"Laws of nature mixed with evolutionary/historical contingencies allow for a range of diversity... [t]hat diversity, within the laws of nature, when I step back a bit from the desk or the computer, still surprises me to no end." -Adrian Lenardic
When it comes to the habitability of a planet, there are a lot of assumptions that we make. All of them boil down to, at some level or other, how Earth-like this world is. This is reflected in our language: terms like “super-Earth” or “habitable zone” showcase this inherent bias. Yet the vast majority of stars that are out there aren’t Sun-like, and the vast majority of worlds with life on them may not be very Earth-like at all.
Different colors, masses and sizes of main-sequence stars. The most massive ones produce the greatest amounts of heavy elements the fastest. Image credit: Wikimedia Commons users Kieff and LucasVB; annotations by E. Siegel.
Rather than consider whether a world has a large Moon, rotates on its axis, has tectonic plates or is susceptible to flares from its star, we should be focusing on the actual conditions present there. The speculation we engage in now, given our insufficient information, may result in us closing ourselves off to not only the possibility that life may exist elsewhere, but that Earth-like life may, in fact, be the rarity.
TRAPPIST-1 system compared to the solar system; all seven planets of TRAPPIST-1 could fit inside the orbit of Mercury. Note that at least the inner six worlds of TRAPPIST-1 are all locked to the star. Image credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech.
Despite what you may have heard from some skeptics, Proxima b and the worlds around TRAPPIST-1 may be potentially habitable after all. Come find out how!
- Log in to post comments
Earth-like life? Not a chance. Too much radiation. However I do think there could be life on the TRAPPIST-1 worlds. Recent research published in Nature cites the possible discovery of the evidence of life in hydrothermal vent precipitates dated back to somewhere between 3.8 and 4.3 billion years ago.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v543/n7643/full/nature21377.html
It is said the TRAPPIST-1 system more closely resembles the Jovian system than our solar system. There is plenty of tidal heating going on in the Jovian moons and that is really all you need for hydrothermal vents. There is no reason to believe the TRAPPIST-1 worlds won't have them. Water also makes for very good radiation shielding and thermal stabilization.
If life really was able to spring up barely an eye blink after Earth's crust solidified, I'm betting that it is going to be everywhere. Earth-like life is another story.
Humanity's current sample-size of one makes for unreliable predictions.
@#1
You cannot say "not a chance". If there are life forms existing around earths fumaroles, the probability is high for that existence around vents on another planet.
"Fookin prawns" (district nine).
;)
No, tebaggie, we have a bigger sample size than one, and we have science to lend credence and theory to any claims.
You don't have to see a second planet to know what habitable planets might look like. Then again, you really have a problem with reality, truth and even words, don't you, you retard.
Denier, tardigrates manage to survive MUCH higher radiation levels than we do. Hell, even cockroaches manage higher levels. So the claim based on "too high radiation" is unsupported by reality.
All it means is a different method for repairing random ionising damage to DNA. Or more redundancy in the system.
we have a bigger sample size than one
Where are the others?
Abolitionist,
As you and I, and (almost) everyone else on this planet knows, there are no others. The article Ethan linked to opens with, “When it comes to life in the Universe, we only have one confirmed example of success: Earth.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/09/proxima-b-and-t…
If you read a few other threads from this blog, you’ll notice that focus of the author of your question is not on Science, but on vilifying other commenters, and even on occasion the blogger.
"Where are the others?"
Every planet in the solar system.
"As you and I, and (almost) everyone else on this planet knows, there are no others."
No, teabaggie, you're yet again presuming a legion of like minded fools and morons because you're just a clueless fucking retard who doesn't understand either science or words.
"but on vilifying other commenters"
Only lying fuckwits like yourself, teabaggie. And it's always the lying fuckwits and the like minded morons who whine and whinge about it. It's a good litmus test of who wants to learn and who is a precious little flower who must be coddled and petted and told they're the bestest person ever. People who will lie about what others have said by taking out of context or omission and who then, in order to hide that fact, and hide the truth against them and their claims, by spamming the same copypasta bullshit that was debunked and hoping that useful idiots like eric would whine about how many posts there were (which are solely because you keep repeating the same bullshit and lies as if you "win" by being last to post, the reality and honesty of your claim being irrelevant).
So I fucking vilify you and others who 100% deserve it, and you whine and bitch and moan because you want to have everything your own way, but don't want to earn it.
So I really don't give a shit that you're whining teabaggie. It is a badge of honour for me: it proves I'm doing something right.
