What exoplanet might reply us back?

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: whereislogic

"In the habitable zone of its star" and "habitable" are two different things.

If we were 100 LY away looking back at our own solar system, by most definitions of the term "habitable zone", three planets -- Venus, Earth, and Mars would be -- considered to be within the habitable zone of our Sun.

I kind of hate to be contrary, but; The habitable zone of our sun is 0.95AU - 1.37AU.
Venus is at 0.7AU, and almost circular.
Mars is at 1.381AU - 1.665AU.

Only Mars comes close to the HZ, and then just "kisses" the outer edge. Which would probably mean that Mars could be made habitable with technology, Venus not so much...surface temp about 863.6F, surface pressure isn't fun either at 9.2MPa (as compared to Earth at 101.3kPa)...Venus would probably be a bitch to Terraform...maybe some huts that are better/stronger than our best submarines.

originally posted by: james1947

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: whereislogic

"In the habitable zone of its star" and "habitable" are two different things.

If we were 100 LY away looking back at our own solar system, by most definitions of the term "habitable zone", three planets -- Venus, Earth, and Mars would be -- considered to be within the habitable zone of our Sun.

I kind of hate to be contrary, but; The habitable zone of our sun is 0.95AU - 1.37AU.
Venus is at 0.7AU, and almost circular.
Mars is at 1.381AU - 1.665AU.

Only Mars comes close to the HZ, and then just "kisses" the outer edge. Which would probably mean that Mars could be made habitable with technology, Venus not so much...surface temp about 863.6F, surface pressure isn't fun either at 9.2MPa (as compared to Earth at 101.3kPa)...Venus would probably be a bitch to Terraform...maybe some huts that are better/stronger than our best submarines.

Maybe I should have said "Some" and not "most" definitions of our habitable zone. Many definitions of our solar system's habitable zone do include Mars, and some include Venus.

The reason Venus is hot is not necessarily because of its distance to the Sun; it's because of its runaway greenhouse effect. Some findings about Vevus show that it may have had liquid water seas and habitable conditions perhaps 2 Billion years ago -- more recently than Mars is thought to have had large areas of standing water and potentially habitable coditions for life as we know it.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Again, being "currently habitable" and being "in the habitable zone" are two different things.

a reply to: Harte
The link entitled "Evidence for design from biology". Of course, the process of designing (+creating, i.e. engineering) something requires a specific type and level of intelligence that corresponds with the design(s) in question.

The evidence in that playlist doesn't consists of speculations about UFO's though. I'm not in the entertainment business. So for that sort of entertainment, look elsewhere.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
If you google that you will get different answers (or claims). One website says:

Currently only the Earth falls in the Solar System's habitable zone.

Of course, there are those who use different methods for determining our solar system's habitable zone or any habitable zone. And those motivated to argue it spans a larger area by using those different methods, whether they are justified or not. There are reasons for arguing for a larger habitable zone related to philosophical naturalism and arguments about the potentiality and plausibility of life, or the so-called "(chemical) evolution" of life on other planets. For those people it's quite convenient that not that many will argue against their methodology to determin the habitable zone anyway. There are those who much rather just publish their own "models" since the situation in these circles is "Publish or perish":

Taking all these factors into account, the model suggests that the inner edge of the Solar System’s habitable zone is about 142 million kilometres from the Sun, or about 95% of Earth’s average orbital distance.

The results “actually extend the inner edge of the habitable zone toward the Sun”, says Leconte, compared to an earlier estimate(2) that put the 'red line' for the runaway effect at just 99% of Earth's average orbital distance.
...
2. Kopparapu, R. K. et al. Astrophys. J. 765, 131 (2013).

Source: Earth is only just within the Sun's habitable zone (Nature Magazine): Climate model suggests exoplanets that can host life are less prevalent than thought.

For comparison, Venus is about 108 million km from the Sun on average (that's about 72% of "Earth's average orbital distance").

So one article says 95% of Earth's average orbital distance (for the inner edge, but only looking at the greenhouse "runaway effect" discussed and considered in the article), another says 99%, and yet others have other numbers (even as sensational as 50% as referred to in the article above; but from what little information is given in the article above, that number doesn't even seem to consider the greenhouse "runaway effect" that is the main topic in the article).

