Astronomers Detect First 'Clear Signs of Civilization' Beyond Earth - How will you react?

NewAgeMan
The Drake Equation is totally flawed by not taking our unique earth-moon-sun configuration into account.

In how far plays the moon a role?

We have life-forms, say, living deep in caves who don't even have eyes, or miles under the ground, or miles within the oceans. How are those life-forms dependent on the moon? Life has the ability to adapt to the most crazy circumstances. Microbes may live/come-in with comets etc...they also don't need a moon.

>>
but we're talking here about walking around intelligent life for which a type of equilibrium balance very similar if not almost identical to Earth, would be required, not just a rocky or even a rocky water world in the "Habitable Zone" so it's not just a matter of counting up rocky worlds in the Goldilocks Zone and then dividing a bunch of times to get the number of earth-like worlds whether in our own galaxy or in the universe as a whole.
>>

Even if we for some odd reason WERE TO assume a very special, "balance" here on Earth which is required for life....the existence of this balance here on Earth alone is evidence that the same process may not be unique only for Earth.

You almost sound like a creationist who sees EARTH as the one thing which "needs to" carefully adapt and get into a balance to ultimately being able to harbor intelligent life. It's exactly the OTHER WAY. We adapt to the environment. The Earth was not shaped or made to fit us, we shaped to fit into our environment.

If we assume this is an universal principle (which I do)....certain minor and possible even MAJOR differences wouldn't be a problem for life to develop.

NoRulesAllowed

NewAgeMan
The Drake Equation is totally flawed by not taking our unique earth-moon-sun configuration into account.

In how far plays the moon a role?

We have life-forms, say, living deep in caves who don't even have eyes, or miles under the ground, or miles within the oceans. How are those life-forms dependent on the moon? Life has the ability to adapt to the most crazy circumstances. Microbes may live/come-in with comets etc...they also don't need a moon.

edit on 22013RuTuesdayAmerica/Chicago12PMTuesdayTuesday by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)

You're totally right about LIFE, but I'm talking about Earth-LIKE worlds, with "people" and animals running and flying around that kind of thing.

The moon plays a HUGE role. Life as we know it, ourselves included, would not be here without it the way it is and was throughout earth history.

It's a very special type of configuration.

NewAgeMan
It's a very special type of configuration.

That argument could also come from Zrhykls Bzfroz from planet Zae8-1b. Their day is 84 hours long, and in Summer it gets 150F. They have three moons. He is also saying their planet is "very special". Do you see where I am going here? I don't understand your argument.

Ross 54
Unless we know otherwise, it seems wisest to assume that life on this planet or any other is neither especially fortunate or unfortunate in the factors that have speeded or slowed its development. Everything being equal, an extra billion years should mean a greater chance of a more advanced civilization.
Besides this, it is stated in the original post that the lights on the fictional planet orbiting the star Keid (40 Eridani) cover a much wider area than on Earth. The quite reasonable interpretation is that this civilization has the superior technical infrastructure and energy production needed to more thoroughly light the darkness than we do.

Or magnitudes more people than we do and an awful lot of candles... big ones, that give off a strong flame, and a global spanning environment that lets them build houses without the need for roofs.

Or the planet is like Pandora and the natural flora gives of a luminescence so what we see as 'cities' are in fact a bunch of trees that glow in the dark.

One thing of note is, light like that (being expelled up and out) is a sign of inefficiency really, the light is going where the light isnt needed. You'd think an advanced civilization would have far more efficient lighting so that little of it would be wasted into empty space, and all the energy going into producing the light would mean the light is being directed to were its needed in totality. Granted this wouldnt hide every length of light. Im just saying more light in larger areas wouldnt really mean more advanced.

Look at Earth, if you took all the periphery dwellings in the world all those small towns, houses and other places spread out across the globe that arent really effecting the light show you see on the dark side of the planet and added them to the primary cities im sure they would all expand fairly decently. So maybe this world and its populations are extremely concentrated into areas compared to us.

NewAgeMan
I don't remember

Well that is convenient, now isn't it?

but I read about it somewhere.

You read about it! Come on my friend, many things that are written turn out to be nothing but nonsense? You're intelligent enough to understand that, I know you are. Ok then.

I predict that not every galaxy has even one truly earth-like world, based on my own evaluation of the uniqueness of our earth-moon-sun system, but that would still mean that there are probably at least a billion such worlds in the universe, min. (if 1/100 contained an earth-twin type world).

If you changed Galaxy to Solar System, then you and I would agree on that.

I do think they are exceedingly rare however, which is why we are being or have been visited, probably from another galaxy altogether, although I'm not ruling out another Earth within our own galaxy, just suggesting that it's rather unlikely.

Yeah, If you're just saying our own Milky Way, then I understand your position. However I believe that we may have another Earth like planet within it, but no facts to back it up obviously. Without a doubt whatsoever I believe that Andromeda probably has more than a few.

I also think that possibly even smaller galaxies like the Triangulum Galaxy could have atleast one Earth like planet, but most likely many, many more. It would not surprise me at all though if there are many solar systems that do not have an earth like planet or planets. ~$heopleNation

Well, if they showed me a supposed photo of a planetary disk resolved at 16 LY, I'd be pretty skeptical. Also, I'm not sure I'd take "artificial lighting" as the sole indicator of an intelligent species - there could be ionospheric phenomena causing sodium or mercury fluorescence in the upper atmosphere.

This was an incredible read, I loved it!

Also, I posted a quote from the OP, so that the people who didn't bother reading the first few lines now have a new chance... Everyone stop asking why it's dated wrongly, or telling us that it's a work of fiction!! JadeStar did a wonderful job of explaining that from the start

JadeStar
****DISCLAIMER*** The Following "news" story is fictional, but the people, projects, organizations and science are not. With only one or two exceptions their names have been changed. While this discovery has not happened yet, it very well could in the next decade or so based on current and planned science.

I would be very interested in what your reaction will be when this story is real.

Thanks.

NoRulesAllowed

NewAgeMan
It's a very special type of configuration.

That argument could also come from Zrhykls Bzfroz from planet Zae8-1b. Their day is 84 hours long, and in Summer it gets 150F. They have three moons. He is also saying their planet is "very special". Do you see where I am going here? I don't understand your argument.

Oh I understand what you're saying, but it's no so simple, like some sort of confirmation bias.

Of course we're dealing with an unknown or an unknown unknown or what we don't even know we don't know, but what we do know is what has produced this type of life, and it's very unique and indeed very special, even quite extraordinary when you consider that we're the only planet in our solar system with a single moon, that our moon is the largest by compare to it's host at about a third of it's mass and almost a quarter of it's size, that this GIANT, singular moon, holds the earth in the right orbit while stabilizing the wobble for long term evolutionary development and is also responsible for the cycle of life on earth, including the ocean tides, currents, weather system, all the way to the sexual reproduction and gestation cycle of human life. Many scientists who've looked at this configuration carefully have also deduced that the presence of liquid water over 90% of the planet's surface, is due to the moon's "steady hand", maintaining the precise tilt and angle without which the planet itself can end up in all kinds of unfavorable configurations, the best/worst case scenarios resulting in a world half frozen with the other half engulfed by raging storms ie: very inhospitable to life as we know it.

Heck the ancient moon used to be 12-15 times larger in the sky, driving the salt water tides far far inland to cause the continual dissolution of molecular recombinations, dramatically accelerating the process of land-based evolutionary development, to the point that it is only now in the midst of the epoch of earth-evolution when there are sentient observers to notice it, that the moon is the same visible diameter as the sun, evidenced in a perfect eclipse, while the shadow of the earth perfectly eclipses the moon, as if the moon is waving to us while it waxes and wanes and saying hi, I'm the midnight sun, and the perfect reflection of the sun. The moon even sets equidistant to due north, at opposite winter and summer solstices, somehow mimicking the movement of the sun according to the earth's orbital elliptic, on a progressive basis from month to month, whereby both the eclipse and solstice phenomenon could only be meaningful to an earth-based sentient observer/measurer - even though the earth orbits the sun, and the moon, the earth (Huh?! - said like Scooby Doo).