Abolitionist,
The article Ethan linked to opens with, “When it comes to life in the Universe, we only have one confirmed example of success: Earth.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/09/proxima-b-and-t…
There is only one planet confirmed to have life: Earth. The sample-size for speculation about life supporting planets is one.
Should you stay for a wile, you’ll notice (if you have not already) that the focus of the author of your question is not on Science, but on vilifying other commenters, and even on occasion the blogger. He is more fluent in coarse language than he is in science.
Wow,
just because you know some things, does not mean you know everything, or anything about the existence of life on any planet in the TRAPPIST - 1 system, or the fact that you are a disgusting troll.
.
The very lovely and completely made up picture of Proxima b has a caption that includes the words "..may contain liquid water...", and nothing about the likelihood of life. Ethan is throwing around the words "..speculation we engage in now, given our insufficient information..", and 'Potentially habitable', which means we actually have no idea 'scientifically' until we have actual evidence of otherwise. Clean up your language and get your ego in check before you comment.
And again you're lying your weasel shitfilled arse off, teabaggie.
Nothing in that quote about god. What Ethan DID say about god like you want to force it to be is this:
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/02/12/comments-of-the-week…
But you're a lying fucking shitstain on humanity's arsehole, teabaggie, with absolutely no care for truth or reality or even science because you're shit scared about death and have been terrified by your christian cult into not thinking.
So you make a partial quote that has nothing to do with the subject and then misattribute it to pretend that it does, and solely because ou have had every argument you tried trashed 100% so have had to pretend that others in authority say otherwise and ignore this massive appeal to authority fallacy, just like you ignore their ACTUAL claims.
Because you're a lying little toerag, teabaggie and the sooner you get shitcanned from this site the better, because as long as you infest this site it will be impossible to provide any education you do not yourself approve of and agree with, because you'll do the same bullshit spamposting to silence everyone else who tries to do something you do not want to be taught.
And Ethan doesn't give a shit about how you're screwing the point of this site. So why the fuck should he care what I do on here, so I'll have fun with you and all other retards and rip you a new arsehole for the lulz.
"just because you know some things, does not mean you know everything"
Just because your sorry whiney ass cannot make up anything better than this pathetic strawman does not make it a valid complaint, even if it hadn't come from an anti-science creotard moron like yourself, kiffed.
We have many other planets to look at. And we can see what they provide and we know how chemistry works, and it works like that EVERYWHERE. That's how science works, bitch, suck it up.
Seems like a lot of morons don't know that chemistry is a universal.
Sad.
Absolutionist just came to this with a notion of what "life on other planets" means, but kiffed and teabaggie both know that they're talking bollocks but don't care to change. Change isn't in their lexicon.Along with words like true, reality and many many more.
Super sad.
CFT,
"... we actually have no idea ‘scientifically’ until we have actual evidence ..."
Keep in mind that having evidence is unimportant to certain foul-mouthed trolls.
Remember this howler? "... I am right with or without evidence ..."
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/01/20/can-science-prove-th…
What howler was that, teabaggie? The argument stands and your whine was "where's your evidence god exists", to which without evidence the argument stands and is correct. But you don't do logic, do you, retardo, because that's FAR beyond your pay grade.
What about your howler? "Can science prove scientific theories?".HAW! Still sniggering over your idiocy there, tebagiie!
Where's your evidence for 1+1 being two, tebaggie? Or is it right with or without evidence because of logic and set theory?
Again you're proclaiming a thing that is outside reality because you have lost your ass here on the internet as you did when you tried to BS the same crap with Brian Dalton here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmgKfjr7T8Y
With or without evidence of god, I am right and you are wrong. But trust you to make the wrong conclusion from it, that is why you quote it, as so many other quotes of people you have done in your lying past, in such a cut down form. You'll find a "good friend" in kiffed, though. He's as completely batshit crazy as you are, and just as idiotically welded to that christian death cult.
The two of you should be happy in your idiocy. If happy were a thing you could do, that is.
CTF,
"... to which without evidence the argument stands ..."
One has to impressed by such scientific illiteracy.
"I think this is one of the most important things to recognize about science. Whenever we seek to answer a question, scientifically, it demands that we gather new data, make new observations or perform new experiments."
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/05/comments-of-the-week…
CTF & Abolitionist,
Seriously, who else on these threads posts such utter nonsense? You? eric? dean?
You, CFT, denier (if it's about climate scientists or can be connected to it), ragbag media. You all produce the same low level content of bullcrap fairly consistently, teabaggie.
You probably don't even understand what is being said, do you. You probably aren't *really* getting it wrong deliberately, but are actually 100% incapable of working it out, since you have the simpleton's view of what science is, and everything is filtered through the lack of thought that your death cult scared you into living when you were very young.
