on his home planet.

stillakid
10-24-2007, 08:01 AM
Pretty cool! Would be awesome if it was true. Although I wonder just how much is fact and how much is based on educated guesses and Evolutionary assumptions.

I'm sure that a lot of it is assumptions based on comparing what we KNOW about our planet and then comparing it to what they believe conditions over there to be.

So far, scientists believe that water is essential for life. That may be true for life here on Earth, but they are also finding that life is thriving in environments that it was previously thought impossible, such as superhot underwater geysers. So what we know is what it takes for life to evolve from simple lifeforms and thrive here on Earth. Just maybe, conditions are right for life on Earth because Earth's environment allows only certain kinds of life. It could be within the realm of possibility that entirely different forms of life could evolve and thrive in vastly different conditions, say, lack oxygen, "adequate" heat, or who knows what.

We do assume a lot based on what we do KNOW about our planet and life on it (and what we continually learn through the scientific process of questioning and discovery.) Assuming is often not the best approach, but we have to start somewhere and beginning with KNOWN facts derived through the scientific process is the most rational thing to do.

Blue2th
10-24-2007, 08:49 AM
We've already seen this planet. That's where they filmed "Earth Two"

bigbarada
10-24-2007, 10:19 AM
I'm sure that a lot of it is assumptions based on comparing what we KNOW about our planet and then comparing it to what they believe conditions over there to be.

So far, scientists believe that water is essential for life. That may be true for life here on Earth, but they are also finding that life is thriving in environments that it was previously thought impossible, such as superhot underwater geysers. So what we know is what it takes for life to evolve from simple lifeforms and thrive here on Earth. Just maybe, conditions are right for life on Earth because Earth's environment allows only certain kinds of life. It could be within the realm of possibility that entirely different forms of life could evolve and thrive in vastly different conditions, say, lack oxygen, "adequate" heat, or who knows what.

We do assume a lot based on what we do KNOW about our planet and life on it (and what we continually learn through the scientific process of questioning and discovery.) Assuming is often not the best approach, but we have to start somewhere and beginning with KNOWN facts derived through the scientific process is the most rational thing to do.

Exactly my point. When you take out theories, assumptions and scientific leaps of faith, we actually know very little about the origin of the universe.

However, the origins of the universe are actually outside the realm of science. True, empirical science only covers what we humans can actually experience with our five senses. Thus, if there were no humans alive to experience an event, then science is unable to give us a complete answer.

A simple test, if you are beginning your statements with phrases like "scientists believe,""research shows," or (my favorite) "emerging research suggests," etc., then you are squarely in the realm of pseudo-science, not true science. If we were dealing with known facts, then we wouldn't need to qualify them with those phrases. No one is going to say, "Scientists believe that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West," because we all know that. It's a fact that everyone can observe.

In Sociology, this is referred to as the "argument of authority." In other words, believing what a person says simply because they are described as
an "expert" or have a lot of college degrees.

So, again, unless we actually observe signs of intelligent life on this "new" planet with our own eyes, we have no way of knowing what is really there.

The presence of water is not proof that life exists, it's simply proof of the potential that life might exist.

Anyways, I'm looking forward to seeing what further discoveries are made about this planet.

LusiferSam
10-24-2007, 12:27 PM
Exactly my point. When you take out theories, assumptions and scientific leaps of faith, we actually know very little about the origin of the universe.
Scientific theories and assumptions are two very, very different things and shouldn't be confused. Theories are built from observed data and used to explain the data and make predictions for future observations. Theories are also scientifically very strong statements and need very clear, very complying data to disprove them. Assumptions are simplifications used to make the problem easier to solve and are very weak scientifically. But they have to be justiciable and fit with in the bounds of the theory. As theories improve, assumptions have to be revalued.


True, empirical science only covers what we humans can actually experience with our five senses. Thus, if there were no humans alive to experience an event, then science is unable to give us a complete answer.
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this one. Two people can experience the same event and draw very different conclusions.


A simple test, if you are beginning your statements with phrases like "scientists believe,""research shows," or (my favorite) "emerging research suggests," etc., then you are squarely in the realm of pseudo-science, not true science. If we were dealing with known facts, then we wouldn't need to qualify them with those phrases. No one is going to say, "Scientists believe that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West," because we all know that. It's a fact that everyone can observe.
Fact are facts. Any monkey in a suit can quote you facts. Taking the data is one thing, interpreting the data is another. Science isn't about only gathering data. It's about gathering data, interpreting the data, drawing a conclusion and excepting or rejecting a hypothesis (which is different from a theory). Because there is a human element is this process, biases can work they way in. The best you can do as a scientist is say this data favors this hypothesis and give an error. That is not pseudo-science. That's the excepted scientific method. If you don't like it, I suggest you stop benefiting from it.