No need to point out Mars is on the other side. The diagram I'm looking at now has Mars outside their proposed habitable zone as well.

Anyway, the other factors discussed in my previous commentary are more important to consider than the so-called "habitable zone" in relation to the OP's question about Gliese 273 b and Gliese 581 g.

a reply to: whereislogic
Remember, both Gliese 273 and Gliese 581 are Red Dwarfs (much smaller than our sun) for which the following from the article in my first comment in this thread applies:

The sun is an ideal type of star for our needs. It is steady burning, long-lived, and neither too large nor too hot. The vast majority of stars in our galaxy are much smaller than our sun and provide neither the right kind of light nor the right amount of heat to sustain life on an earthlike planet.

If that doesn't help with what to think about the questions in the OP (what to expect; see questions below) then you might also want to consider and figure out what the deal is concerning this situation regarding Gliese 273 and Gliese 581:

In addition, most stars are gravitationally bound to one or more other stars and revolve around one another. Our sun, by contrast, is independent. It is unlikely that our solar system would remain stable if we had to contend with the gravitational force of two or more suns.

Source: Our Unique Solar System​—How It Got Here

Just to recap, the question in the OP was:

Which of these exoplanets, if any, do you think might reply us back?

Put in other words, which of these exoplanets do you think it might have intelligent life?

I answered with "none" (I meant "neither" but I was already thinking ahead to any other suggested exoplanet that might have already been mentioned in the thread or that someone might think of).

Red Dwarf-systems are not a realistic suggestion for proposing habitable exoplanets. One article that tries to downplay all the issues with habitability on a planet in a Red Dwarf-system (which for that reason I won't link) mentions:

As habitability goes, red dwarfs were thought to be the bad roommates of the cosmos.

And then it tries to argue how that no longer counts, but it still does (it's an appropiate description). Speculations and models do not negate the facts of subjects such as amount of UV-radiation in those scenarios and the planet becoming tidally locked with the same side always facing the star and all the problems that entails for the habitability scenario.

Anyway, Gliese 581 g is unlikely to exist at all. Just read the wikipedia page on that one to see if you can agree.

Sending out messages into space is one of the most idiotic things humanity has ever done.

If one of those messages managed to find a planet that was technologically advanced our only hope of survival would be if they dismiss it as a hoax or trap thinking no species could be that stupid.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: whereislogic

Again, no consideration for ozone layers and moons in discussions about habitability (on wikipedia where that subject for planet g comes up for example). Funny how an unconfirmed imagined planet is already deemed habitable by those claiming it exists or is likely that it exists. With no consideration for the things I brought up in my previous comment I might add.

Which incidentally contains a link at the end to all the evidence you need for the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life. .

Which link is it?
I couldn't find what you're talking about here.

Harte

Since you also bolded the phrase that refers to "the things I brought up in my previous comment", that's referring to the stuff I was repeating in that comment as well + some of the stuff I left out from the 1st comment. That wasn't about any link. Not sure why you bolded the 2 together like that if your question was about the link I mentioned after that. So I answered the question about the link in my response to you before.

originally posted by: james1947

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: whereislogic

"In the habitable zone of its star" and "habitable" are two different things.

If we were 100 LY away looking back at our own solar system, by most definitions of the term "habitable zone", three planets -- Venus, Earth, and Mars would be -- considered to be within the habitable zone of our Sun.

Mars is at 1.381AU - 1.665AU.

And such a large variation in distance to the sun is also not healthy for habitability. You don't want that either in a proposed exoplanet like Gliese 273b or Gliese 581 g if you want to suggest there might be intelligent life on them. So one might wanna check that first before sending signals (the exoplorer link in my 2nd comment might have that info).

a reply to: Blue Shift

I think AI would recognise and immediately seek to mitigate the threat of their "species" being destroyed in one almighty asteroid impact, just as we ought to. They would probably arrive at workable solutions a damned sight faster though.

Multi-planetary society for the win!

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: whereislogic
Remember, both Gliese 273 and Gliese 581 are Red Dwarfs (much smaller than our sun) for which the following from the article in my first comment in this thread applies:

The sun is an ideal type of star for our needs. It is steady burning, long-lived, and neither too large nor too hot. The vast majority of stars in our galaxy are much smaller than our sun and provide neither the right kind of light nor the right amount of heat to sustain life on an earthlike planet.

