/sci/ - Science & Math

[Nick Markakis Plastic Fork !bvuZLmUdCY No.5694747]

/sp/ here any chance we will ever know what is on these earth-like planets?

[Anonymous No.5694757]

>>5694747
within your lifetime we'll be able to tell whether or not there's vegetation on it or not, probably. Beyond that, not really.

But that would already be a big deal.

[Nick Markakis Plastic Fork !bvuZLmUdCY No.5694760]

>>5694757
I would guess that if there is life on any of those planets that they would make contact with us before we had any chance to right?

[Anonymous No.5694772]

>>5694760
well vegetation is life. I don't think we should expect to be lucky enough to find a right sized planet, at the right distance from its star, with life on it, and have this life form be able to contact us in any way.

Having solid proof that we're not alone in the universe, even though we almost know this for sure from statistics (given the number of planets and solar systems and galaxies, it's highly unlikely that we are alone), having proof of that would be a huge deal already.

Communication of any kind with another intelligent species is a different scenario, not impossible but it's a lot less likely I think, for technological reasons (any potential candidate is too fucking far away even if we knew them to be there) and because there are probably far less intelligent species than there are "animal like" species in the universe. Or at least far less species that would be advanced enough to even give a shit about outer space.

[Anonymous No.5694783]

>>5694760
Why in the world would you assume that? Life on that world could just be starting out. Even if it wasn't, I doubt they'd be able to cover thousands of light years to contact us. Yeah, no.

[Anonymous No.5694785]

>>5694747
Living on one of those superearths would be good for athletes as the +gravity would mean conditioning + gains.

It also comes down to what the planets are made of though. For a planet to have life it would need carbon. Non-carbon-based life is very limited i suspect.

[Anonymous No.5694791]

>>5694760
Nope.

There is only 1 species of animal on this planet that has built rockets out of billions that has been here before in billions of years of our history. And those are purely random chances via asteroids killing dinosaurs, right droughts timing forcing migration, right land mass to cross, surviving an ice age which almost killed our species entirely, right amount of geological formations and climates forcing various degrees of evolutions/etc.

Chances of intelligence life is slim to none. Chances of intelligent life making contact with us faster than we can with them is even slimmer.

Since we already know about this planet, within few decades we will launch more satellites to investigate furthur. Within 100 years from now, there would be better engine/ships and robots to examine it. I doubt they would contact us before we would. We have already made progression.

[Anonymous No.5694793]

no chance at all.

[Anonymous No.5694816]

>>5694791
>Chances of intelligence life is slim to none.

retard alert

[Carl !!dFf2PUolAtC No.5694817]

>>5694747
To an extent

We can utilize a similar technique to how these planets were detected to determine what their atmospheres are composed of by observing the change in the star's spectra as the planet crosses in front of it and light from the star passes through the thin layer of atmosphere around the planet.

Depending on what we find we can tell a lot about it.

[Anonymous No.5694833]

>>5694816
On those planet you tard. Its only on a universal/galactic scale that chances are high. On a handful of planets that we've identified within 1-2 year of the first extra galactic planetary satellite, the chances are slim.

[Anonymous No.5694838]

>>5694833
>the first extra galactic planetary satellite
... wuh?

[Anonymous No.5694881]

It makes me kind of sad, all of those earth like planets and no way to visit or meet whoever lives there

[Anonymous No.5694893]

>>5694881

Orion drive starships coupled with some actual effort put into curing aging beg to differ

[Anonymous No.5694918]

>any chance we will ever know what is on these earth-like planets?
Not with current technology. And probably not in the near future.

Do you know how plants are discovered when they're that far away? They have super sensitive telescopes that look for changes in light. If a planet is passing by a star, it will dim the light coming back ever so slightly. Stars are so god damn gigantic and bright that we can't even see the damn planet, we just assume it is there because of a dimming light.

Telescopes CAN zoom into the planet, and hell, probably even take satellite images of the entire planet if it wasn't for the fact of the gigantic star.

To show you how hard it is to even see a planet, get a large, bright flashlight and place a dust particle on the lens then turn it on. Then take a magnifying glass and try to look at the dust particle from 10 feet away, and tell me how it goes.

[Anonymous No.5694925]

>>5694816
The chance of discovering intelligent life within the observable universe is near zero. But the observable universe isn't the entire universe, so the actual chance of there being life is quite high. That said, if there is a high chance of intelligent life, why hasn't any of them ever visited us? Are we not worthy, or are we the most advanced species? I hope it isn't the latter.