I am not trying to argue for an earth-like exclusivity as some might assume in looking at my avatar, only trying to point out it's unimaginable uniqueness and astronomical.. synchronousness, weighted perfectly in favor of life as we know it, including our own experience as a human being.

There may be life on the world you just described, maybe even complex life and long range evolutionary development, but it's not fair to assume, at all, that it's going to produce anything that even remotely resembles life on earth, with animals running and flying around, and sentient observers to notice the uniqueness of their system/configuration.

You're the one making the big leap and the big assumption, not I, that the hypothetical Zrhykls Bzfroz from the planet Zae8-1b is looking up at his three moons on a hot summer night and pondering how utterly unique and special his configuration is, that's a real leap.

However, we DO KNOW that this galaxy HAS produced at least one such planet (Earth). Therefore it's safe to assume that other galaxies, at the very least are also capable of generating, periodically, at least, the same type of conditions by which there might exist a real earth-like twin of sorts perhaps by some sort of strange sacred geometry.

Re: Sacred Geometry

Check this out! (MUST SEE)

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Cygnus X-3

In addition to the "planet-fertility program" the moon has been running in relation to earth since it's earliest days, back then a moon appearing (if there was anyone to see it) over 12 times larger than it does now,

right up to the present day when it CAN be seen and observed now having receded sufficiently to perfectly reflect and eclipse the sun, with the shadow of the earth, the moon (by "coincidence" nothing to see here move along..) - there is one other major factor in the evolutionary process of the emergence and rapid development and advancement of life on earth, including and especially, DNA, and that is the effect of an intense beam of cosmic rays from Cygnus X3 which periodically intersects the earth (which is right in "the barrel of the gun" so to speak), and in so doing have dramatically accelerated the whole process of earth-evolution in terms of cellular DNA and in particular by random mutation combined with natural selection.

What is Cygnus X3?

Cygnus X-3 is one of the stronger binary X-ray sources in the sky. Classified as a microquasar, it is believed to be a compact object in a binary system which is pulling in a stream of gas from an ordinary star companion. It is observed in X rays, gamma rays, infrared, and radio, with an orbital periodicity of approximately 4.8 h, among the shortest known at the time of its discovery.

Although it is only the third brightest X-ray source in the constellation Cygnus, after the more famous Cygnus X-1, it is located about 37,000 light-years away. It is heavily obscured by intervening interstellar gas and dust near the galactic plane, and fainter than 23rd magnitude in the optical, but is easily observable in the J, H, & K near-infrared bands.

Taking its distance and extinction into account, it appears to be one of the two or three most intrinsically luminous objects in the Galaxy.

It has also received attention because it is one of the few sources of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays, with energies in the 100 - 1000 TeV range. Its most unusual aspect is the production of anomalous cosmic ray events in a proton decay detector deep in Minnesota's Soudan iron mine. These events have defied analysis and have led to questions about whether Cygnus X-3 is a standard neutron star or perhaps something more exotic, like a star made of quarks.

Cygnus X-3 has distinguished itself by its intense X-ray emissions and by ultra-high energy cosmic rays. It also made astronomical headlines by a radio frequency outburst in September 1972 which increased its radio frequency emissions a thousandfold. Since then it has had periodic radio outbursts with a regular period of 367 days. These flares are of unknown origin, but they are exceedingly violent events. Naval Research Laboratory observations in October 1982 using the Very Large Array detected the shock wave from a flare; it was expanding at roughly one-third the speed of light.

Cygnus X-3 has an orbital period about its companion of only 4.79 hours. Intriguing underground events in the SOUDAN experiment in October 1985 included 60 anomalous muon events in a 3° cone around Cygnus X-3 with a precise period of 4.79 hours. If the association with Cygnus X-3 is confirmed, these events must either be due to neutrinos or some other very low-rest-mass, high-energy neutral particle of unknown nature, yet capable of producing muons via secondary interactions.