Who posts rubbish? You do, teabaggie.
"Whenever we seek to answer a question, scientifically, it demands that we gather new data, make new observations or perform new experiments."
Whenever YOU try, you just pull the shit out of your ass, grin, and parade it around like it's a golden nugget.
Actual scientists know you have a lot more than just that to science, and the most important stuff is done before you start gathering.
You know, theories.
Which tell you what you should be looking for (and not "read the bible", retardo), and how you will find it.
But you don't know what science is do you, teabaggie.
Sad.
CTF & Abolitionist,,
More of the same scientific insight we've come to expect from from the foul-mouthed troll, "Whenever YOU try, you just pull the shit out of your ass, grin, and parade it around like it’s a golden nugget."
From someone practicing Science, “I think this is one of the most important things to recognize about science. Whenever we seek to answer a question, scientifically, it demands that we gather new data, make new observations or perform new experiments.”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/05/comments-of-the-week…
From someone who is NOT practicing Science, “… I am right with or without evidence …”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/01/20/can-science-prove-th…
It's quite obvious who does and who does not know what Science is.
CTF & Abolitionist,
From someone who is practicing science, “I think this is one of the most important things to recognize about science. Whenever we seek to answer a question, scientifically, it demands that we gather new data, make new observations or perform new experiments.”."
From someone who is NOT practicing science, "Whenever YOU try, you just pull the shit out of your ass, grin, and parade it around like it’s a golden nugget."
It’s quite obvious who does and who does not know what Science is.
Hmmm, another thread out the shitchute .....
:(
Wow,
You need professional help that most likely includes medication and counseling. Please leave your angry tirades at your therapists office, as you do a great disservice to both intelligent debate and any field of science you apply your foul mouth to.
When I was a teen, I learned to choose my novels by author. When I graduated HS, I learned to choose my classes by professor. Now, I choose posts by handle. :) And always remember, when browsing, the scroll wheel is your friend.
CFT,
I'm intrigued by, "You’ll find a “good friend” in kiffed, though. He’s as completely batshit crazy as you are, and just as idiotically welded to that christian death cult.”
Independent of any musings about my sanity, I have never provided any personal information here, and yet someone claims without any supporting evidence that I am a member of a “christian death cult”. One can only assume that by including the adjective he is exempting me from other death cults, but given the personality in question, that may be also untrue.
Have you posted that you are a member of a “christian death cult”, or is our membership in his pariah group just another of his self-indulgent fantasies?
"From someone who is practicing science"
And from a liar who misrepresents those far smarter than himself, he again tries to fake an argument from authority and nonsequitur rolled into one.
Sorry, teabaggie, you have your ass handed to you on a regular basis because you're a fucking moron. It's just a fact of life. Your only solution is to keep quiet and learn from people rather than misquoting them.
"Wow,
You need professional help "
No, it;s fine, I don't need or want a hitman to wipe you assholes out of existence.
Thanks for offering to kill yourself, though. It would be a big help to humanity: the IQ average will rise a fair bit when you fuck off the planet and start fertilising it.
Take your anti-science bullshit to the local god-squad homies and pat each other on the back. Show the same respect as atheists and scientists do to your insanity when they refrain from turning up at your church and barracking the priest and telling everyone there they're fucking idiots living a fantasy land.
But you can't do that, can you, because you know you're talking bollocks, and have to scream loud to drown out that realisation and pretend to your imaginary sky fairy that you're worth letting live.
Sad.
"Now, I choose posts by handle"
Your loss, retard. Even denier sometimes shows intelligence and thought. But if you took his handle and the fact he's a flat out dyed-in-the-wool AGW denier and ignored him, you'd miss that.
But you don't want to know things, you only want confirmation of your original ideas, much like a "moderate" teabaggie here.
"I have never provided any personal information here"
Bzzzt, WRONG.
John, Baltimore, Christian Apologist, insists on NOMA to protect god from being proven nonexistent, uses the same argument as jkeyes, a JOhn from Baltimore who is a Christian Apologist and insists on NOMA whose ass was handed to him by Brian Dalton on Mr Deity arguing the same shit.
"claims without any supporting evidence"
Lots of evidence.
But you don't understand the meaning of the word, do you, teabaggie.
"I am a member of a “christian death cult”"
I realise that is a bit redundant. Christianity IS a death cult. It worships the after-death experience and ignores or even hates the actual life in this word.
PJ, I've done as Ethan has and not given a shit if threads go to pot.
I don't do it to piss you off, but because Ethan's actions indicate he doesn't give a shit (well, enough of a one to do any work to prevent shitholitude) so I might as well rip retards another asshole to talk shit out of.
