"Goldilocks" Planet Found, Could Possibly Support Human Life

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by TruthSeeker, Sep 30, 2010.

  1. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    How come they come up with so many details about it and then say they can barely detect it? Weird....

    If they can't detect a planet about the size of Earth, then I guess they will have to develop better instruments. They have been working on that system since 2007, so obviously the picture is becoming more clear....
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    That's pretty cool! My business partner knows a fellow working with "antigravity" and we might be helping him getting some funding from the government. I would love to get involved in the field, so I'm crossing my fingers! D

    Have you checked out my thread on the Alcubierre drive? What do you think about warp drive?


    If UFOs were man-made, wouldn't you think that at this point they would have commercialized them in order to make some more money?


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    The details are pretty shady, all they have is an orbit and a rough mass that varies by more than the mass of the earth. Apparently if we assume they have low eccentricity in the orbits the 6 planet simulation fits the data, if we assume they have high eccentricity than only the 4 planet simulation fits the data. Low eccentricity makes sense considering the mass of these planets and their proximity to each other that their orbits would need to stabilize and resonate or they would have destroyed or jettisoned each other billions of years ago, and the star system is apparently old, but we know very little about extrasolar systems and what we have learned so far has revolutionized theories about star system formation, perhaps the eccentricities are high and that the star system is much younger then we think or that we under estimate star system stability.

    Clearly we need more data of higher precision, perhaps a space telescope, I don't think we have one up there that can do planet finding yet aside for Keplar and Keplar is busy and more so could not see this system, Keplar can only see planets that eclipse there star from our angle of view. We need a SIM or terrestrial planet finder!
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2010
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    I think you live in Canada, but in any case I sure hope the government funding for "anti-gravity" is not from the US government. It has too many "boondoggles" funded already.
  8. dhcracker Registered Senior Member

    First off I don't buy into "antigravity" I do however think there are advanced forms of propulsion that don't have to make gravity go away.

    Second I think the only possible reason for them to keep it secret is if the technology involves something that could be dangerous to everyone. If that propulstion for example uses antimatter and lots of it.. then if it gets in the wrong hands maybe some nutcase could blow a hole in the planet. That to me makes sense in keeping such a project secret. Also what about all the rich energy companies? Don't you think if that technology could make cheap energy that they too would want to keep it secret and put loads of money into keeping it that way?

    Normally the most simple answer is the correct one, I just don't see beings from other planets visiting us and not leaving behind any evidence. I could see the government being able to cover up and scrub all their projects evidence simply because they know where there planes are at at all times and if they crash they know where to go look.
  9. ExplorerAtHeart Registered Member

    One astro group released info supporting it, another different group reported that thier resullts were negative.
  10. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    That's a common misstatement of Occam's Razor. The point is that the simplest solution will usually be the easiest and fastest to test, so if it's wrong you haven't wasted much time and you can go on and test the more complex solutions.

    If you start testing a complicated solution first, it could take you ten years to find out that it's the wrong one.

    We cannot assume that nature has a bias toward simplicity, especially after all these billions of years for complex systems to evolve.
  11. jpappl Valued Senior Member


    What kind of evidence ?

    When considering what it would take to be able to visit us we could be dealing with a species thousands of years more advanced.

    They could have sent out millions of nano-scale probes, one of which came and went hundreds of years ago or maybe it is here now, but we just can't detect it.
  12. dhcracker Registered Senior Member

    Yes that may be possible, however people ARE seeing strange unexplained craft in the skies of the world I'm merely stating I find it more likely anything we see in our skies that isn't natural or explainable is still man-made.

    People are always selling human ingenuity short, it performed like no known human craft.. so what what about unknown man made craft I say. Its more likely we have secret advanced propulsion systems than ET is overflying our house. I"m not saying its not possible maybe some or few sightings could possibly be probes from elsewhere.. I'm just stating I believe most of them are ours. I have family high up at wright patterson AFB that pretty much say so in annoying hints... I hate the secret keepers that like you to know they know a secret and can't tell you about it lol.
  13. jpappl Valued Senior Member

    Got it.

    The ufo/et scenario gets murky when you look at the cases.

    For one thing. The military/Govt has engaged in dis-information-information regarding the subject.

    Essentially they want others (competition/enemies) to believe they have something and maybe they do.

    So they would not want to reveal an ET craft even if they have evidence of it and can always fall back on well we have some interesting stuff going on.