Facts can also be bias, but that's a whole different discussion.


The presence of water is not proof that life exists, it's simply proof of the potential that life might exist.

Anyways, I'm looking forward to seeing what further discoveries are made about this planet.
I agree. In fact all these guys have shown is that liquid water could exist on this planet. And at this point I think there are too unknowns in their theory to say too much more. We need more data to improve the theory.

stillakid
10-24-2007, 12:59 PM
Exactly my point. When you take out theories, assumptions and scientific leaps of faith, we actually know very little about the origin of the universe.
Actually, we know quite a bit about the beginning moments of the Universe... up to a point... that singularity and what lies on the other side of the "moment" where space and time began. After that, people far smarter than any of us have managed to carefully unravel what exactly happened in those first few nanoseconds and beyond by using the scientific process.


However, the origins of the universe are actually outside the realm of science. True, empirical science only covers what we humans can actually experience with our five senses. Thus, if there were no humans alive to experience an event, then science is unable to give us a complete answer.
Well, sort of. As I said, they've carefully backtracked through time to the point where they are fairly certain what happened up to a point...that one point where space and time didn't exist, at least in the way we know it. So, yeah, the "moment of creation" (if that's what we can agree to call it without injecting wishful religious thought into it) is beyond what the scientific toolbox is able to deal with at the moment.

And yes, the scientific process often gives us only pieces of a puzzle, yet because it is a process (not a belief-system), research continues until definitive answers (facts) can be discovered. No true student of the scientific process would ever settle in on a "Belief" despite scientific findings the way all religions do.




So, again, unless we actually observe signs of intelligent life on this "new" planet with our own eyes, we have no way of knowing what is really there.
True. However, using what we do know from our study of our own planet and from our emerging studies of the planetary bodies around us, certain hypothesis can be constructed within the framework of known biology and physics. If all of the conditions for life as we know it are shown to exist elsewhere, then it isn't unreasonable to suspect that life may exist on that other planet. Can we KNOW it until we get there ourselves or receive pictures or other data from probes? No, not really, but thankfully, we have the scientific process which allows humanity to not rest on ancient supernatural beliefs that pretend to explain the world around us. If some brave people in our history hadn't fought against the status quo, we'd still believe that the Earth was the center of the Universe and we likely wouldn't have nifty computers like this or an Internet to discuss things. Science is valid and does result in very tangible benefits.



Anyways, I'm looking forward to seeing what further discoveries are made about this planet.
If the discoveries are "qualified," then wouldn't that be "pseudo-science" to you therefore making all "discoveries" null and void?

El Chuxter
10-24-2007, 03:16 PM
Earth-2 is where the Golden Age version of Superman lives. There are also evil duplicates there of everyone here. On the rare occasion they come over to our world, you can spot them by their evil :beard:s.

bigbarada
10-25-2007, 04:45 PM
If the discoveries are "qualified," then wouldn't that be "pseudo-science" to you therefore making all "discoveries" null and void?

I would listen to what is said and decide for myself what to believe and what not to believe. That's how I approach everything (even matters of faith).

I want to say more on this, but we've just launched two new websites this week and I've started work on a third, so my time in limited. And this discussion requires more thought than I am able to devote to it right now.

So I'm not ignoring you or LusiferSam's comments, I just want to be able to respond thoughtfully, not emotionally.

Plus, I can't have you guys thinking that you've outwitted me into silence.:D

2-1B
10-25-2007, 07:28 PM
So far, scientists believe that water is essential for life. That may be true for life here on Earth, but they are also finding that life is thriving in environments that it was previously thought impossible, such as superhot underwater geysers. So what we know is what it takes for life to evolve from simple lifeforms and thrive here on Earth. Just maybe, conditions are right for life on Earth because Earth's environment allows only certain kinds of life. It could be within the realm of possibility that entirely different forms of life could evolve and thrive in vastly different conditions, say, lack oxygen, "adequate" heat, or who knows what.

Kinda like Plo Koon ?

stillakid
10-25-2007, 08:01 PM
Kinda like Plo Koon ?

Uh, yeah. That's exactly who I had in mind. :sur: