At Least 100 Billion Planets

Message boards : SETI@home Science : At Least 100 Billion Planets

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next

Author	Message
ML1 Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 7109 Credit: 3,680,987 RAC: 960	Message 1184787 - Posted: 12 Jan 2012, 18:04:29 UTC Last modified: 12 Jan 2012, 18:11:53 UTC
	Put this into your view of the Drake equation: NASA: Study Shows Our Galaxy Has at Least 100 Billion Planets Our Milky Way galaxy contains a minimum of 100 billion planets, according to a detailed statistical study based on the detection of three planets located outside our solar system, called exoplanets. ... ... The survey results show that our galaxy contains, on average, a minimum of one planet for every star. This means that it's likely there is a minimum of 1,500 planets within just 50 light-years of Earth. The study is based on observations taken over six years by the PLANET (Probing Lensing Anomalies NETwork) collaboration, using a technique called microlensing to survey the galaxy for planets. ... I suspect that the upcoming Kepler results will explode that number to something much greater... Keep searchin', Martin ____________ Mandriva Linux A user friendly OS! See new freedom Mageia2 The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)
	ID: 1184787 ·

tullio Send message Joined: 9 Apr 04 Posts: 2890 Credit: 257,781 RAC: 260	Message 1184790 - Posted: 12 Jan 2012, 18:53:53 UTC
	Troppa grazia, Sant'Antonio. is an old Italian proverb. How can we monitor billions of planets? Tullio ____________
	ID: 1184790 ·

SciManStev Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 20 Jun 99 Posts: 4291 Credit: 62,636,511 RAC: 73,323	Message 1184792 - Posted: 12 Jan 2012, 19:03:19 UTC
	As there are only 63 stars within 50 light years of earth, 1500 planets would mean some stars would have a lot of them. Steve ____________ Warning, addicted to SETI crunching! Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group. GPUUG Website
	ID: 1184792 ·

Len Send message Joined: 15 Mar 10 Posts: 45 Credit: 1,238,849 RAC: 1,597	Message 1184811 - Posted: 12 Jan 2012, 20:30:12 UTC - in response to Message 1184792.
	As there are only 63 stars within 50 light years of earth, 1500 planets would mean some stars would have a lot of them. Steve Are we really sure about the low figure of 63? Having not spent any time counting them myself, I am loathe to state anything as fact; but a quick search of previous counts and estimates from scientific sources places the 1500 figure on the conservative side. 1600 to over 2000 being the predominant range that I found. Len ____________ I think I am. Therefore I am. I think.
	ID: 1184811 ·

SciManStev Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 20 Jun 99 Posts: 4291 Credit: 62,636,511 RAC: 73,323	Message 1184820 - Posted: 12 Jan 2012, 21:02:52 UTC - in response to Message 1184811.
	As there are only 63 stars within 50 light years of earth, 1500 planets would mean some stars would have a lot of them. Steve Are we really sure about the low figure of 63? Having not spent any time counting them myself, I am loathe to state anything as fact; but a quick search of previous counts and estimates from scientific sources places the 1500 figure on the conservative side. 1600 to over 2000 being the predominant range that I found. Len I have this. http://www.solstation.com/stars3/100-gs.htm Steve ____________ Warning, addicted to SETI crunching! Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group. GPUUG Website
	ID: 1184820 ·

William Rothamel Send message Joined: 25 Oct 06 Posts: 2122 Credit: 1,088,008 RAC: 176	Message 1184828 - Posted: 12 Jan 2012, 21:53:30 UTC - in response to Message 1184820.
	The discrepancy is probably due to stating the number of Sun-Like stars which are Main sequence stars that are non binary. At one time I thought that there was a count of only 600 such stars out to 1000 light years
	ID: 1184828 ·

Johnney Guinness Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 11 Sep 06 Posts: 2944 Credit: 2,304,282 RAC: 244	Message 1184991 - Posted: 13 Jan 2012, 17:23:13 UTC Last modified: 13 Jan 2012, 17:25:02 UTC
	100 billion planets, that really is a massive number. You have to really think about that number to get your head around it. How many of those planets have trees, and birds that fly in the Sky's, and flowing streams and rivers, and dinosaurs roaming freely across the plains. And great civilisations of people living out their lives. I bet hundreds of thousands of them have life on them just like here on Earth. John. ____________
	ID: 1184991 ·