Infrequent gamma ray flares from Cygnus X-3 with energies around 100 MeV were detected in 2009 by the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope and by the AGILE satellite. The intensity of these gamma ray outbursts varies at the same 4.8-hour orbital rate as the X-ray emissions, and they occur a few days before the onset of extremely energetic radio jets.

en.wikipedia.org...

To really get a handle on this aspect of earth-life and DNA evolution, check out "The Cygnus Mystery" in the following two videos.


Science News - Solving the Mysteries of Enigmatic Binary Star System Cygnus X-3.

It is generally held by scientists, that there is only ONE such massive "blazer" in the entire Milky Way Galaxy, and it just so happens to point, like the barrel of a gun (although it waves around a little bit) straight at the Earth.

Therefore, if I were looking for another truly Earth-LIKE world, I'd be looking down the "scope" of Cygnus X-3, between here and it, and from the Earth, beyond, but along the same plane.

------------------

Just to be clear I'm only pointing out the known facts. I am NOT trying to argue for the exclusivity of Earth as the only possible "Earth-Like" world, and I'm sure there are all kinds of configurations where LIFE of some kind is not only possible but surely, actual.

I used to love running Drake-like equations and thrilling myself to come up with numbers in the trillions of trillions for possible earth-like worlds, but I was wrong, did the research and was forced to re-evaluate, so please don't get the wrong idea here or make any assumptions based on my avatar, for example.

This is not a creationist, solipsistic argument that I'm putting forward.

We must take pause however in presuming that we're going to find an earth-twin in our own neighborhood of the Milky Way Galaxy or maybe even in the entire galaxy itself.

When certain instruments like the Square Kilometer Array or SKA, come fully on-line within the next 10-20 years, and the galactic survey begins in earnest, then we'll know or have a better idea.

Just one rocky water world would represent an ASTOUNDING discovery, but don't get your hopes up that we might find an Earth-twin with a highly evolved, technologically advanced ET civilization, or even a world where animals roam and fly just like you get here on earth.

We need a sample size large enough to begin to calculate probabilities for our galaxy, and we'll have it soon enough, within about 10-15 years.

NewAgeMan

SheopleNation

NewAgeMan


If such advanced civilizations exist in our galaxy, or in any other capable of reaching us by instantaneous space travel across vast distances, and had any hostile intentions or planetary expansion plans that paid no heed to "natives", then by now the colonization process would have already displaced human civilization on Earth.

Exactly what has caused you to come up with that assumption? Please explain the "colonization process" that would have supposedly already displaced human civilization here on Earth? Just curious if you have any facts to back up such a reckless assumption.

Hey NAM, Do you have any idea just how large the Universe is, let alone just our very own Galaxy? ~$heopleNation

I don't remember, but I read about it somewhere. It is not just an assumption. In the thing I read it presumed the farthest distance to the oldest stars and then worked it's way here from there even based on sub-light speed travel, and they proved mathematically that colonization of earth, if colonization was a "mandate" or objective, would be inevitable by now.

You're referencing the Fermi Paradox/Von Neuman Probe thing. It basically says that any species colonize the entire Galaxy in a few million years based on probabilities, the age of the Galaxy and the so on. The paradox seems to be that we see no signs of this. The other takeaway is that if a hostile species were out there and colonizing worlds chances are we would not be here now as it would have wiped out our precursors before we ever had a chance to evolve.

In a nutshell:


In depth:

As to size and magnitude, yes, see my signature below re: Milky Way, and, for the Universe multiply by 500 billion to a trillion, probably closer to a trillion galaxies. Because we KNOW that there is at least one in this particular galaxy, then like I said, that bodes very well for earth-like worlds, even if a very special type of moon-planet-star system, like we enjoy here on earth, is a prerequisit for an earth-LIKE world, where of course there may be many that are not earth-like that nevertheless have life, but we're talking here about walking around intelligent life for which a type of equilibrium balance very similar if not almost identical to Earth, would be required, not just a rocky or even a rocky water world in the "Habitable Zone" so it's not just a matter of counting up rocky worlds in the Goldilocks Zone and then dividing a bunch of times to get the number of earth-like worlds whether in our own galaxy or in the universe as a whole.

