There are 500 million planets in OUR OWN GALAXY capable of producing life

reply to post by caf1550



buts thats not what we're talking about is it?

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by XRaDiiX

 

Why wouldn't they be able to

too small to hold on to an atmosphere like earths.

One word TITAN ever heard of it Guess you haven't cause its atmosphere is thicker than Earths. Check out how much smaller than Earth it is .

en.wikipedia.org...(moon)


Think before you speak its in our own solarsystem

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by XRaDiiX

 

You seemed to forget my post started with " So Far..." there is nothing innacurate about my post so far crudely doing the numbers gives us 3% of stars have a near earth-size planet in the HZ. This only counts planets in the HZ of M stars, we'll find out about G type like sol later but still "So far" thats the result. Lets hope it improves

You mention 3% as if it was no big deal. Not sure if that figure is correct (I get about 0.4%) but that gives a huge number of potentially habitable planets in our galaxy.

reply to post by XRaDiiX

Think before you speak its in our own solarsystem

the only reason titan has an atmosphere is becuase its cryogenically cold. If you put titan closer to the sun it would lose the atmosphere especially if it was in the HZ.

get a clue before you speak :p

reply to post by Clavicula


so how do you propose we analyse the atmosphere of earth-size exoplanets in the HZ of sun-like stars more than 100ly away?

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by XRaDiiX

 

Think before you speak its in our own solarsystem

the only reason titan has an atmosphere is becuase its cryogenically cold. If you put titan closer to the sun it would lose the atmosphere especially if it was in the HZ.

get a clue before you speak :p

edit on 2-3-2011 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)

That does not apply It still has an atmosphere which proves moons can have atmospheres even thicker than Earth.
Where is your evidence supporting Titan wouldn't have an atmosphere if it was near or in the habitable zone>?

This posted from wikipedia itself disproving your flawed logic. Your just making things up as you go along.
I quote from wikipedia

"Titan's atmosphere is the only dense, nitrogen-rich atmosphere in the Solar System aside from the Earth's. The atmospheric composition in the stratosphere is 98.4% nitrogen with the remaining 1.6% composed mostly of methane (1.4%) and hydrogen (0.1–0.2%)"

98.4% Nitrogen and more of a methane percentage around 5-6% when u get close to the surface.

You do know Earths atmosphere is 78.1% nitrogen and why would Titan lose its atmosphere in the habitable zone. When it has more nitrogen than earths atmosphere and Earths atmosphere is fine in the habitable zone. You surely aren't going to say its because Titan has a smaller mass than Earth right?

reply to post by XRaDiiX

Where is your evidence supporting Titan wouldn't have an atmosphere if it was near or in the habitable zone>?

have a look at mars which is 4 times as massive as titan

kepler team assigned the value of an earth size planet as 0.75 to 2 Earth mass (titan is 0.02) . I suppose theyre making it up as they go along too becuase below 0.75 earth mass theyre too small and will lose their atmosphere.

do you know why the upper limit is 2? i'll tell you now before you accuse me of making it up planets more massive than that will collect too much gas during planet formation and end up like neptune, actually i think kepler team is being conservative there becuase the last i read the point where it becomes a runaway atmosphere is 3 earth mass. I guess they have their reasons for going with 2.

Oh yeah?

SHOW ME ONE.

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by XRaDiiX

 

Where is your evidence supporting Titan wouldn't have an atmosphere if it was near or in the habitable zone>?

have a look at mars which is 4 times as massive as titan

kepler team assigned the value of an earth size planet as 0.75 to 2 Earth mass (titan is 0.02) . I suppose theyre making it up as they go along too

becuase below 0.75 earth mass theyre too small and will lose their atmosphere.

do you know why the upper limit is 2? i'll tell you now before you accuse me of making it up

planets more massive than that will collect too much gas during planet formation and end up like neptune, actually i think kepler team is being conservative there becuase the last i read the point where it becomes a runaway atmosphere is 3 earth mass. I guess they have their reasons for going with 2.

edit on 2-3-2011 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)

You do know that nothing you said even applies to what i brought forward and therefore your argument is invalid i will state Titan is a moon of Saturn. Titan is protected by the solar-wind the majority of the time because it is in the influence of Saturn's magnetosphere therefore that is the reason; Titan holds onto its atmosphere proving your point incredibly wrong. Argue on a basis of facts not a basis of analogues that have nothing to do with the argument at hand.

