New "Super Earth" planet found... Name to be... Reach?

[t3h m00kz]

Check it.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/12/name-that-waterworld

Found in this B.net thread:
http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=39757191&postRepeater1-p=1

[English Mobster]

I'm beginning to believe that "Reach" will be disqualified because it has so many damn entries.

Either that, or it'll win. Who knows?

[Pyong Kawaguchi]

Nice.

[Cojafoji]

naming a planet after something in a video game. gay.

[English Mobster]

I still wanted them to name the 10th planet "Rupert", after the 10th planet in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
It almost made it, too. Came in second place.

[ThePlague]

First we learn about Bungie Aerospace, now we find a new planet that may support life, and the first name on the list to name it is Reach. Something weird is going on...

[Kornman00]

GJ 1214b does pass in front of its sun. Separated from Earth by a distance of just 42 light years
heh, i c wut u did thar Bungie

[ODX]

So after scrolling all the way to the bottom...
http://i43.tinypic.com/v4pb1i.jpg

wat

[Kornman00]

Russian script kiddies apparently

[annihilation]

I voted.

"Hey, was Halo: Reach based off of a true story?"

[sleepy1212]

if Siberia wins, I'm staying on Earth!

what?...and why siberia?

also...i'm a big fan of science but i have a feeling in the future space explorers will laugh and say, "remember when they thought they could tell by how a star twinkles?"

i mean, red shift is one thing but ...shit...

[Warsaw]

They also check to see if it wobbles. A wobbling star indicates a not so insignificant nearby gravitational presence.

Also, Reach is a cooler name than other potential water-world names...like "Naboo".

[ICEE]

everyone vote aquas.

Then we'll deploy the blue marine

Shoot a torpedo to help you see!

[Heathen]

post ending in 35 names the planet



The telescopes sure to be trained on GJ 1214b in the near future will try to answer that question. But even if it proves barren, other planets await. The telescopes that spotted GJ 1214b (http://fr.arxiv.org/abs/0807.1316) were custom designed to find Earth-like planets around nearby stars, and had only operated for a few months before striking water.
“We only look at a handful of stars before finding this planet, said Charbonneau. “Either we got lucky, or the planets are very common.”


this makes me happy

[Llama Juice]

Tags: bullshit artist rendering (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/tag/bullshit-artist-rendering/), exoplanets (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/tag/exoplanets/), polls (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/tag/polls/), super-Earths (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/tag/super-earths/)

lol

[Dwood]

everyone vote aquas.

Then we'll deploy the blue marine

We've got lots of Torpedos

Shoot a torpedo to help you see!

:3

[Choking Victim]

...and — though it’s highly unlikely — may support life.
How can they estimate the probability of life on another planet when we've only begun to detect earth-like exoplanets? And even then, we've never observed an earth-like planet up close. As it stands, we have nothing to gauge the likeliness of life arising elsewhere.

[Inferno]

Lol.

Reach.

Good one. Why not name it HALO WORLD LOL.

[Kornman00]

because it's not shaped like a halo duh :ugh:

[SnaFuBAR]

name it pandora :downs:

[Kornman00]

fuck, just name it Super Earth :nsmug:

[JackalStomper]

fuck, just name it Super Earth :nsmug:

This

[Inferno]

Let's name it LOL MOVIE/VIDYA REFERENCE PLANET LOL.

Every country will be named after a meme.

[ICEE]

NAME IT TUTRLE :downs:

[Inferno]

Planet of the Hoaers.


</thread>

[Llama Juice]

Planet Llama Juice.

gogogogogogo

[Rob Oplawar]

Planet Llama Juice.
Hell yes, I'd vote for that.

[CN3089]

How can they estimate the probability of life on another planet when we've only begun to detect earth-like exoplanets? And even then, we've never observed an earth-like planet up close. As it stands, we have nothing to gauge the likeliness of life arising elsewhere.

The presence of oxygen is a fairly good indicator of whether complex life exists on a planet.

[Rob Oplawar]

^ as far as we know. There are so many assumptions involved in our current search for extra-solar life that it's pretty much bunk until we know more.

[Reaper Man]

This thread inspired me to re-watch Titan A.E.

Good stuff~

[Good_Apollo]

This thread inspired me to re-watch Titan A.E.

Good stuff~Good movie. Don't understand the poor reviews. Then again, I also don't get the poor reviews from Atlantis either, same director I believe too...

[EDIT] Vote for Bob

[Cojafoji]

Name it "Penis Hustler Prime"

[Choking Victim]

The presence of oxygen is a fairly good indicator of whether complex life exists on a planet.
Is it? We're carbon based lifeforms that rely on oxygen for respiration. If we can spontaneously arise from stardust, who's to say that organisms based off of completely different element can arise elsewhere? Silicon is the most likely candidate because it's the lightest element and has a similar electric charge to carbon. Organisms based off of another element probably wouldn't rely on oxygen if they even have a respiratory process like we do.