Earth-like planets are NOT the only planets that potentially might harbor intelligent life. What if life that is not water-based, but rather liguid methane-based eveloved into a technological civilization -- that is, life that uses liguid methane for life processes in place of water. Liquid Methane my be the liquid of choice on a planet that is too cold for Earth-like life (i.e., "Life as we know it").

Granted, liquid-methane based life is hypothetical, but there are scientists, such as NASA astrobiologist Chris McKay, who feel it is possible, such as the potential for microbial life on Titan (see link below).

I understand why we look for "life as we know it", and that's because it would be the easist for us to dectect; I mean, how do you even test for "Life as we DON'T know it"? However, I don't think we should completely rule out planest as being potential places for advanbced life just because they are cold places.

www.space.com...]Could Life Exist in the Methane Habitable Zone?

a reply to: whereislogic

Its worth pointing out that a planet need not be Earth like in order to sustain life, and if it can sustain life, then there is no way for us to assume (without having a MASSIVE potential margin for error) that no intelligent life can grow on any other kind of planet, than ours.

Also, Red Dwarf stars may be smaller and give out a different light, but all that means is that planets would need to be closer to the star in order to receive enough warmth from it to promote life growth, but also that the format of that life would need to be different, adapted to grow and flourish in what we would consider entirely harsh environs.

We MUST stop using ourselves as a benchmark. Until we know what else exists in the universe, we only have a sample size of one planet to go on, and it is stifling thought and investigation on the topic in ways that I frankly tire of.

a reply to: james1947

Your calculator estimates don't take into account the significant figures + memory register/display value.

1e35 is fine

6.463384858686837222884e34 is where the display will have some issue.

Maybe it can do the calc internally, but the displays have a limit to what they will show, in terms of digit count.

I don't doubt your expertise. I just know what actually happens when you input that number. No fault to you, Windows isn't the greatest OS ever made.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

Granted, liquid-methane based life is hypothetical, but there are scientists, such as NASA astrobiologist Chris McKay, who feel it is possible, such as the potential for microbial life on Titan (see link below).

Perhaps that sort of talk is better for Hollywood than a taxfunded organization like NASA or a magazine supposedly about "astrobiology" (see your link), implying that what's in it is "science" rather than "science fiction". Who knows, maybe the pink unicorn is flying around on a flying carpet out there somewhere and you don't even need to look for a planet. If we're going there anyway (the realm of pure speculation, fantasy, imagination and wishful thinking), there would be no need for some people to talk about Gliese 273b as a "Super Earth" or "one of the most Earth-like planets ever found" or "an Earth Similarity Index (ESI) value of 0.86" (quotations from wikipedia including their citations).

Remember that those are the reasons the radio messages were sent. It all ties in with the claims about the quantity of earthlike planets in the universe which in turn is used to beef up the idea of the so-called "chemical evolution theory of life" a.k.a. "the hypothesis of abiogenesis" (more being better in that sense, an attempt to make it appear more plausible by increasing the number of earthlike or supposed habitable planets in the storylines, as if that's gonna help your argument for philosophical naturalism and/or abiogenesis/"the spontaneous appearance of life"; it does nicely cater to the crowd however).

In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz highlighted the dilemma. He stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.”1

1. How Life Began​—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.

Source: QUESTION 1: How Did Life Begin?

For there to be life on other planets, it has to begin at some point. I have seen no convincing evidence that the forces of nature on their own are capable of achieving this feat as is assumed by some philosophical naturalists (incl. astrobiologists) that 'see' earthlike planets everywhere in their imagination (a 0.86 ESI for a planet almost on top of a Red Dwarf in comparison with the Earth and the Sun? Seems to be some interesting limitations to the criteria in that ESI at first glance. How much ESI value does a planet get for just being classified as a planet?).

originally posted by: whereislogic

Again, no consideration for ozone layers and moons in discussions about habitability (on wikipedia where that subject for planet g comes up for example). Funny how an unconfirmed imagined planet is already deemed habitable by those claiming it exists or is likely that it exists. With no consideration for the things I brought up in my previous comment I might add.