All you have brought forward has been denounced you are spurting out statements that do not apply to the agrument. In a more laymen term Burned

Titan holds onto its atmosphere because most of the time it is in the influence of saturn's magnetosphere protecting it from the harsh solar winds that would strip away its atmosphere further proving that your argument invalid mars has nothing to do with this WERE TALKING ABOUT MOONS OF GAS GIANTS

reply to post by hotrice


With no evidence of life on any of them. I mean is this really information. Five hundred million this time? Ok, until the next scientific estimate, then it will change again. I'm hoping one day they'll just say somethging like. Recent studies by astronomers have concluded that there are a S---t pot full of planets out there. In fact, they've decided there are just to many planets to even insult your intelligence with any figures. A lot of Planets means just as much to me as any figure.

reply to post by XRaDiiX


its distance from the sun means it gets less solar wind, saturn actually accelarates the wind instead of protecting it most of the time. The low tempreature allows gasses to remain in the atmosphere that would otherwise evaporate at HZ distances.

from the wiki page that you linked to.

Roughly speaking, at the distance of Saturn, solar insolation and solar wind flux are sufficiently low that elements and compounds that are volatile on the terrestrial planets tend to accumulate in all three phases.[23] Titan's surface temperature is also quite low, about 94 kelvins (K).[24][25] Consequently, the mass fractions of substances that can become atmospheric constituents are much larger on Titan than on Earth.

reply to post by yeti101


From wikipedia on Solar wind

I quote
"As the solar wind approaches a planet that has a well-developed magnetic field (such as Earth, Jupiter and Saturn), the particles are deflected by the Lorentz force. This region, known as the magnetosphere, causes the particles to travel around the planet rather than bombarding the atmosphere or surface. The magnetosphere is roughly shaped like a hemisphere on the side facing the Sun, then is drawn out in a long wake on the opposite side. The boundary of this region is called the magnetopause, and some of the particles are able to penetrate the magnetosphere through this region by partial reconnection of the magnetic field lines."

"Its strength at the equator—0.2 gauss (20 µT)—is approximately one twentieth than that of the field around Jupiter and slightly weaker than Earth's magnetic field.[15] As a result Saturn's magnetosphere is much smaller than Jupiter's and extends slightly beyond the orbit of Titan.[39] Most probably, the magnetic field is generated similarly to that of Jupiter—by currents in the metallic-hydrogen layer, which is called a metallic-hydrogen dynamo.[39] Similarly to those of other planets, this magnetosphere is efficient at deflecting the solar wind particles from the Sun. The moon Titan orbits within the outer part of Saturn's magnetosphere and contributes plasma from the ionized particles in Titan's outer atmosphere."

Even though Saturn's magnetosphere is slightly weaker than Earths this provides a great example for planets as large or bigger than Jupiter to have even greater protection for their moons potential atmospheres inside their magnetosphere's.

Also try to figure this into your head 54 habitable candidate planets announced in keplers discovery. Out of those 54; 49 of them are Neptune- Larger than Jupiter sized objects potentially habitable why would Nasa post these figures as potentially habitable if their moons can't sustain atmospheres. BURNED.

