More Earth-like planets found.

We will be the aztecs in that scenario. If we are discovered and reached by an interstellar civilization, we are totally screwed.

This is assuming that the aliens are exploitative imperialists like we are.

Maybe they've transcended that stage and are so civilized they're only interested in exploration. This is something that hardly ever gets addressed. We assume these extremely advanced species are going to have the morality of 15th century humans.
 
E.T don't want none

wkmzjiA.jpg

Murrica


i think by the time we develop the tech to be able to travel to other planets beyond our solar system we will have gone past the need for fossil fuels. but i'm sure there are other elements that we can go to war over tho

well find something and take it lol
 
Hopefully space travel is a thing before I die, or I'll be pissed.

Just as bad would be if space travel ends up being available, but you're too old to experience it a la. 102 yrs old

if we ever get our measly hands on those planets, you bet your ass we will siphon the oil

And all their indigenous life forms would probably cease to exist after a couple of generations upon human expansion

This is assuming that the aliens are exploitative imperialists like we are.

Maybe they've transcended that stage and are so civilized they're only interested in exploration. This is something that hardly ever gets addressed. We assume these extremely advanced species are going to have the morality of 15th century humans.

What if they want to harvest resources and won't take no for an answer?
 
I just don't really believe they can tell if a planet is earth like
 
What if they want to harvest resources and won't take no for an answer?

What possible resource could a space-faring interstellar civilization need to harvest on Earth that they couldn't get cheaper and more easily accessible on an asteroid or uninhabited planet?
 
If a planet is earth-like, wouldn't that mean the dominant species has to look like us?

mind_blown.gif
 
I was listening to a Neil Degrasse Tyson interview and he believes the criteria for life is far more broad than we believe it to be. His main criteria were;

- Water
- some sort of energy source
- entropy (there have to be larger concentrations of energy and heat in certain areas while lesser in others to create an ecosystem)

His basis for this was that life is far more resilient than we give it credit for. For instance, we've found flourishing ecosystems literally miles underwater in pressures that normal life simply couldn't withstand.

- This shows us that life can handle greater or lesser planet sizes (broadening the amount of potential planets for life).
- It also shows us that the proximity from the sun may not matter as long as there is another source of energy (thermal). So life can exist in deep seas or potentially underground despite how uninhabitable the surface may be. (Broadening the potential planets even more).

He then went on to point out the existence of rogue planets, which are planets that have escaped the gravity of a star and are hurled into space. It's believed that there may be as many, if not more rogue planets in the universe than planets orbiting Sun's.

By most scientists criteria, these rogue planets couldn't possibly sustain life. However, Tyson argues that they still could in deeper oceans or underground as long as there is still an abundant amount of thermal energy. (Which again, adds even more potential planets).

To me, the possibility of life on other planets is so high that it's a virtual impossibility that we are the only life forms. I have no idea how or when we will find it, but it's out there somewhere.
 
I just don't really believe they can tell if a planet is earth like

"Earth-like" is defined broadly and there are a lot of predictions and assumptions.

However, they can identify the location pretty well, and it matters a lot if a planet is in the zone of habitability. One can also predict the mass/size of planets by their orbits.
 
I would imagine aliens would freak the fuck out just like we would, if we were to meet. Still, with 100 billion galaxies out there that we know of and each with 100 billion stars and countless more planets, the odds say is less likely that there isn't intelligent life than there is. It would be a huge waste if there wasn't.
 
What possible resource could a space-faring interstellar civilization need to harvest on Earth that they couldn't get cheaper and more easily accessible on an asteroid or uninhabited planet?

Tasty human flesh.
 
The idea that an advanced civilization would be hostile towards us is pretty ridiculous. For a society to last long enough to improve their tech. to the point that they can travel the stars would require them to have long put down things like war and conquest. For if these things still existed on their planet they would have destroyed themselves long before their technology got to that point, kind of like what human beings are doing now.

Also, the ability to travel stars opens up an infinite amount of resources that require no killing, no conquering. So why would they take any risks what so ever, and kill off another intelligent species, to acquire resources they could find elsewhere with little effort and no war?

This is just common sense stuff.
 
The idea that an advanced civilization would be hostile towards us is pretty ridiculous. For a society to last long enough to improve their tech. to the point that they can travel the stars would require them to have long put down things like war and conquest. For if these things still existed on their planet they would have destroyed themselves long before their technology got to that point, kind of like what human beings are doing now.

Also, the ability to travel stars opens up an infinite amount of resources that require no killing, no conquering. So why would they take any risks what so ever, and kill off another intelligent species, to acquire resources they could find elsewhere with little effort and no war?

This is just common sense stuff.

Stephen Hawking disagrees.
 
I believe they can, but I would welcome an explanation as to how they figure it out.

To my understanding, by "Earth-like" they basically mean:

A) is a rocky planet with a molten core
B) is within the habitable zone within that star's solar system (not too hot like Venus here, or not too cold like Mars)
C) The size of the planet is between the range of .8 to 1.9 times the size of Earth, meaning that if the planet is rock with molten core, it should in theory have gravity similar to Earth's

In our own solar system, the most "Earth like" planets or moons are Venus, Mars, and Saturn's moon Titan.

I'm not an astronomer but if I recall reading correctly scientists use the the disruption of light from the star to determine the distance the planet is from its star, and things like how light is reflected back from the planet's area to determine its composition.
 
Back
Top