Which incidentally contains a link at the end to all the evidence you need for the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life.

originally posted by: whereislogic
Since you also bolded the phrase that refers to "the things I brought up in my previous comment", that's referring to the stuff I was repeating in that comment as well + some of the stuff I left out from the 1st comment. That wasn't about any link. Not sure why you bolded the 2 together like that if your question was about the link I mentioned after that. So I answered the question about the link in my response to you before.

The two sentences were related, that's why I bolded both.
You appeared to be saying that, in your previous comment, you left a link "to all the evidence you need for the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life."

I asked which link has this evidence because none of the links that I looked at in your previous post (before that one) had any such evidence.

Edit: Nevermind. You use intelligent design as evidence.

Harte

originally posted by: Archivalist
a reply to: james1947

Your calculator estimates don't take into account the significant figures + memory register/display value.

1e35 is fine

6.463384858686837222884e34 is where the display will have some issue.

Maybe it can do the calc internally, but the displays have a limit to what they will show, in terms of digit count.

I don't doubt your expertise. I just know what actually happens when you input that number. No fault to you, Windows isn't the greatest OS ever made.

Well firstly, you should read this: msdn.microsoft.com...

Second: your display, whether it be on your screen (which would display a string of any length I choose), or on a segmented alpha-numerical display (old tech), or indeed any modern method of display, you will still be able to see enough of your value to be useful, regardless if that value is very large, or very small, positive or negative.

So you example might look like 6.46338485e34 if it is large, or 6.46338485e-34 if it is very small. and this is true of any device I'm aware of being produced...ever.

On the OS front; Unix isn't the best ever either!

a reply to: james1947

I am literally inputting the exponent into Windows 10 calculator right now.

It won't provide output, nor perform the computation at all.

This is a vanilla install of Windows aside from these installs:

Steam
Irfanview
ImageMagick
LMMS
VLC
Visual Studio 2017
Epic Games Launcher
Fortnite
Unreal Engine
Standard OEM/Third Party Driver Support

So, unless one of those things is creating a conflict, Win10 calc will not provide output for this exact situation.

As a test, you can do this same thing to see how wrong I am.

Windows 10 calculator
pi variable input from scientific mode of win10 calc
Raised to the power of
65.0925323326

If your calculator does anything but hang/freeze, let me know.

Again, I appreciate your knowledge on the subject.

I am not a career software engineer, my major was Networking and Security.
I don't consider this a flaw on your part. Your idea is sound.
Windows just won't cooperate on this specific example, even though it should.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: whereislogic

Edit: Nevermind. You use intelligent design as evidence.

Harte

The problem with Intelligent design is that it can also be adequately explained with the idea that evolution isn't random, but, rather pseudo-random.

I watched a video, some years ago, where they were explaining how that IF the Universe, and evolution were random, we, our Sun, solar system, and especially Humans wouldn't exist...yet. It went on to show several examples of random vs pseudo-random affect on simple things like painting a floor in one foot square, and some others. What they were trying to demonstrate is that a totally random takes vastly longer to complete a task.

As for the presence of life on appropriate planet around M class stars? I'm absolutely certain it exists...Intelligent is yet another question, as would be the complexity..

a reply to: Archivalist
Windows 7:
2.2947964136676701311852236654813e+32
The only thing I use the calculator for is simple arithmetic though. Excel gives the same solution.

originally posted by: Archivalist
a reply to: james1947

Windows 10 calculator
pi variable input from scientific mode of win10 calc
Raised to the power of
65.0925323326

If your calculator does anything but hang/freeze, let me know.

Again, I appreciate your knowledge on the subject.

I am not a career software engineer, my major was Networking and Security.
I don't consider this a flaw on your part. Your idea is sound.
Windows just won't cooperate on this specific example, even though it should.

Well, yes, I did get a different response. It said "invalid input".

You see the value 65.0925... isn't a legal value for an exponent...the math processing part of your CPU throws an exception...just like trying to divide by 0 (zero).

ETA: BTW as a visual studio user, you should already know these things.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Archivalist
Windows 7:
2.2947964136676701311852236654813e+32
The only thing I use the calculator for is simple arithmetic though. Excel gives the same solution.

Interesting...double precision maxes out at 15 digits...you have 31.