Oh wait what you though the potentially habitable planets were the gas giants themselves phshhh?
Its possible maybe but thats not what Nasa is implying they are implying habitable moons. DO YOUR RESEARCH

reply to post by XRaDiiX


your quote talks about saturn not titan, Titan has no magentic field to speak of.

from the wiki link on titan

Roughly speaking, at the distance of Saturn, solar insolation and solar wind flux are sufficiently low that elements and compounds that are volatile on the terrestrial planets tend to accumulate in all three phases.[23] Titan's surface temperature is also quite low, about 94 kelvins (K).[24][25] Consequently, the mass fractions of substances that can become atmospheric constituents are much larger on Titan than on Earth.

whats your source for saying they found 54 potentially habitable planets? do you have a link

reply to post by yeti101


You obviously didn't read anything Titan Lies WITHIN Saturn's Magnetosphere.Therefore it is protected by Saturn's Magnetosphere. Deny ignorance.

Earth’s magnetosphere provides protection without which life as we know it could not survive.

Saturns magnetosphere provides protections for Titan even though its magnetosphere is smaller than Earths now think of jupiter and its magnetosphere which is HUGE and powerful and think about what Nasa said which you are ignoring blatantly. 49 of the planets they declared as potentially habitable planets they announced out of 54 were in-between SuperEarth and Super gas giant Size.

Clearly you are enraged that the evidence i posted is what Nasa agrees on as fact.

reply to post by XRaDiiX



whats your source for saying they nasa declared 49 of them potentially habitable? do you have a link


i doubt nasa would talk about imaginary moons. -_- and they certainly wouldnt describe neptune class planets as habitable lol

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by XRaDiiX

 

whats your source for saying they found 54 potentially habitable planets? do you have a link


i doubt nasa would talk about imaginary moons. -_- and they certainly wouldnt describe neptune class planets as habitable lol

edit on 2-3-2011 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)

Oh you want links I have them tons of them but heres one for you now to dwell on that you can't deny. This one is basically the prevailing facts that were used to get the number they estimated for this thread title. You sure haven't been keeping up with the times.

Also you should read the whole thread before skipping to the end! - Just a tip


www.space.com...
www.space.com...

reply to post by XRaDiiX


dennis chow from space.com said it which just shows he doesnt know what he's talking about. Nobody from kepler team said 54 potentially habitable planets,

Borucki does say " Some candidates could even have moons with liquid water". But he doesnt say what size the moons would have to be, I assume he's talking about earth size moons. Nobody has demonstrated how earth size moons would be possible around gas giants. Infact the only serious studies have shown earth size moons are not possible. Looks like he's trying to jazz up the results becuase they found so few earth size in the HZ.

the early results are around 10 times fewer than they predicted before launch. infact maybe even less i need to check that -_-

reply to post by yeti101


Im finished arguing with you everything you've stated is based on assumptions you haven't brought forward any evidence you make up blatant lies. They Discovered many more planets and potential habitable planets than they expected. Your clearly delusional you poor man

I've been reading space articles for 10 years i read every one on the web site i know they did not expect to find so many! Its not worth arguing with a blind man

www.space.com...

And thats their conservative estimate

reply to post by XRaDiiX


50 billion but how many earth-like?

they put the number at 500 million for producing life. See the title of this thread and the article you linked to.

now if thats extrapolated to the whole galaxy its going to be less if we work inside the GHZ which is 10% of the galaxy. So we're down to 50 million and that includes M stars. IF M stars are bad and we only count G type were down to 5 million. Oh dear

we really need m stars to be good & the % of earth size in the HZ to go up

note : you can listen to the seti podcast where borucki talks about 30% of stars having an earth size planet in the HZ. Right now its roughly 3% , thats 10 times less than what he predicted on the seti podcast.

reply to post by yeti101


Galactic Habitable Zone that has not been proven and is just a concept you've got nothing and cant accept the fact that these Professional astronomers have brought forward compelling evidence that hurts you badly in some way. Also for you to be ignorant enough to not accept the possibility of habitable moons around Gas Giants just shows me you are not an open-minded individual you bring up studies that are just based on simulations and that has no basis in reality Simulations have been proven wrong time and time again.

Nice try though keep thinking your thoughts in your delusional universe. But i look at the universe and see life everywhere it can take hold and Moons of Gas Giants are a very likely place for life to take hold.

You Disgrace all professional astronomers.