If you want to see what it's going to be like with this level of noninvolvement, go over and read Deltoid in scienceblogs. This may be Ethan's way of making people move to medium or forbes. That's what teabaggie is trying, anyway.
Is wow always like this?
Are you always so wimpy?
Next time if you're going to get butthurt at being answered, don't ask.
Abolitionist,
"Is wow always like this?"
Only when he posts!
Boo hoo, teabaggie upset! Awwww.
Seems you believe yourself powerless and everyone can see you're witless, so I guess that's why you have a make believe friend.
"Seems you believe yourself powerless ..."
What in the world prompted such a stupid comment?!??
"... insists on NOMA ..."
No evidence for that fantasy either.
"Lots of evidence."
Oh yes? Trot is out then
... as if that'll ever happen.
Ah, you mean "trot it our again", right teabaggie? But since it is already out there, this would be redundant reposting.
"such a stupid comment"
Ah, a claim without evidence for it. Where is your evidence, teabaggie?
... chuckling ... been reduced to carping over typos, eh?
I didn't think you'd be able to provide evidence; now we all know.
Yeah, your insane giggling is kinda your only response when you can't handle reality.
I have provided it before, as we all know, and you're just lying again.
#31:
“I have never provided any personal information here”
Bzzzt, WRONG.
John, Baltimore, Christian Apologist, insists on NOMA to protect god from being proven nonexistent, uses the same argument as jkeyes, a JOhn from Baltimore who is a Christian Apologist and insists on NOMA whose ass was handed to him by Brian Dalton on Mr Deity arguing the same shit.
“claims without any supporting evidence”
Lots of evidence.
But you don’t understand the meaning of the word, do you, teabaggie.
“I am a member of a “christian death cult””
I realise that is a bit redundant. Christianity IS a death cult. It worships the after-death experience and ignores or even hates the actual life in this word.
"I have provided it [evidence to support your claims] before ..."
You have not provided evidence.
If you had, you'd be able to do so again.
Another fail.
"You have not provided evidence. "
And another claim from you without any evidence to support it, teabaggie, and evidence you are, yet again, a lying sack of christian retard crap!
... smiling broadly .... If you had any evidence, you'd present it.
You're all talk, but unable to do anything except bad-mouth others.
"… smiling broadly... "
Which every lunatic in the asylum will do. You fit right in with the other nutcases there, teabag.
But that's your only recourse when you've lost it, isn't it, you faithiest moron.
"... you faithiest moron"
… enjoying the entertainment …. Still nothing to present as evidence that I "insist" on NOMA, eh?.
You’re all talk, but unable to do anything except bad-mouth others.
"You’re all talk"
Again you are mistaken, teabaggie. Projection again. Poor bastard.
"Projection again"
LOL! More talk, and still no evidence that I “insist” on NOMA.
So what else is new?
" More talk,"
Mistaken again, teabaggie.
And now you're even trying to make agreeing with me that science can prove god a disagreement with me and my fault! LOL!
LOL! More talk, and still no evidence that I “insist” on NOMA.
So what else is new?
"More talk,"
Still mistaken, teabaggie.
"still no evidence "
Where?
More talk, and you've still produced no evidence that I “insist” on NOMA.
Not that you will, or even can.
" and you’ve still produced no evidence that I “insist” on NOMA"
So you accept that science can prove the existence of god, then, teabaggie. You HAD spent about 2000 of your own posts insisting that it could not. But since you've changed your mind, this is fine.
"So you accept that science can prove the existence of god ..."
You'll need to provide some evidence to support your claim that it can.
Until then, you'll have failed.
Again
"“So you accept that science can prove the existence of god …”
You’ll need to provide some evidence "
So you're back to insisting on NOMA, then, tebaggie.
So sad.
"So you’re back to insisting on NOMA,"
More talk, and still no evidence that I “insist” on NOMA.
So what else is new?
"“So you’re back to insisting on NOMA,”
More talk,"
Indeed.
"and still no evidence that I “insist” on NOMA."
Your continuing insistence that science cannot prove god's existence, teabaggie.
We still have that evidence you insist on NOMA.
We still have that evidence you insist on NOMA.
But you can't produce any no evidence that I “insist” on NOMA.”
"We still have that evidence you insist on NOMA.
But you can’t produce any no evidence that I “insist” on NOMA.”
Your post makes no sense, teabaggie.
Nerves again?
Yes, we still have that evidence which is evidence. That's what the word "evidence" means. Ask an orderly.
"Your post makes no sense ...'
And you can’t produce any no evidence that I “insist” on NOMA.”