[Malloy]

Call it : Femfresh

[sevlag]

waterworld

[Inferno]

Call It United States of America.

Then send all the stupid people to it.

[Dwood]

Call It United States of America.

Then send all the stupid people to it.

Call me when you get there.

[Inferno]

:maddowns:

[Warsaw]

Is it? We're carbon based lifeforms that rely on oxygen for respiration. If we can spontaneously arise from stardust, who's to say that organisms based off of completely different element can arise elsewhere? Silicon is the most likely candidate because it's the lightest element and has a similar electric charge to carbon. Organisms based off of another element probably wouldn't rely on oxygen if they even have a respiratory process like we do.

Carbon can form very, very long chains. Silicon has a chance of forming chains, too, but it's more unstable than carbon. That's pretty much why life is expected to form elsewhere along similar lines as it did here. You need those long chains.

[Choking Victim]

Carbon can form very, very long chains. Silicon has a chance of forming chains, too, but it's more unstable than carbon. That's pretty much why life is expected to form elsewhere along similar lines as it did here. You need those long chains.
Read up on diatoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatoms), their cell walls are composed of silica. While carbon is the preferred element, it can't be completely ruled out that lifeforms based off of silicon can't exist. With the overall size of the universe, the possibilities are infinite. I'd also like to point out that silicon is more abundant than carbon on our planet, yet we're still carbon based. Obviously carbon is the more efficient element for biological life, yet diatoms have parts composed of silicon. I'm simply saying that the overall size of the universe needs to be taken into consideration when extraterrestrial life is hypothesized to exist elsewhere.

[Dwood]

:maddowns:

Not my fault you walked right into it.

[kid908]

Read up on diatoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatoms), their cell walls are composed of silica. While carbon is the preferred element, it can't be completely ruled out that lifeforms based off of silicon can't exist. With the overall size of the universe, the possibilities are infinite. I'd also like to point out that silicon is more abundant than carbon on our planet, yet we're still carbon based. Obviously carbon is the more efficient element for biological life, yet diatoms have parts composed of silicon. I'm simply saying that the overall size of the universe needs to be taken into consideration when extraterrestrial life is hypothesized to exist elsewhere.

We isolated the silicon based life on earth to a place we call Hollywood.

But if our computers ever become self aware, ie. AIs, than we might be living side by side with silicon based humanoid life, so you really can't rule out an element for anything. We won't beable to determine of there's life on the planet unless we send something there, and with our current technological level, unlikely it'll be anytime soon considering the distance. Speculate all you want, but if there's no sign of intelligent life on the planet, you'll prob won't find out if there is or isn't life for a very long time.

If they want to find intelligent life, look for artificial structures in space (wonder if we can see a close up of the surface). EM frequencies they're trying to find now makes no sense. Like a radio, if you don't know the encryption, all of it sounds like static.

[Warsaw]

Read up on diatoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diatoms), their cell walls are composed of silica. While carbon is the preferred element, it can't be completely ruled out that lifeforms based off of silicon can't exist. With the overall size of the universe, the possibilities are infinite. I'd also like to point out that silicon is more abundant than carbon on our planet, yet we're still carbon based. Obviously carbon is the more efficient element for biological life, yet diatoms have parts composed of silicon. I'm simply saying that the overall size of the universe needs to be taken into consideration when extraterrestrial life is hypothesized to exist elsewhere.

Oh no no no, I wasn't ruling out silicon-based life. the TL; DR of my post was that life needs to have a Group 4 element as its focus, and preferably one of the top two. Carbon is the more robust one, so we expect that more than silicon.

[Choking Victim]

We isolated the silicon based life on earth to a place we call Hollywood.

But if our computers ever become self aware, ie. AIs, than we might be living side by side with silicon based humanoid life, so you really can't rule out an element for anything. We won't beable to determine of there's life on the planet unless we send something there, and with our current technological level, unlikely it'll be anytime soon considering the distance. Speculate all you want, but if there's no sign of intelligent life on the planet, you'll prob won't find out if there is or isn't life for a very long time.

If they want to find intelligent life, look for artificial structures in space (wonder if we can see a close up of the surface). EM frequencies they're trying to find now makes no sense. Like a radio, if you don't know the encryption, all of it sounds like static.
Intelligence != life

You should really read up on something called chemistry. Just because computers contain silicon chips doesn't mean your sitting next to an alternate life form, that isn't what I was trying to say. If you meant something else, I'm not sure I understood.

woosh!

[Heathen]

We've been examining an earth like planet up close for thousands of years now. We have a pretty good idea of what life on planets likes. They're pretty good friends of ours.