The Drake Equation is totally flawed by not taking our unique earth-moon-sun configuration into account.

Not really flawed because

1. There's nothing to suggest that a moon is necessary for life. A large moon did two things to the earth: a) stabilized it from frequently tipping over on its axis (geographical pole shifting) in the early years and b) created tides.

2. There is nothing about the moon which intrinsically leads to life or intelligent life as far as we know.

Without our moon, the Earth still would have produced life, perhaps even us. Primordial tidal pools still would have happened due to the tides due to weather and the Sun. The earth flipping over more frequently might have even had the opposite effect on evolution, forcing species to adapt and evolve faster.

I predict that not every galaxy has even one truly earth-like world,

Then you'd most likely be wrong because we already know of several prime candidates on ours alone and in astronomy if you have one of something you usually have a very large number of them waiting to be discovered.

The best argument for many earths is the fact that we're here.

I do think they are exceedingly rare however, which is why we are being or have been visited, probably from another galaxy altogether, although I'm not ruling out another Earth within our own galaxy, just suggesting that it's rather unlikely.

You'll know how wrong your assumption is within a year or two.

NewAgeMan
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

Cygnus X-3

Sorry but the above is psuedo-science hoax garbage. We're trying to have a serious discussion here. Take that over to the "NASA is lying about Comet ISON thread".

The stuff I posted is based on real science not Ancient Aliens garbage.

BigfootNZ

Ross 54
Unless we know otherwise, it seems wisest to assume that life on this planet or any other is neither especially fortunate or unfortunate in the factors that have speeded or slowed its development. Everything being equal, an extra billion years should mean a greater chance of a more advanced civilization.
Besides this, it is stated in the original post that the lights on the fictional planet orbiting the star Keid (40 Eridani) cover a much wider area than on Earth. The quite reasonable interpretation is that this civilization has the superior technical infrastructure and energy production needed to more thoroughly light the darkness than we do.

Or magnitudes more people than we do and an awful lot of candles... big ones, that give off a strong flame, and a global spanning environment that lets them build houses without the need for roofs.

Or the planet is like Pandora and the natural flora gives of a luminescence

so what we see as 'cities' are in fact a bunch of trees that glow in the dark.

But bioluminescence would have it's own signature spectrum different than that of artificial light.

Our civilization uses two basic classes of illumination: thermal (incandesent light bulbs) and quantum (light emitting diodes [LEDs] and fluorescent lamps). Such artificial light sources have different spectral properties than sunlight. The spectra of artificial lights on distant objects would likely distinguish them from natural illumination sources, since such emission would be exceptionally rare in the natural thermodynamic conditions present on the surface of relatively cold objects. Therefore, artificial illumination may serve as a lamppost which signals the existence of extraterrestrial technologies and thus civilizations.

One thing of note is, light like that (being expelled up and out) is a sign of inefficiency really, the light is going where the light isnt needed.

Correct.

You'd think an advanced civilization would have far more efficient lighting so that little of it would be wasted into empty space, and all the energy going into producing the light would mean the light is being directed to were its needed in totality.

True, but perhaps this civilization was actually trying to re-radiate heat into space as visible light in an effort to "cool down their planet".

Of course it wouldn't work because its like trying to cool your house in the summer by opening the refrigerator door.



[quote[ Granted this wouldnt hide every length of light. Im just saying more light in larger areas wouldnt really mean more advanced.



You're correct. Good thinking and I was wondering if anyone would pick up on that.

But the light we're talking about here is infrared light. So if you find a planet that is optically dark but glows in the infrared in "clusters" that gets real interesting real quickly.

If you then can detect the signatures of artificially produced light... see this post:

www.centauri-dreams.org...