    Until an ET craft lands and there is no doubt that we have made contact or they with us, military/Govt/Cia will always play this game with sightings.

    It's smart to do. It keeps the competition guessing.

    Also the last thing they want to admit is that ET got through their detection system or that they detected it but couldn't catch it.

    As well, if they are ours. Then they can use the ET as an distraction to the new technology. Just make sure you get there first if it crashes.

    So whether or not they are ours, we won't know until either ET lands or they the military/Govt reveals the new tech. By then, you can be sure they are on to newer, better things.

    I would say that considering the craft we created in the 60's and that we are on the nano-tech path and that we have the ability to create invisible light reflecting surfaces, who knows what they got in there.
  14. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member


    This is not the forum or even the thread for your beliefs.
  15. jpappl Valued Senior Member

    I was responding to statement by dhcracker on the possibility of advanced propulsion systems that we may have and what kind of evidence we should expect to see from an ET encounter.

    Yes, since we don't know exactly what we or they may have it's just speculation.

    Otherwise, I am certainly not the one who started the off topic discussion but will be happy to leave it.
  16. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Not nearly as often as they did several hundred years ago as now many strange natural things seen in the sky can be explained. - So much for your "it must be man made" argument.
  17. dhcracker Registered Senior Member

    Well I don't know I wasn't around several hundred years ago to view that evidence, neither were you. I can only view what evidence we have today, and we have evidence today that are not natural phenomenon and could be man made. We cannot say for sure what people may or may not have seen several hundred years ago.
  18. Kajalamorth The Doctor Registered Senior Member

    Guys I think they forgot about the mass. Its at least 1.7 times the mass of the earth. Our spines would have a hard time supporting us. Remember to get their we would need to be in space for a long while...
  19. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    A lot of assumptions being made here, assuming this planet is real the gravity there is likely around 1.5 g or you would would way 50% more their, so I think you may be correct in the sense that their is no way humans would live there for long without horrendous back problems. The second assumption is of course the humans will go there, that we would go there as is, that we would go there via staying alive and active in a ship with zero gravity.

    A better way we could go there assuming technology advances as it does is that we send a robotic probe, it sets up a station there, then we have our DNA and brain patterns scanned, transmit them over there via something like a laser link and then download into new bodies, perhaps new ones grown to operate fine at 1.5g. Sort of like faxing your way to another star system, its as fast as light, no dangers in the journey as you on earth are still alive and well (assuming non-destructive scanning), and no transit time according to your perspective. You get in the brain scanner, then "you" (of course its not you rather a copy of you) wanks up in a gestation chamber over there.
  20. dhcracker Registered Senior Member

    I think humans would simply get stronger and have no problems. If you put a 50 pound pack on your back even at just 100 pounds.. your going to struggle moving for a few weeks.. however you will build up enough mass and stamina to carry the extra weight in no time really. I weigh 130 pounds and I can easily pack around 60 pounds on my back all day if need be... actually stronger gravity would be easier than adding weights.. weights don't put the force on your structure in a symetric way gravity would.
  21. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    I don't know, the human spine is at its limits, it needs to evolve to be straight (like a pencil) not its present "S" shape which came from the old 4 legged tree crawling days. Even under normal gravity back problems become guaranteed. So strength is not the problem, its a matter of having a skeletal structure that can bar the weight without deforming over time.
  22. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Lets get slightly realistic:

    (1) Scanning DNA is easy but do you envision the robots have already built bodies with that DNA data in every cell? At what temperature are these bodies made? Cells don't take freezing well and need flowing oxygenated blood. If body is not living with normal self maintaince process stopping various forms of decay; it is a lot to expect the robots to have sterilized a planet of all its native microorganisms.

    (2) Can you be a little more specific about what you mean by "have brain patterns scanned." ?

    Clearly (1) a perfect clone would need to have all the neuron/neuron synaptic connections* made like in the original. (2) At what point in time do you replicate the pattern of electrical activity of these neurons. It is quite different every few seconds. In order to recreate the "refractory periods" of each neuron at the very least you would need to recreate the atomic concentration density gradients of Na & K atoms / ions inside the axons of all the nerves and the interstitial fluid near them. Would you somehow access the memories from distant past, which the person cannot normally recall, but may with drugs and /or hypnotism, etc?

    * That is a huge amount of 3D data measured precisely on a sub micron scale and these connections are not like copper wire connections. I.e. they have at least two dozen different neurotransmitters some of which are being returned to the pre-synaptic neuron for later release and some are in process of attaching to their specific target sites.

