First Habitable Planet Outside The Solar System


dodgyville

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
176
Location
Melbourne
Website
Visit site
Today the European Southern Observatory have announced the discovery of Gliese 581 c, the first planet outside our solar system capable of supporting life as we know it.

I know all gp2x owners will join me in congratulating the scientists for their tremendous and exciting news.

I am also proud to announce the same day formation of the Centre for the Destruction of Gliese 581 c. A non-profit organisation committed to the pointless destruction of the fantastic new world.

Our website:
Centre for the Destruction of Gliese 581 c
http://um.com.au/Gliese581c/
 
weeee! I am in for some destruction ;-)
I just read that in the newspaper. Amazing... well considering it is 20 lightyears away, it's pretty useless though. So yeah, let's blow it up with a giant laser.
 
Big deal. If we went there, we'd do exactly as we have done here. So what is the point and even looking? Its 20 light years away (1 trillion miles or something) and its not even understood if it can hold life within its habitats. It won't be until 2020 before we find out if it has life and can sustain it.

What really annoys me is that scientists waste money on finding these planets completely out of our reach when the money could be used to develop renewable sources of energy to stop the use of fossil fuels. But do they even consider this....No! I'm really getting sick of scientists and government officials coming out saying that something needs to be done about global warming yet they aren't doing anything. I do my part. I recycle absolutely everything i buy and use and walk where ever I can and car share to minimise the output of fossil fuels. But by god, these scientists and these government people better get off of their asses soon and get something that can replace fossil fuels and be sustainable. And don't even get me started on nuclear.
 
Ganepark32 said:
Big deal. If we went there, we'd do exactly as we have done here. So what is the point and even looking? Its 20 light years away (1 trillion miles or something) and its not even understood if it can hold life within its habitats. It won't be until 2020 before we find out if it has life and can sustain it.

What really annoys me is that scientists waste money on finding these planets completely out of our reach when the money could be used to develop renewable sources of energy to stop the use of fossil fuels. But do they even consider this....No! I'm really getting sick of scientists and government officials coming out saying that something needs to be done about global warming yet they aren't doing anything. I do my part. I recycle absolutely everything i buy and use and walk where ever I can and car share to minimise the output of fossil fuels. But by god, these scientists and these government people better get off of their asses soon and get something that can replace fossil fuels and be sustainable. And don't even get me started on nuclear.
when we run out of fossil fuels then they will "find" a replacement. oil is what keeps the rich countries rich. its not in rich countries interest to have a different cheap source.

global warming is happening wether we use fossil fuels or not, recycling uses more fossil fuels.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Recycling uses less fossil fuels than making the same product completely from scratch. For example, it is cheaper to make a plastic bottle from older bottles as it saves energy and money. It keeps emissions of fossil fuels down. Creating a new one from scratch uses more energy. I will admit there are circumstances where recycling does use more energy and release more fossil fuels than making things from scratch but overall, recycling reduces the emissions of fossil fuels from these factories.

Global warming is happenig because of a build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Yes, it would have happened even if fossil fuels weren't being used but because they are, it is accelerating the process of global warming and depleting the ozone layer which means more heat energy from the sun will get into our atmosphere but will be unable to get back out as the CO2 is preventing it from doing so.
 
Ganepark32 said:
What really annoys me is that scientists waste money on finding these planets completely out of our reach when the money could be used to develop renewable sources of energy to stop the use of fossil fuels. But do they even consider this....No! I'm really getting sick of scientists and government officials coming out saying that something needs to be done about global warming yet they aren't doing anything. I do my part. I recycle absolutely everything i buy and use and walk where ever I can and car share to minimise the output of fossil fuels. But by god, these scientists and these government people better get off of their asses soon and get something that can replace fossil fuels and be sustainable. And don't even get me started on nuclear.
Well I guess that would be true if all scientists were interested in the same thing. I mean, are you using your life looking for the answer to renewable energy? If not, why not? Probably because you have an interest in something else. And I am guessing Astronomers are interested in Astronomy and not renewable energy.

Governments say all sorts of things as a popularity rating, but in reality most of it is way over proportioned.

Everyone has jobs and interests, and I bet as well as the astronomers looking to the stars, there are Scientists looking for the best renewable energy. I will give you something to ponder on though: I heard a story of a company that invented a rubber to be used in car tyres that has hardly any wear. A major car tyre company bought the patent and kept it in a drawer because if the product was used, then it would harm sales. Go figure.

