smogs me

jerrycan dan

jerrycan dan

Banned
-
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
6,568
Scientists have admitted to a major mistake in their approach in how they search for aliens and where they could potentially live.

It turns out that many of the planets that they thought were habitable, are actually 'dead planets' which are enveloped with a suffocating toxic gas.

Researchers, from the University of California, say our estimates of stars' habitable zones have been 'far too generous'.

More than half the planets in a star's habitable zone wouldn't be able to host complex life because of the levels of toxic gases like carbon monoxide and dioxide.

Scroll down for video

Scientists have admitted to a major mistake in their approach to how they search for aliens. It turns out that many of the planets that they thought were habitable, are actually 'dead planets' which are enveloped with a suffocating toxic gas


+5


Scientists have admitted to a major mistake in their approach to how they search for aliens. It turns out that many of the planets that they thought were habitable, are actually 'dead planets' which are enveloped with a suffocating toxic gas
HOW DID THEY MEASURE WHICH PLANETS WERE IN A 'SAFE ZONE'?

Experts used computer models to look at the climate on a variety of planets.
Worlds too far from their star need carbon dioxide – a potent greenhouse gas – to trap in heat and maintain temperatures above freezing.
But according to the models, planets on the edge of habitable zones would need toxic levels of carbon dioxide to hit the right temperature to grow life.



These planets were thought to be in a star's 'habitable zone', a safe zone where alien life could potentially flourish.

Criteria they look for is planet which is just the right temperature to hold liquid water – too close to the star and it'll evaporate, too far and it'll freeze.

'Imagine a 'habitable zone for complex life' defined as a safe zone where it would be plausible to support rich ecosystems like we find on Earth today,' said lead scientist Professor Timothy Lyons.

'Our results indicate that complex ecosystems like ours cannot exist in most regions of the habitable zone as traditionally defined.

Professor Lyons and his team used computer models to look at the climate on a variety of planets.

They found that the worlds which were too far from the star, needed carbon dioxide, the important trace gas in the Earth's atmosphere, which traps in heat and maintains temperatures above freezing.

RELATED ARTICLES



Share this article

Share

56 shares
Researchers, from the University of California, say our estimates of stars' habitable zones have been 'far too generous'. More than half the planets in a star's habitable zone wouldn't be able to host complex life because of the levels of toxic gases like carbon monoxide and dioxide


+5


Researchers, from the University of California, say our estimates of stars' habitable zones have been 'far too generous'. More than half the planets in a star's habitable zone wouldn't be able to host complex life because of the levels of toxic gases like carbon monoxide and dioxide
According to the experts' models, these planets on the edge of habitable zones would need toxic levels of carbon dioxide to hit the right temperature to grow life.

'To sustain liquid water at the outer edge of the habitable zone, a planet would need tens of thousands of times more carbon dioxide than Earth has today,' said NASA scientist Dr Edward Schwieterman.

'That's far beyond the levels known to be toxic to human and animal life on Earth.'

The new study concludes that carbon dioxide toxicity alone restricts simple animal life to no more than half of the traditional habitable zone.

For humans and other intelligent animals, which are more sensitive, the safe zone shrinks to less than one third of that area.

But all hope isn't lost just yet – the team reckon their results will actually help in our hunt for ET, as it narrows down our options when it comes to pick which planets to explore.

'Our discoveries provide one way to decide which of these myriad planets we should observe in more detail,' said team member Christopher Reinhard.

over for ayylmaocels
 
Dionysus

Dionysus

Luminary
-
Joined
Feb 17, 2019
Messages
10,636
Aliens still exist
 
Nothingness

Nothingness

Overlord
-
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Messages
5,080
What do you think about Fermi's Paradox
 
