MagnaCool--Habitable Exoplanet!

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Hey, don't get me wrong. In no way am I saying that a life expectancy of 120 is out of theoretical reach. I just don't see it happening in 50 years. 500, maybe. 50? Not on your life, or mine.

Yup. Things like clean drinking water, proper nutrition, antibiotics and the occasional life-saving surgery for appendicitis and a host of other common illnesses are what have powered the increase in life expectancy over the last 300 years.

That was the easy part. What kills people now is that they wear out. The fight against the host of problems which come with age is not even close to similar to what we've accomplished till now. It's not going to simply drop in our laps.

There will be a steady (though decreasing) upward trend to life expectancies (as long as the obesity epidemic doesn't continue to grow). Don't expect to even live to a hundred. Even with a fairly healthy lifestyle and reasonable advances in medicine, the average person just doesn't have the genes to last that long. People in their 70s and 80s don't die because they drank contaminated water, or because they don't get enough food or because they live in hovels. They die because they weren't built to live any longer. Until some fairly fundamental problems in biochemistry are worked out, that won't change.

[notyoueither]

We should encourage centerians to breed.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Yup. Things like clean drinking water, proper nutrition, antibiotics and the occasional life-saving surgery for appendicitis and a host of other common illnesses are what have powered the increase in life expectancy over the last 300 years.

That was the easy part. What kills people now is that they wear out. The fight against the host of problems which come with age is not even close to similar to what we've accomplished till now. It's not going to simply drop in our laps.

There will be a steady (though decreasing) upward trend to life expectancies (as long as the obesity epidemic doesn't continue to grow). Don't expect to even live to a hundred. Even with a fairly healthy lifestyle and reasonable advances in medicine, the average person just doesn't have the genes to last that long. People in their 70s and 80s don't die because they drank contaminated water, or because they don't get enough food or because they live in hovels. They die because they weren't built to live any longer. Until some fairly fundamental problems in biochemistry are worked out, that won't change.

I'm astonished that you don't consider any and all fundamental problems in biochemistry to be trivial obstacles.

[KrazyHorse]

They are not trivial. That doesn't make them interesting, however.

[Berzerker]

isn't this planet a bit close to a red dwarf? I understand red dwarfs are the end result of a sun like ours, which means this planet either formed out of material ejected by the collapsing red giant or it was sucked in or drawn closer after the red giant phase. If it isn't just debris from the red giant then it must be pretty old as "viable" planets go, to find a body with that temperature range after a sun has gone thru nearly its entire lifespan is amazing. The Earth should be so lucky, I suspect this planet is a burned out husk now "enjoying" moderate temperatures due to a cooling sun.

Wait a minute, will our sun become a white dwarf?

[Seeker]

A red dwarf NEVER was big. It is not the end of star's life cycle. You are thinking of a Red Giant, which is what our Sun will one day become. It is a star that just barely has a fusion 'engine', and burns its fuel much much much more slowly than the wasteful young bucks like blue and yellow stars.

Actually a civilization on a Red Dwarf has a pretty sweet deal cosmically. A red dwarf can live for 1000 Billion Years, versus our Sun's relatively puny 8 Billion. And its life cycle is a lot more stable than drama-queen suns, there's no novas, no swelling into a red giant, just eons of prim and proper low-yield fusion.

It's also a factor in favour of life on any particular red dwarf earthlike planet....it can potentially have had a heck of a lot longer for life to have evolved.

[Berzerker]

so what produces red dwarfs? No expansion or contraction, just relative stability? A small nebula collapses and barely has enough material for a small star to ignite?

[Robert]

I'm sorry bit this is really hard to believe.
It's a planet, far far from here, not even directly observed by only by calculations. Calculations that have never been verified to be right or even close. (they may be right, but we just don't know it)

I have much faith in science, but not this kinda science. Everybody with a little bith of intelligence understands that 99% of the facts stated in the article will turn out to be totally different.