[Anonymous No.5695385]

>>5694747
we

[Anonymous No.5695614]

>>5694925
Well that's what Hawkins always says, but given the nature of the exo planets we have found so far at a distance that would allow plausible contact, there's no way they would have been able to reach us already (if you consider the radio waves we've been sending for decades now as something that would give away our presence).
It's of course possible to imagine other possibilities, such as a lack of interest. But unless they have some seriously advanced technology to allow them to overcome all the challenges of traveling such great distances, there isn't a great chance of encountering them, even if they knew us to be there and wanted to come.

In a book by C.Clark called Rendez Vous With Rama, he imagines that an alien spaceship passes by earth, and completely ignores the team of scientists that is being sent to investigate it (although the ship isn't actually inhabited by its makers, but still), and the ship is only here to get some fuel from the Sun.

Neil de Grasse Tyson also argues that, just like we only have a moderate interest for animal species that are considered less smart than ourselves, a species that is more intelligent than humans could almost completely ignore and disregard us as a worthwhile race to study.
He says that since only 2% of our genes differ from that of some primates, it could very well be that our intelligence is only as different as those 2%; and thus an alien species which would be 2% different from us might also be incomparably smarter than us.

[Anonymous No.5695644]

>>5694747

No. There's a limit to the amount of money we're willing to spend on the technology required to obtained such detailed information about such small targets at such a large distance and next to such a bright source like their suns.

Resolution could improve by a factor of 100 over today, and we still won't be able to tell much about these worlds. That's a massive increase in detail and there just isn't the economic intent to achieve it... on the advent of the era of Petroleum Starvation.

[Anonymous No.5695660]

>>5695385
Why do you keep commenting "we" on various posts?

[Anonymous No.5695676]

>>5694925

Economics answers your question. The energy (therefore expense) required to engage in interstellar travel is so huge that it is evidently absolutely prohibitive across the galaxy. After all, the sky is silent of all signs of technical civilization. It only takes 10-100 million years for a species like us to colonize the entire galaxy. The Milky Way is 8 billion years old. There's been plenty of time for that development to take place.

Look closely at our own example. We're not leaving the Earth. Nobody's willing to spend the trillions of dollars necessary to do it. We prefer to spend trillions instead in schemes to kill each other. We're Violent Simians.

[Anonymous No.5695700]

>>5694893
>curing aging
Screw that, just go into hibernation.

[Anonymous No.5696135]

Well we've already directly imaged several exoplanets. I suppose it's possible that we could have some kind of massive breakthrough in optics technology allowing us to take crystal-clear images of planets lightyears away as though we were in orbit.
I wouldn't hold my breath, though.

Pic related.

[Anonymous No.5696138]

>>5696135
One more because actually seeing exoplanets is neato.

[Anonymous No.5696186]

>go to Earth-like planet
>find that it has exactly the right temperature range, liquid water, clouds, rain, working water cycle etc.
>also find that is has no solid surface above 1 km below sea level
welp

[Anonymous No.5696232]

>>5696186
Time to build.......WATER WORLD

[Anonymous No.5696250]

I've been reading up on the Fermi Paradox as well as the arguments in the Rare Earth Theory, and it made me wonder about our moon more than anything.

Our moon is practically a second planet considering its size is comparable to Mars, and as a result of both its size and close proximity, we enjoy significant tides as a result.

Without these tides, would there be any water circulation across the planet, or would it all just like stagnant?

Also, considering its violent creation is likely the reason for our axial tilt and our relatively rapid spin, what would the implications be for a non-tilted tidally-locked Earth? Would the stark difference between dayside and nightside create powerful thermal currents and thus a healthy water cycle without the need of a moon?

[Anonymous No.5696255]

>>5696232
That or build an underwater/underground world

[Anonymous No.5696262]

>>5696255
>not releasing an army of self-replicating rubber duckies upon which to float a grand city

[Anonymous No.5696279]

Some more directly imaged exoplanets.

[Anonymous No.5696282]

[Anonymous No.5696283]

[Anonymous No.5696285]

[Anonymous No.5696288]

Last one.

[Anonymous No.5696291]

>>5696250

There's really only one reason why Luna isn't a second planet to our own, and that's because the barycenter of the Earth-Luna system is within the Earth. But Luna is pulling away, and we'd have to classify our system as a double planet then.