    Reproducing the complexity of this neuro-transmitter flow is far greater (millions of times more difficult) than trying to reproduce the details (at molecular level also) of gram of sugar being stirred into a cup of hot water.

    Try that first - by comparison it is very simple to do - at least a million times less difficult to collect the molecular locations and the velocities of all the sugar and H2O molecules at the same instant (for later recreation) than do your "brain scan" because:

    (1) You are only describing two different, very simple, molecules locations and speeds, not thousands of different complex ones. Probably with sugar in water your do not need to describe the rotational orientations of these molecules, but that will be essential in for the brain's neuro-transmitter molecules as if you don't have each turned the correct way, it will not fit in the post synaptic receptor site. (Sort of like a lock and key geometry problem - the key does not fit if it is turned sideways or any other way except one.)

    (2) In the sugar and water case, it is perfectly OK to destroy the original arrangement of the molecules in the measurement / data collection process because you can recreate as many exact copies as you like. The Earth bound subject will not want you to be so destructive of him/her.

    SUMMARY: Tell how you could, even in principle, make a copy, exact at the molecular level, of a gram of sugar dissolving in a cup of hot water first, then I won't just laugh at your suggestion of teleporting a human to some distant planet.
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 25, 2010
  23. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Clearly you don't understand what I'm suggesting. I'm NOT suggesting copying every molecule. I'm only suggesting copying your DNA (which is about 2 Gigabytes) and copying your neural and synaptic patterns. Each neuron would need to be numbered, just to number every neuron would take 50-100 billion 64 bit numbers, that 640 gigabits total, then we need to name every neuron its connected to which will multiply that by several thousand if not tens of thousands on average, we would have to name the types, strength, and delay of every connection as at least scalar values, as well environmental scalar values acting on each neuron, lets assume a pessimist gigabit has be dedicated per neuron, that 640 billion gigabits at most. With today's technology we could achieve a laser link with at least several gigabits per second transmission speeds, theoretically hundreds of terabits per second are possible per channel, lets assume 100 terrabits transmission bandwidth for this future interstellar transmission, it would take 74 days to transmit your brain and 20 microseconds to transmit your genome. Of course the signal is traveling at the speed of light so it will take 74 days to upload, ~20 years to get there and 74 days to download. But it certianly beats traveling at sub-light speeds moving physical matter.

    This of course does not answer how to copy these features of you. Your genome is of course within today's technology although it would take several months, future technologies such as nanoscale readers that can read a single strand of DNA would be able to sequence your genome in at least hours and minutes if many readers are working in parrellel.

    Your brain is of course harder to scan. With existing technology its hypothetically possible to freeze your head in a block of glycerol, cut it into fine slices or ablate it way by a few nanometers at a time and scan each layer with a high powered electron microscope. Of course this would destroy you, does fix the having 2 of you problem. What future technology could scan your brain non-destructively, I don't know, certainly something that makes today's MRIs look like medieval leeches.

    Rebuilding a copy of you is of course far beyond todays technology, assuming with the embryonic technology of synthetic biology, we could synthesize your DNA over there after its downloaded, pop it into an artificially cell, boot it up and grow you from zygote to adulthood. Of course serious genetic modifications would have to be done to you in silico. As for copying your downloaded mind, either some way of directing the new you's brain growth would be needed or a synthetic processor simulating your brain would be shove into your new you's head.

    All of this is based on the premise that we won't be launching an interstellar probe for some time, perhaps sometime in the next century. And that it will take centuries or at least decade to arrive at its target. Assuming civilization does not stagnate or regress the technology should be available by then, also assuming some kind of faster then light travel is not discovered making all this irrelevant. Assuming all that this will be the fastest, cheapest way to get you from one solar system to another. Improvements could be gained by your mind being already uploaded and that you no longer have a body, but clearly not sending your genome saves almost nothing, data compression and reformatting your mind to an artificially intelligence standard might cut down on transmission length by several times.

    The perfection of the copy is arbitrary, assuming transhumanist philosophy takes over, a perfect copy and achieving immortality, expanded mental and emotional facilities are mutually exclusive. A copy is good enough if it remembers almost everything it was and its mind almost the same if it mental facilities were limited to what it was copied from. Assuming destructive scanning becomes available before non-destructive scanning (a good bet) your dead anyways, so making a copy of you no matter how inaccurate is better then remaining dead, assuming of course the copy is not in any pain because of it low fidelity.
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2010

Share This Page