It's a miracle btw. that the newspapers didn't read: "Scientists find earth-like planet that may contain intelligent life" this morning.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


He means send out a signal and get it back.

The entire power output of the earth is not enough to be detectable when reflected off a planet-sized object 20 ly away.

I was aware of what he said, but decided to ignore the concept of sending signals out as it's laughable and instead stuck to the concept of what could realistically be 'probed' by purely observing.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Emetri
Dear me, you're actually afraid to die. What a narcissistic notion. Quite hip though, so I understand.

It has nothing to do with narcissism, it has everything to do with the fact that I don't want to die. It's the ultimate oblivion. Everything I am and what makes me and what I know will be gone.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Emetri
Hm, I'm nearly done elaborating, I think. I just consider death to be the natural conclusion to life, that's all. It's a release which, in time, most people grow to accept and embrace. If you don't, you have a problem. For a while, at least..

Resignation...it would be nice to be able not to die.

There's a natural boundary to the human lifespan, which has nothing to do with how average longevity has historically evolved. I think we've all but reached that boundary in the developed world at this point. No valid projections can be made on the basis of historical developments if the body physically breaks down at 115.

There has never been any selection pressure to live beyond reproductive age. But as as society it is important that we retain the skill and experience that people acquire.

Body breaking down at 115? Please don't pull random facts out of your arse - your body is in a constant state of decay once senescence kicks in.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by CyberShy
I'm sorry bit this is really hard to believe.
It's a planet, far far from here, not even directly observed by only by calculations. Calculations that have never been verified to be right or even close. (they may be right, but we just don't know it)

I have much faith in science, but not this kinda science. Everybody with a little bith of intelligence understands that 99% of the facts stated in the article will turn out to be totally different.

It's a miracle btw. that the newspapers didn't read: "Scientists find earth-like planet that may contain intelligent life" this morning.

Here you go with your 'faith'. Don't have faith in science, assess the evidence dammit!

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by CyberShy
I'm sorry bit this is really hard to believe.
It's a planet, far far from here, not even directly observed by only by calculations. Calculations that have never been verified to be right or even close. (they may be right, but we just don't know it)

I have much faith in science, but not this kinda science. Everybody with a little bith of intelligence understands that 99% of the facts stated in the article will turn out to be totally different.

There's no particular reason to believe that information about the mass and orbital radius of the object is wrong.

Its radius is open to speculation, as that depends on planetary formation models. Its mean temperature is pretty much a straightforward exercise in thermodynamics.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


Here you go with your 'faith'. Don't have faith in science, assess the evidence dammit!

Excuse me, I can have faith in science as a thing that will bring good stuff to humanity and teach a lot to us. Like I can have faith in my wife that she will make me happy.

I have faith in science, not in the evidence. The evidence is true, without faith.

There's no particular reason to believe that information about the mass and orbital radius of the object is wrong.

True. But to be honest, we don't have much information about the planet at all. I'm fine with doing this, and I hope that they'll learn more from the planet. But we must be honest, right now those guys know perhaps 0.000000000000000000000000001% of the possible knowledge of that planet. (if it exists at all!), and everybody is already excited that we found 'another earth'.

Its radius is open to speculation, as that depends on planetary formation models. Its mean temperature is pretty much a straightforward exercise in thermodynamics.

I'm sure that there are a lot of odds between the planet and our planet that we've never heard about that may 'corrupt' all data we collect.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


There's no particular reason to believe that information about the mass and orbital radius of the object is wrong.

Its radius is open to speculation, as that depends on planetary formation models. Its mean temperature is pretty much a straightforward exercise in thermodynamics.

Given the spread in temperatures 0-40C that may be true with only a few assumptions, but a 'straightforward' exercise in thermodynamics is not so straightforward if it has an atmosphere like Venus, say. Do a straightforward analysis assuming a nitrogen atmosphere when it's actually CO2 and it will be wrong. Won't it?