Well we found a new Planet that can possibly sustain life, I for one think that's kewl. I find it fascinating, especially if one day in our future it leads to finding life somewhere else. And we already know it doesn't take too much for life to thrive, in most cases it just needs water, it doesn't even require light and I think the chances of some kind of life on Gliese is pretty high (if only bacterial).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mars's temperature has risen the same amount as earths.

its a cycle the sun goes through.
 
moz said:
mars's temperature has risen the same amount as earths.

its a cycle the sun goes through.
When you're underwater and I'm on fire in Antarctica, I'm sure one of us will think of that as we drown/burn.

Which is exactly why the possibility of a man-made global warming can't be ignored. Plus we'd avoid using up all our fossil fuel resources.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ganepark32 said:
Recycling uses less fossil fuels than making the same product completely from scratch. For example, it is cheaper to make a plastic bottle from older bottles as it saves energy and money. It keeps emissions of fossil fuels down. Creating a new one from scratch uses more energy. I will admit there are circumstances where recycling does use more energy and release more fossil fuels than making things from scratch but overall, recycling reduces the emissions of fossil fuels from these factories.

Global warming is happenig because of a build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Yes, it would have happened even if fossil fuels weren't being used but because they are, it is accelerating the process of global warming and depleting the ozone layer which means more heat energy from the sun will get into our atmosphere but will be unable to get back out as the CO2 is preventing it from doing so.
CO2 isn't a reducing gas so it doesn't deplete the Ozone layer. Chlorine radicals do. CO2 absorbs energy within the infrared spectrum and then gains that virbrational energy thus heating up and radiating some of this back towards the earth which slowly heats it. Get yer facts straight :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TelcoLou said:
Aren't there children starving somewhere ... on this planet?
Genocide is being committed as we speak in Darfur (meanwhile European politicians sit idly by and do nothing but discuss whether it's to be classified as genocide or not. Rwanda, anyone?).

As for the environmentalist movement... in essence, it serves as a way for the left to convey their self-righteousness and anti-development/anti-technology/anti-globalism-related ideas (note: this statement is not meant to imply that I don't believe in man-made global warming -- I do. I'd just be careful with who I trust for information regarding it). I won't go further than that, seeing as this is likely to erupt into a major political debate and the thread will end up getting locked anyhow.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If we fire a giant space laser at it, it would take 20 years to be destroyed, then another 20 until we could watch the explosion. Bugger, eh?
 
Tripmonkey_uk said:
Ravnos said:
Then we'd better get started on it so I can watch it at my retirement party.
I'd better get a job so I can have a retirement party :lol:

You live in the UK, Gordon Brown isn't going to let you retire.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
epitaph said:
convey their self-righteousness and anti-development/anti-technology/anti-globalism-related ideas
i will admit that, within the academic community. there is a sort of very crazy left-wing out there that points towards systemic problems with the scientific method and just the language of it all. but that is an intellectual thing in itself. and what's more, it doesn't carry over into politics.

but really what i see where i'm from (the us) is that the conservatives are almost always responsible for blocking science & technology. hence the name, really. the ideology of conservatism, i feel, contains some anti-intellectualism within it, under the veil of skepticism. but there's a difference between being -a- being a skeptic in the empirical, methodical, scientific sense and -b- holding people back in search of some mythical "good old days" that only you can remember.

a lot of the republican party (and some of the dems) tend to misuse/throw about terms like "data accuracy", "data quality", "junk science" (in contrast with "sound science") etc. they use every trick in the book to make sure that, should a study not come out the way they intend, it gets ignored and dr. whoever that's a friend of the white house can just throw something together that will get the shit cited out of it.

internet = tubes anyone? every word out of sen. orrin hatch's mouth, anyone?

i mean c'mon, the current us president is a fucking creationist.

the left wing is not the problem, at least not in the case of science, at least not in the us. yeah, environmental issues can make it harder to develop land, etc. but also a lot of good laws get lumped in with the bullshit corrupt ones that municipal & state governments enforce because it gives them a little bit more power when it comes to deciding who gets to build where. i get what you're saying but i really don't think anti-technology is the right phrase for it. globalism is also a tough one to nail down...i'm sure you're talking about outsourcing and the like. but a lot of the stuff the current american administration is doing is not "global" in any sense.

our idea of globalism is having halliburton do business with a country we're at war with ("light treason") via their cayman island laundry service...it's like arrested development but real and a lot less funny.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
PokeParadox said:
Why are we wanting to destroy this possibly habitable planet...? :blink:
Because humanity needs a common enemy, so we can all stop killing each other ;)

EDIT: Besides.. it will be good for a giggle :D

@nickspoon: Good point. I guess I'd just be better off stay in bed all day like normal then lol
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top