CLYDE Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 9 Aug 99 Posts: 132 Credit: 9,793,105 RAC: 21,857	Message 1185004 - Posted: 13 Jan 2012, 17:50:14 UTC
	In you read my Profile, one will see negative arguments regarding life, or at least other intelligent life, within the galaxy. I even called Drake's Equation "Mere numbers playing". Possibly 100 BILLION PLANETS!!! Now I wonder. ____________
	ID: 1185004 ·

skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 8940 Credit: 36,380,233 RAC: 55,793	Message 1185015 - Posted: 13 Jan 2012, 18:39:05 UTC - in response to Message 1185004.
	While you have an interesting argument against intelligent life the shear numbers say that it's more likely than not. I'd hate to think that we are the only self aware beings in this galaxy let alone the universe ____________ Proud member of TSWB. End terrorism by building a school
	ID: 1185015 ·

john3760 Send message Joined: 9 Feb 11 Posts: 322 Credit: 3,048,293 RAC: 15,774	Message 1185024 - Posted: 13 Jan 2012, 20:01:42 UTC - in response to Message 1184991.
	The number of planets with birds,dinosaurs or any other type of life we recognise on earth ,is definately a lot rarer than planets(which we havent even discovered yet) that can contain even the most basic forms of life. Another planet with dinosaurs is theoretically probable,but almost certainly non existant. john3760
	ID: 1185024 ·

Chris S Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 19 Nov 00 Posts: 22614 Credit: 4,497,695 RAC: 6,015	Message 1185041 - Posted: 13 Jan 2012, 21:55:00 UTC Last modified: 13 Jan 2012, 21:56:08 UTC
	There may well be 100 billion lumps of rock orbiting distant stars, whether of not they can be classed as planets by our standards, is debatable. The odds are that there is likely to be intelligent life out there somewhere, but the odds are also very much against it being with two legs and two arms. Unless of course there is a race of self balancing intelligent chairs .... In terms of space travel, the human race hasn't even started to crawl yet. Even in the 21st Century we couldn't send a simple craft to a space station in low earth orbit, without control rooms with dozens of scientists and tracking stations all over the world. And if it rains .... well, forget it. I happen to think that ET is out there somewhere, and we are being kept an eye on by unmanned drones, which we call UFO's. But more than likely we are being ignored until we have the capability of FTL speed, or at least until we have spacecraft that have the ability to take off and land on their own.
	ID: 1185041 ·

CLYDE Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 9 Aug 99 Posts: 132 Credit: 9,793,105 RAC: 21,857	Message 1185042 - Posted: 13 Jan 2012, 21:55:53 UTC - in response to Message 1185015. Last modified: 13 Jan 2012, 21:58:34 UTC
	While you have an interesting argument against intelligent life the shear numbers say that it's more likely than not. I'd hate to think that we are the only self aware beings in this galaxy let alone the universe Because the amazing number of planets now possible: I am beginning to re-evaluate my thinking. ____________
	ID: 1185042 ·

Len Send message Joined: 15 Mar 10 Posts: 45 Credit: 1,238,849 RAC: 1,597	Message 1185102 - Posted: 14 Jan 2012, 0:55:48 UTC - in response to Message 1185041. Last modified: 14 Jan 2012, 0:56:18 UTC
	A planet is a body that orbits the Sun, is massive enough for its own gravity to make it round, and has "cleared its neighbourhood" of smaller objects around its orbit. If we were to substitute "the sun" with "its star", I think we have a working definition of planet, surely? ____________ I think I am. Therefore I am. I think.
	ID: 1185102 ·

Len Send message Joined: 15 Mar 10 Posts: 45 Credit: 1,238,849 RAC: 1,597	Message 1185109 - Posted: 14 Jan 2012, 1:14:29 UTC - in response to Message 1184820.
	As there are only 63 stars within 50 light years of earth, 1500 planets would mean some stars would have a lot of them. Steve Are we really sure about the low figure of 63? Having not spent any time counting them myself, I am loathe to state anything as fact; but a quick search of previous counts and estimates from scientific sources places the 1500 figure on the conservative side. 1600 to over 2000 being the predominant range that I found. Len I have this. http://www.solstation.com/stars3/100-gs.htm Steve Hmm. I have three apples and four oranges. However there are seven pieces of fruit. If one were to re-define fruit as "non-citrus fruit", then my statement that I had seven fruits would be wrong by the new definition of fruit, but where would that leave apples? Are they no longer fruit?. The original poster mentioned "stars". Not spectral type "G" stars. Of those there appears to be 64, granted. But the limit as to a specific spectral type was never given by the original poster. ____________ I think I am. Therefore I am. I think.
	ID: 1185109 ·