"And you can’t produce any no evidence "
And again your nerves are making you incoherent, teabaggie.
You really hate the evidence you provided that you still insist on NOMA.
"... the evidence you provided that you still insist on NOMA."
You can produce no evidence that I “insist” on NOMA.”
You've failed again.
"“… the evidence you provided that you still insist on NOMA.”
You can produce no evidence that I “insist” on NOMA.”"
You did it for me, teabaggie. Which was a huge saving on time. But I knew you couldn't accept NOMA wasn't real. You insist on it.
"You did it for me ..."
You made the claim. The burden is on you to support it.
You have produced no evidence that I “insist” on NOMA.
You've failed.
Again
"“You did it for me …”
You made the claim"
And you proved it, teabaggie.
“... you proved it, …”
You made the claim. The burden is on you to support it.
You have produced no evidence that I “insist” on NOMA.
You’ve failed.
Again
"“… you proved it, …”
You made the claim. The burden is on you to support it."
And you have proven it, teabaggie.
So you've not yet managed your evidence that there is a singularity at the center of a black hole, not managed to prove that infinities are singularities, not even claimed not to be jkeyes1000, the christian retard, and not shown that infinities or even singularities (since you seem, without evidence, to believe they are the same thing. And probably god, too, to ensure NOMA continues) are a problem in PHYSICS.
And have instead managed to prove yourself wrong on all counts.
Smashing, teabaggie. Your psychosis is running at peak capacity!
“… insists on NOMA …”
You made the claim @ #31. The burden is on you to support it.
You have produced no evidence that I “insist” on NOMA.
You’ve failed.
Again
"“… insists on NOMA …”
You made the claim "
And you proved it.
You have produced no evidence that I “insist” on NOMA.
You’ve failed.
Again
"You have produced no evidence that I “insist” on NOMA."
You have provided it, teabaggie.
“… insists on NOMA …”
You made the claim @ #31. The burden is on you to support it.
You have not yet produced evidence that I “insist” on NOMA.
You’ve failed.
Again
"You made the claim @ #31. The burden is on you to support it."
And you supplied the proof, teabaggie.
“… insists on NOMA …”
You made the claim @ #31.
You need to provide evidence to support it.
You have not yet produced evidence that I “insist” on NOMA.
You’ve failed.
Again
"You made the claim @ #31."
And you proved it, teabaggie.
“… insists on NOMA …”
You made the claim @ #31.
You need to provide some evidence to support your claim.
You have not yet produced evidence that I “insist” on NOMA.
You’ve failed.
Again
"“… insists on NOMA …”
You made the claim @ #31."
And you provided the proof, teabaggie @#55
You made the claim @ #31 that I “insist” on NOMA.
You need to provide some evidence to support your claim.
You have not yet produced evidence that I “insist” on NOMA.
You’ve failed.
Again
"You made the claim @ #31 that I “insist” on NOMA."
Yes.
"... Yes"
You made the claim @ #31 that I “insist” on NOMA.
You need to provide some evidence to support your claim.
You have not yet produced evidence that I “insist” on NOMA.
You’ve failed.
Again
"“… Yes”
You made the claim @ #31 that I “insist” on NOMA."
Indeed.
“… Indeed”
You made the claim @ #31 that I “insist” on NOMA.
You need to provide some evidence to support your claim.
You have not yet produced evidence that I “insist” on NOMA.
You’ve failed.
Again
"You made the claim @ #31 that I “insist” on NOMA."
Certainly did, teabaggie!
“… Certainly did ...”
You made the claim @ #31 that I “insist” on NOMA.
You need to provide some evidence to support your claim.
You have not yet produced evidence that I “insist” on NOMA.
And you’ve certainly failed.
Again
http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/thumb/b/b5/2014-09-19-1062sea.png/500p…
You, teabaggie,are a toxic streak of virulent piss on the underpants of SWAB, and the reason why people leave in droves.
"... are a toxic streak of virulent piss on the underpants of SWAB, and the reason why people leave in droves."
… chuckling … I’m unaware of people leaving SWAB in droves. To whom are you referring?
If Abolitionist does not return, we can be confident your behavior has driven at least one person away from SWAB. You'll recall comment #58, I'm sure.
“@ wow
Fuck you, you lying bullshit artist.
I’m gone. I don’t need to put up with your pseudoscience cap.
There are real science blogs.”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-mo…
Just follow the link
The facts are undeniable.
It is there for everyone to read.
Just a reminder, you made the claim @ #31 that I “insist” on NOMA.
You need to provide some evidence to support your claim.
You have not yet produced evidence that I “insist” on NOMA.
So you’ve failed.
Again