Check it: Luna's orbit around the sun is always concave. That's one way of classifying it as a planet. Luna is also much closer in mass to the Earth, than other 'moons' are to their primaries. That's another way of classifying it as a planet. So what remains is the barycenter thing.

[Anonymous No.5696497]

>>5696291
That's a really interesting angle to view it from.
What are your thoughts on my other questions, or are they too speculative?

[Anonymous No.5697570]

>>5695660
He's a dyslexic Frenchman who happens to agree with the OP.

[Anonymous No.5697571]

>>5695676
When did the first 2nd generation stars form?

Life can't originate on first generation stars, can it?

[Anonymous No.5697578]

>>5694881
Shouldn't we be pointing our Seti radio dishes at these planets?

[Anonymous No.5697834]

>>5694757
>within your lifetime

OP is dying from cancer and has 9 days to live... you uncaring bastard.

[Anonymous No.5697835]

>>5694757
>whether or not there's vegetation on it

What makes you assume "vegetation" will exist on other planets?

[Anonymous No.5697852]

>>5694757
That's unlikely. It may be possible for much nearer stars in 20 to 40 years but this star is 1200 ly away, that's not happening any time soon.

[Anonymous No.5697859]

>>5694918
>Telescopes CAN zoom into the planet, and hell, probably even take satellite images of the entire planet if it wasn't for the fact of the gigantic star.
No, completely wrong. Telescopes have fundamental limits on how fine detail they can resolve. No telescope that exists today or has been considered could even resolve a planet (resolve means it is no longer a point). Getting just a few pixel image on a planet is science fiction right now.
Coronagraphy (blocking out the star) is far easier than resolving a planet.

[Anonymous No.5697861]

>>5695614
No that's something Fermi said. There are hundreds of answers to his paradox.

[Anonymous No.5697872]

>>5696291
This is a science board so use correct terms. It's called the Moon.

[Anonymous No.5697993]

>>5697859
see:
>>5696135
>>5696138
>>5696279
>>5696282
These are not points. They have both width and height.

[Anonymous No.5698014]

>>5696250
THE MOON IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR WATER TIDES, WHAT ARE WE NOW ON THE 1700´S?

[Anonymous No.5698023]

>>5698014
Well it certainly amplifies the tides profoundly.

[Anonymous No.5698033]

>>5698023
Lolno, do you also believe the earth is flat and the earth is the center of the universe?

[Anonymous No.5698038]

>>5698033
>the moon's gravity has no effect whatsoever on Earth's oceans
Welp, you trolled me. Pretty good. 6.3/10

[Anonymous No.5698043]

>>5698038
>Having any residual effect
>Relevant
>You didnt mention Mars, Venus, Sun, Neptune because you know nothing about what you are talking about and you still believe on the science made on the 1700's

[Anonymous No.5698046]

>>5698043
You've got some serious tinfoil hat science going on, sir. I applaud you. Very entertaining.

[Anonymous No.5698063]

>>5698023
I think the moon is responsible for 40% of the tides or something.

[Anonymous No.5698079]

>>5698014

This is why /sci/ is a shit board.

[Anonymous No.5698088]

>>5698014
Whatever third-world russian hellhole you crawled out of, go back there. And take your crackpot science with you.

[Anonymous No.5698094]

>>5698043
The sun effects tides as well. The othe planets have a negligible effect because of their distance, but they also have an infentesimally small effect.

[Anonymous No.5698179]

>>5694925
Do you even the Prime directive? And you thought Star Trek was just a joke

[Anonymous No.5699256]

>>5695614
>radio waves
The waves we've sent out would only have propagated a maximum of 100ly or so, and that's only if they were all powerful directional transmissions.
They weren't.
Our radio transmissions would look like nothing other than typical radio noise from our star from any distance of greater than ~1ly from us. We're invisible.

Furthermore, given that the Earth is such a young planet around such a young star in such an ancient universe, it stands to reason that intelligent life would have evolved at least once in the past dozen or so billion years.
Even with sublight methods of transportation (generation ships, seed ships, van neumann probles), any spacefaring civilization that wished to colonize or explore our entire galaxy could have done it within a mere 500 million years or so.

The fact that we've seen no sign of such a pervasive presence in our galaxy implies that we're either the first spacefaring species to evolve, the previous ones are all long dead, or spacefaring civilizations realize the impracticality of deep space exploration and universally consider it a waste of time, internalizing their efforts instead.

In short, the prospects for meeting another intelligent species are nil.