MaxCathedral Posted September 20, 2003 Share Posted September 20, 2003 In Science News (September 13th issue)a 90 light year away star, called the HD 70642, may have the first similiar solar system as ours. Specifically the twice as large Jupiter like planet which orbits the HD 70642, does so in a circular path. This allows smaller (Earth Like) planets to survive zooming, crashing metorites and astroids, etc. Personally, I don't think we will find life in our meager street of the universe. As for life on our "block" (the Milky Way), there has got to be...just got to be. As for our "city", our superclusters of Galaxies.....in the Virgo Group...got to be, got to be... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted September 20, 2003 Share Posted September 20, 2003 Probably Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aman Posted September 20, 2003 Share Posted September 20, 2003 Our section of the galaxy might have a better chance of solar systems like ours since this area had the right mix of circumstances at least once we know of. There are some places real unhospitable to suns like ours with stability and proper elements. Just aman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt_f13 Posted September 20, 2003 Share Posted September 20, 2003 There is a torus shape closer to the conter of the galaxies which might have what it takes to produce more sun-like stars. Problem is, there are more supernovas there. Ever hear of those gamma explosions that wipe out whole galaxies? That would suck...Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonar Posted September 20, 2003 Share Posted September 20, 2003 the universe is infinite. so so are the possibilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matter Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 I'm with Max on this one. Trying to find life in other parts of our solar system kind of seems like a joke and a waste of money and time. I guess we have to do it anyways, for science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 MaxCathedral said in post #1 :Personally, I don't think we will find life in our meager street of the universe. As for life on our block (the Milky Way), there has got to be...just got to be. There is, it's called 'Us'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kedas Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 It's even not certain that there is no other life in 'our own' solar system. about intelligent live: You can even discuss if earth really qualifies for that. about finding sun-like stars: How do you even begin to prove that such a sun is needed, for all we know we could be in the minority about which kind of lifeform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 We don't prove that a sun is needed, but it is one factor which we are CERTAIN can cause life, rather than speculating on possible other types of life, which may not even exist, and trying to find objects to match those conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 alt_f13 said in post #4 :Ever hear of those gamma explosions that wipe out whole galaxies? That would suck...Just a thought. They do not wipe out whole galaxies. Stars that are collapsing into black holes or hitting the super nova stage may - if the conditions are right - emit a stream of gamma radiation form each pole. If a planet fell into the path of this beam, in the same galaxy, there's a good chance the weather system, water cycle etc would be devastated and the atmosphere damaged enough to wipe out all surface life. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1975354.stm However, wiping out an entire galaxy is extremely difficult to do. Interestingly enough our own galaxy is tearing up another right at this moment, and we will collide with Andromeda in 3 billion years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kedas Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 MrL_JaKiri said in post #9 :We don't prove that a sun is needed, but it is one factor which we are CERTAIN can cause life, rather than speculating on possible other types of life, which may not even exist, and trying to find objects to match those conditions. It's still a long shot maybe this type of star isn't even the main factor to have life around it. What I mean is it is still based on a big guess. You can aswell start looking for systems with more than 2planets because you don't think it's possible with only 2. There are a lot of parameters involved and the trued is we don't know all of them and we just picked this one as important because that is one we can investigate. Like a man who lost it key's 5meters away from a light source but looks around the light source be cause he can see there. but to quote A. Einstein: "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dudde Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Sayonara³ said in post #10 : Interestingly enough our own galaxy is tearing up another right at this moment, and we will collide with Andromeda in 3 billion years. RUUUUN!!!! hide the food! hoarde gas! ..... meh. Things may happen relatively quickly for the universe, but I'm not sure us banging into something else in that amount of time will matter really;) the earth should either be gone or expanded outward before then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 The Earth has been calculated to have a (near enough) 50:50 chance of either being thrown out into the extragalactic void, or tumbelling into the black hole at the center of the galaxy. Huzzah! Presumably this means the Andromeda collision will be muchos muchos more violent than the one that is currently in progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Kedas said in post #11 : change the 'cause' to 'not inhibit' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt_f13 Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Originally posted by Sayonara³ They do not wipe out whole galaxies. Stars that are collapsing into black holes or hitting the super nova stage may - if the conditions are right - emit a stream of gamma radiation form each pole. If a planet fell into the path of this beam, in the same galaxy, there's a good chance the weather system, water cycle etc would be devastated and the atmosphere damaged enough to wipe out all surface life. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1975354.stm However, wiping out an entire galaxy is extremely difficult to do. Interestingly enough our own galaxy is tearing up another right at this moment, and we will collide with Andromeda in 3 billion years. I don't think I was talking about this. I will look for it. It has been documented, seen in other galaxies. Edit - found it: Hypernovae and black hole collisions. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/963658.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 That link doesn't actually support your case, as it mentions them and then doesn't say what they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt_f13 Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 "mysterious bursts of gamma rays from the far reaches of the Universe" "Its four-year mission is to investigate the most powerful explosions in the Universe since the Big Bang." "collision of two black holes or a particular type of star explosion called a hypernova." Sayo was talking about a "a stream of gamma radiation " when I clearly said gamma explosions. They are huge explosions. They are not gamma ray streams. They can be attributed to black hole collisions or hypernovae. They are the biggest explosions since the big bang. That's all I was trying to prove. Here's more http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/model_bursts.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 You're supporting your argument using one word from a source which tends to misrepresent information? And the nasa link refers to bursts of gamma rays with unknown source. Since you're so sure, perhaps you should inform them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 We are essentially talking about the same thing, although "bursts" and "streams" evoke different mental images. A hypernova is doubtless an impressive event but it cannot destroy a galaxy. Think of the scales involved - I'd be surprised if it took out neighbouring star systems. It certainly couldn't irradiate a whole galaxy due to the (very basic physics) 1 over 4 rule and the 'dots on a balloon surface' expansion effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 The site you are using has this to say about hypernovae: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/features/news/20may99.html Among my favourite bits are: Hypernovae may explain the mysterious phenomena known as gamma-ray bursts ...and... hypernovae may produce some 100 times more energy than supernovae - even at best, not enough energy to wipe out a galaxy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt_f13 Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Okay, okay. I wasn't trying to prove that!!! Gamma ray bursts seen from the edges of the universe have to be pretty huge! In the book Aliens by Andrew Clark and David Clark they discuss the search for ETs and mention gamma ray bursts with the potential to kill everything within a galaxy. I was merely clarifying what it was I meant with those sites, not trying to prove the galaxy would be destroyed. It was one comment that came from one book I happenned to be reading at the time. Maybe the galaxy would be wiped out, maybe not. I wasn't the first to say it and frankly have no futher interest. Next time, if a post seems ambiguous to you, please o please ask for clarification or source material before trying to shut someone down over a one sentence side comment. I'll try my best to make my meanings more clear... but I guess that means no more side comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 You said "Ever hear of those gamma explosions that wipe out whole galaxies". I said that doesn't happen. You presented your evidence, I presented my evidence. I don't see a problem with the process at all. Don't panic - a gamma burst is unlikely to wipe out all life in a galaxy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now