Then the scenario in the OP plays out. I basically combined two different techniques for looking for civilization on a distant world into one discovery.

The heat map of the planet and the spectral analysis revealing artificial light.

Look at Earth, if you took all the periphery dwellings in the world all those small towns, houses and other places spread out across the globe that arent really effecting the light show you see on the dark side of the planet and added them to the primary cities im sure they would all expand fairly decently. So maybe this world and its populations are extremely concentrated into areas compared to us.

Bingo. Which could then possibly tell us something about the landmasses they'd inhabit. Perhaps if all the light was clustered in a higher concentration that might indicate that the planet only had one or two large land masses, like Pangea from Earth's distant past (and our distant future).

Good thinking all around!! Kudos!

reply to post by JadeStar


First of all you didn't examine all the data and info on Cygnus X3 and secondly, your assumptions about life on earth without the moon are highly contested by most scientists. Long term evolutionary development like that which has given rise to life on earth as we see it, would not have taken place without our giant moon.

I used to think precisely the same way you did and trust me on this - I want for there to be earth-like worlds in our galaxy, and I want us to find them, as you might have noted by my Square Kilometer Array or SKA thread.

You're getting a little hostile towards me for no reason and my contribution on this page of your thread is pretty good if you ask me.

We have to consider all possibilities, to maintain a scientific perspective, including the possibility that the earth may represent a very unique or rare phenomenon, but again, let me be clear, I didn't want for it to be like that and simply had to re-evaluate based on research, in particular as it relates to the astronomically extraordinary earth-moon-sun configuration.

Me I'm an absolute psi-fi buff, don't let me avatar fool you. In fact I'm even now about to watch the next episode of Star Trek TNG!

Bedlam
Well, if they showed me a supposed photo of a planetary disk resolved at 16 LY, I'd be pretty skeptical. Also, I'm not sure I'd take "artificial lighting" as the sole indicator of an intelligent species - there could be ionospheric phenomena causing sodium or mercury fluorescence in the upper atmosphere.

Good thinking, And in the original story I hinted that this would possibly be a point of debate when one of the story's subjects mentioned bioluminescence but seemed to rule it out on the grounds that nothing natural we know would produce spectra like what was observed so using Occam's Razor they said it was most likely explained by technology.

You can bet there would be plenty of debate in science journals on whether such a discovery was bioluminescence on a grand scale if it was just a detection in the visible light.

But having the discovery take place in the infrared as well kinda made it more plausible that it was unlikely a massive species of glowing trees or fungi.

This is frightening! If this happens I'll be terrified. I hope I don't live to see this come to fruition.

Hillary becomes President?
WE'RE DOOMED

NewAgeMan
reply to post by JadeStar

 

First of all you didn't examine all the data and info on Cygnus X3

I've seen it before, when studying psuedoscience pretending to be astronomy. It's in the same vein as Hale-Bopp has a companion, Comet Elenin is going to wipe us out, Comet ISON "is making course corrections" etc.

Look, this is my field of study and I can separate b.s. from valid science pretty easily when they get basic things way wrong from the outset. I'm not going to debate what those are here because that's probably a topic for another thread (you should post it if you want).

and secondly, your assumptions about life on earth without the moon are highly contested by most scientists.

Incorrect. The subject is one of debate among astrobiologists but there is nothing in the models that suggests that life can not evolve on a planet with a smaller moon or no moon at all.

Most astrobiologists think that Mars could very well have had life in its past. Mars does not have a large moon. It has two small asteroid sized moons it captured which do nothing for it tidally.

So if we find life on Mars (and there's some debate that Viking might have found it in the 1970s) then its pretty clear that having a large moon is a "nice to have" but not necessary for life.

Beyond this the point is pretty moot. Moons are prevalent in our solar system and probably throughout the Galaxy and universe beyond.

The smaller something is the more plentiful it is.

There are more planets than stars for example.

So even smaller bodies like moons and asteroids will probably outnumber planets.

We might be the odd planet that has only ONE moon. Moons like planets may turn out to be the rule and not the exception. Still much work to be done in that area of course but these are two reasons why the old "Rare Earth" hypothesis is on life support.