William Rothamel Send message Joined: 25 Oct 06 Posts: 2122 Credit: 1,088,008 RAC: 176	Message 1185119 - Posted: 14 Jan 2012, 2:06:15 UTC - in response to Message 1185109. Last modified: 14 Jan 2012, 2:08:11 UTC
	The point is that sheer numbers do not guarantee anything. The Drake equation ignores perhaps two dozen requirements for the evolution of intelligent life similar to ours (in terms of being able to compare with homo sapiens in it's current state of evolution.. These are things like temperature, stable orbits, non crushing gravity, a magnetic field, tides, a moon to tidally lock and stabilize spin, an outer gas giant to protect from excessive asteroid/comet hits. sufficient water, dry land, non-poisoness atmosphere, an ozone layer, etc. Perhaps not all of these are absolutely essential and there are probably a dozen more that I or others don't even know about. if there were say only a dozen of these parameters and they were each only 20% likely then there would perhaps be a few hundred likely planets in our galaxy. On average they would be too far away to ever know if life existed. I think that there may be only a handful of such planets in our galaxy. I could believe that life such as ours exists somewhere in the universe-I also believe that it is likely that we will never know. The fact that recent searches may prove me wrong in my assumptions keeps me interested in the ongoing search. If the numbers predicted by Frank Drake and others were valid the Galaxy would be colonized by now and we would be enjoying the chatter rather than listening to a bunch of thermal noise. We would have been visited long ago.
	ID: 1185119 ·

William Rothamel Send message Joined: 25 Oct 06 Posts: 2122 Credit: 1,088,008 RAC: 176	Message 1185120 - Posted: 14 Jan 2012, 2:11:14 UTC - in response to Message 1185109.
	Hmm. I have three apples and four oranges. If you wanted to make an apple pie you would have exactly three apples.
	ID: 1185120 ·

Bob DeWoody Send message Joined: 9 May 10 Posts: 656 Credit: 61,896 RAC: 94	Message 1185146 - Posted: 14 Jan 2012, 5:06:07 UTC
	What I wonder is, will it make any difference in the long run. The possibility exists that travel back and forth between the stars will never be realized and therefore we may never make contact with our neighbors even assuming they are there. ____________ Bob DeWoody
	ID: 1185146 ·

CLYDE Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 9 Aug 99 Posts: 132 Credit: 9,793,105 RAC: 21,857	Message 1185296 - Posted: 14 Jan 2012, 19:52:55 UTC - in response to Message 1185146.
	What I wonder is, will it make any difference in the long run. The possibility exists that travel back and forth between the stars will never be realized and therefore we may never make contact with our neighbors even assuming they are there. I agree. The distances are so great, excepting a breakthrough of light speed, travel will impossible. But, this attempt is not really about communication between civilizations. It is, I believe, an attempt to see if there are other civilizations within our Galaxy. ____________
	ID: 1185296 ·

ML1 Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 7109 Credit: 3,680,987 RAC: 960	Message 1185354 - Posted: 14 Jan 2012, 23:54:26 UTC - in response to Message 1185119. Last modified: 14 Jan 2012, 23:56:09 UTC
	The point is that sheer numbers do not guarantee anything. The Drake equation ignores perhaps two dozen requirements for the evolution of intelligent life similar to ours... The observations and numbers continue to reinforce the view that our solar system is nothing 'special'... The development of our form of life here might be peculiar and 'rare', but the circumstances are nothing special. Note also that life might be widespread in various forms... I could believe that life such as ours exists somewhere in the universe-I also believe that it is likely that we will never know. The fact that recent searches may prove me wrong in my assumptions keeps me interested in the ongoing search. If the numbers predicted by Frank Drake and others were valid the Galaxy would be colonized by now and we would be enjoying the chatter rather than listening to a bunch of thermal noise. We would have been visited long ago. At the moment, we are playing a game of numbers and possibilities, That is what the Drake equation attempts to add up. If there is already life in the universe that multiplies and travels, then to quote a famous phrase from Carl Sagan: "Where are they?" The observation that we haven't seen anything yet, might suggest that we might be the first at least for our galaxy... Keep searchin', Martin ____________ Mandriva Linux A user friendly OS! See new freedom Mageia2 The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)
	ID: 1185354 ·

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next

Message boards : SETI@home Science : At Least 100 Billion Planets