jerrycan dan

jerrycan dan

Banned
-
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
6,568
What do you think about Fermi's Paradox
Some ideas,
Industrial civilisation was not inevitable, it was the result of very specific conditions in Europe (in Britain, actually, even the Dutch succumbed to this):
Eating wild grains didn't always lead to agriculture, it took very specific conditions in the Near East to have the Natufians make the first steps towards it (not even by cultivating crops like we do now, but by clearing land so grain could grow there, more gardening than farming):
Dolphins may have the ability to recognise themselves in mirrors and probably have something approaching language, but even if they had opposable digits (which most animals don't) they wouldn't have much luck starting fire underwater (where a bunch of stuff lives and where life as we know it originated)
Big brains are very energy intensive to maintain, and are only an evolutionary advantage if they help you rake in enough food to sustain them. Otherwise losing what you don't use is best.
We didn't appear our of thin air, but from primates that live in tribes (social intelligence) and swing around in trees (spatial intelligence) in order to survive. The mammal with the highest ratio of brain to body size, the treeshrew, is more closely related to primates and colugos than to anything else. I'm sure if an ayy lmao looked at this planet tens of millions of years ago and was anything like us they'd see us as obvious candidates for developing intelligence compared to most other living things.
A bunch of shit that allows you to read this post on a computer is the result of many living things interacting with one another:
Your PC is powered by coal, which is the remains of photosynthetic algae that managed to colonise the land
You would be harmed by huge amounts of UV radiation unless photosynthetic life living in the oceans (protected by a layer of water) had created enough of an ozone layer for the colonisation of land by big living things to occur. Plants can also be damaged by a lack of ozone.
The chloroplasts in plants are, like the mitochondria in our cells, have their own DNA. A happy accident ONCE allowed them in. All eukaryotes with chloroplasts have a single common ancestor, meaning that even though there were billions of years to make something with cyanobacteria inside it as an organelle only one instance of it appearing survived until today.
All mitochondria have a common ancestor, like chloroplasts. It happened successfully ONCE.
All bacteria, including the ones that became mitochondria and chloroplasts, have a common ancestor. All of its relatives that weren't that asexually reproducing common ancestor are now dead with no descendants.
All living cyanobacteria have a common ancestor.
All eukaryotes have a common ancestor. I don't think any prokaryotes have organelles which are their own living things. As far as we know there is only 1 successful instance of this happening, or at least 1 instance of this living until the present day, and of course this obviously appeared under very specific conditions.
What was the probability of the Earth not being covered by microbial mats and stromatolites? Actually, if you were to reshuffle the cards and start the Earth anew with the simplest life there was, what would the odds be of the Earth's atmosphere not being poison that smacks of rotten eggs?
Why should life be like us even with ideal conditions? What are the odds? What necessarily forces it to develop intelligence? Sponges are animals with pretty much the exact same biochemistry as us down to the cholesterol in their cell walls, why haven't they evolved the ability to broadcast radio signals into space? Sponges don't move much but nothing has managed to kill them off yet so they keep breeding.
 
Nothingness

Nothingness

Overlord
-
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Messages
5,080
Some ideas,
Industrial civilisation was not inevitable, it was the result of very specific conditions in Europe (in Britain, actually, even the Dutch succumbed to this):
Eating wild grains didn't always lead to agriculture, it took very specific conditions in the Near East to have the Natufians make the first steps towards it (not even by cultivating crops like we do now, but by clearing land so grain could grow there, more gardening than farming):
Dolphins may have the ability to recognise themselves in mirrors and probably have something approaching language, but even if they had opposable digits (which most animals don't) they wouldn't have much luck starting fire underwater (where a bunch of stuff lives and where life as we know it originated)
Big brains are very energy intensive to maintain, and are only an evolutionary advantage if they help you rake in enough food to sustain them. Otherwise losing what you don't use is best.
We didn't appear our of thin air, but from primates that live in tribes (social intelligence) and swing around in trees (spatial intelligence) in order to survive. The mammal with the highest ratio of brain to body size, the treeshrew, is more closely related to primates and colugos than to anything else. I'm sure if an ayy lmao looked at this planet tens of millions of years ago and was anything like us they'd see us as obvious candidates for developing intelligence compared to most other living things.
A bunch of shit that allows you to read this post on a computer is the result of many living things interacting with one another:
Your PC is powered by coal, which is the remains of photosynthetic algae that managed to colonise the land
You would be harmed by huge amounts of UV radiation unless photosynthetic life living in the oceans (protected by a layer of water) had created enough of an ozone layer for the colonisation of land by big living things to occur. Plants can also be damaged by a lack of ozone.
The chloroplasts in plants are, like the mitochondria in our cells, have their own DNA. A happy accident ONCE allowed them in. All eukaryotes with chloroplasts have a single common ancestor, meaning that even though there were billions of years to make something with cyanobacteria inside it as an organelle only one instance of it appearing survived until today.
All mitochondria have a common ancestor, like chloroplasts. It happened successfully ONCE.
All bacteria, including the ones that became mitochondria and chloroplasts, have a common ancestor. All of its relatives that weren't that asexually reproducing common ancestor are now dead with no descendants.
All living cyanobacteria have a common ancestor.
All eukaryotes have a common ancestor. I don't think any prokaryotes have organelles which are their own living things. As far as we know there is only 1 successful instance of this happening, or at least 1 instance of this living until the present day, and of course this obviously appeared under very specific conditions.
What was the probability of the Earth not being covered by microbial mats and stromatolites? Actually, if you were to reshuffle the cards and start the Earth anew with the simplest life there was, what would the odds be of the Earth's atmosphere not being poison that smacks of rotten eggs?
Why should life be like us even with ideal conditions? What are the odds? What necessarily forces it to develop intelligence? Sponges are animals with pretty much the exact same biochemistry as us down to the cholesterol in their cell walls, why haven't they evolved the ability to broadcast radio signals into space? Sponges don't move much but nothing has managed to kill them off yet so they keep breeding.
That is impressive improbobility of origin of intellegent form of life endeed and especialy that can use tools lounching rockets into space.
So seems that Fermi's paradox is not paradox at all.

I think when we speak about alien high technologicaly advanced civilisation we speak about futuristic prospect of our own civilisation that is based on current stage of our development ( H.Wells imagined in his times the model high advanced civilisation of martian that inferiour even to our stage of tech development).
I think we simply can not imagine the form of civilisation of future and motives of those who are superiour to us. If they exist they most likely dont give fuck about us.
But the most valid solution to Fermi 'd patadox is - futility. Advanced intellegence simply doesnt see any goods of prolongation of existence. Even now we live in era of progressive antinatalism in the most developed parts of our world in the west
..
 
Top