You're getting a little hostile towards me for no reason and my contribution on this page of your thread is pretty good if you ask me. [/quote[

Not hostile to you, hostile to psuedoastronomy that tries to pass itself off as legit. Sorry if you took it personal.

It hurts the actually credible science, especially when plenty of people can't tell the difference.


I hope you understand.

edit on 26-11-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-11-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

SheopleNation

NewAgeMan
I don't remember

Well that is convenient, now isn't it?

but I read about it somewhere.

You read about it! Come on my friend, many things that are written turn out to be nothing but nonsense? You're intelligent enough to understand that, I know you are. Ok then.

See Fermi Paradox/Von Neuman Probe info posted by JadeStar above. Thanks JadeStar, for locating that.

toolgal462
This is frightening! If this happens I'll be terrified. I hope I don't live to see this come to fruition.

Hillary becomes President?
WE'RE DOOMED

Well to her credit, at least she is well versed on the subject if this all went down...


Take a look at the book in the photograph on the first page.... That photo is a real photo taken while talking with Laurence Rockefeller back in the 90s.

NewAgeMan

SheopleNation

NewAgeMan
I don't remember

Well that is convenient, now isn't it?

but I read about it somewhere.

You read about it! Come on my friend, many things that are written turn out to be nothing but nonsense? You're intelligent enough to understand that, I know you are. Ok then.

See Fermi Paradox/Von Neuman Probe info posted by JadeStar above. Thanks JadeStar, for locating that.

'

You're very welcome.

reply to post by JadeStar

JadeStar

It's in the same vein as Hale-Bopp has a companion, Comet Elenin is going to wipe us out, Comet ISON "is making course corrections" etc.

It wasn't the same as those things at all, you must have just checked the video by whatshisface Andrew Collins, assumed and discarded the rest. Your bias is showing.

It (Cygnus X3 (NASA)) is a MAJOR source of cosmic rays which have been bombarding earth for millennia and then some (eons), where indeed the earth is in the barrel of the gun of this galactic blazer. It's well known that the evolution of DNA has been dramatically impacted by cosmic rays over the eons, resulting in random mutation within the framework of natural selection. It's an evolutionary accelerant, just like the moon has been, but the moon is by far the greater factor in a long term, sustained evolutionary development process leading to life as we know it.

From NASA

About Earth

Earth is an ocean planet. Our home world's abundance of water - and life - makes it unique in our solar system. Other planets, plus a few moons, have ice, atmospheres, seasons and even weather, but only on Earth does the whole complicated mix come together in a way that encourages life - and lots of it.

The Moon - A Steady Hand

The Moon is more than a pretty accessory in our night sky.

It stabilizes Earth's wobble, which led to a more stable climate and probably helped life evolve. The Moon also guides the ebb and flow of Earth's oceans.

solarsystem.nasa.gov...

The Moon is the only natural satellite of the Earth and the fifth largest moon in the Solar System. It is the largest natural satellite of a planet in the Solar System relative to the size of its primary, having 27% the diameter and 60% the density of Earth. Among satellites with known densities, the Moon is the second densest, after Io, a satellite of Jupiter. The Moon/Earth system is the only singular planet-moon pairing in the Solar System.

Re: Mars. Mars is a good example. Also, what I'm referring to is walking-around type life, not just LIFE in any form, like microbial life, which I am absolutely convinced is all but ubiquitous in some form or another all over the place, but life like on earth, as in an earth-like planet or earth-twin, as suggested we will find in the OP, within our own galactic neighborhood, is another matter altogether.

We have to stay objective, that's all. Once SKA is fully on-line in about 12-15 years from now, we'll have a sample of millions of planets, right down to the atmospheric composition, then with that kind of sample size, we'll have a much much better idea, but I strongly suspect that we're going to be both disappointed in regards to finding an earth-twin, and elated, in finding a rocky water world, even if it's partly frozen with storms raging over the rest of it.

Best Regards,

NAM