[Choking Victim]

Exoplanets?

What planet are you from?

take a day off ffs

[Kornman00]

We have a somewhat good idea of life on Earth, yes. There's also the unknowns of deep (and I mean deep) sea water life. What we ever learn from life in those depths could give us ideas of what life, if any, could exist in the frozen seas on the moon Europa.

However, we shouldn't limit our minds to just thinking we're the definitive life creation process. It was proven hundreds of years ago that universe doesn't revolve around us remember?

[Rob Oplawar]

^iawtp

[Warsaw]

It was proven hundreds of years ago that universe doesn't revolve around us remember?


Certain religious groups would like a word with you. :haw:

[Dwood]

Certain religious groups would like a word with you. :haw:

That's not religion. That's idiocy.

[sleepy1212]

we don't really have a definition of life. it could be defined by its complexity like in bodies, systems, or cells but i'd rather see something as simple as replication on the molecular level. it has to be that simple because only at that level of selection can we realistically have much in common with a far off planet. everything else would be purely speculative.

[Heathen]

Call me when you get there.
Damn. This has got to be the most awesome post on the forum.

E: I'm gonna call it....podacity mention needed.



We have a somewhat good idea of life on Earth, yes. There's also the unknowns of deep (and I mean deep) sea water life. What we ever learn from life in those depths could give us ideas of what life, if any, could exist in the frozen seas on the moon Europa.

However, we shouldn't limit our minds to just thinking we're the definitive life creation process. It was proven hundreds of years ago that universe doesn't revolve around us remember?

Oh, I wasn't saying that we are the example of the only possible life in the universe or that OUR conditions have been met.

Hell, if a microbe can survive at 280 degrees, then I'm sure life could evolve to survive in other conditions. That's just the most extreme condition we have on earth. Other planets would do fine with developing super life. And as far as "Super-Earth," I mentioned it in class and someone was like "The water would be boiling, so its impossible" :downs:
I was like "well the size of the planet is 6x our own so its gravity is probably much more, therefore the water would boil at a much higher temperature, and it could be different water all together.


Also, I'm gonna say it....call it Namek.

[Cojafoji]

find life on titan; masturbate furiously.

[TeeKup]

That's not religion. That's idiocy.
I love you.

Certain religious groups would like a word with you. :haw:
Until the Vatican gets anywhere near a space program or any form of science it can shut the fuck up.

When considering the evolution of other forms of life outside our biosphere, it should not be speculated that said life evolved it any similarity to the life on earth. Different planet, different biosphere; regardless of similarities.

[sevlag]

for all we know it could have fish people, its a water world after all

[Dwood]

I love you.


I'm fine with religion. In fact, I am religious, as a number of you may have noticed. Anyone who denies the truth is not religious, but an idiot.

[ICEE]

for all we know it could have fish

I think this is a little more likely. All life on earth arose from god's majestic powers the ocean, and we still have life there today. The ocean is a massive, varied environment that can support more varieties of life than we can even find. I think if theres life on any other planets (that are similar to earth), the ocean is where we should look first.

What I'd be interested to know is the salinity level of the water, and (if there is life there) how did the undersea life forms develop at different levels of depth?

on a more important note: How does it taste?

[Heathen]

I love you.

Until the Vatican gets anywhere near a space program or any form of science it can shut the fuck up.

When considering the evolution of other forms of life outside our biosphere, it should not be speculated that said life evolved it any similarity to the life on earth. Different planet, different biosphere; regardless of similarities.
They do have a space program/science. Go watch Religulous.

While I happen to think Bill Maher is an ass, its a great movie, and it even has a Vatican scientist.

[kid908]

Intelligence != life

You should really read up on something called chemistry. Just because computers contain silicon chips doesn't mean your sitting next to an alternate life form, that isn't what I was trying to say. If you meant something else, I'm not sure I understood.

woosh!

Why couldn't it be consider a life form? Is it not living if it becomes self-aware? If we can consider lower lifeform living on other planets, we can consider intelligent life form living on other planets. What if we say they actually seeded a new race, a mechanical race that relocated to a separate part of a galaxy and live. Would you consider that a life form? All I was trying to get at is, it might not even be "organic" life on another planet.

We shouldn't just exclusively look for planets that seem to be able to support EARTH life. For all we know, we could be the odd evolution in the universe.

[Dwood]

There's the scientific view of life and then there's the philosophic view. Sure it may philosophically be life, but it's not scientifically living.

[Warsaw]

And that, folks, is why we need a low-level definition of "life". I say it's alive if it consumes energy and can self-replicate without external help (i.e. not a virus).

[Cojafoji]

I'm STILL down for "Penis Hustler Prime..."

[=sw=warlord]

And that, folks, is why we need a low-level definition of "life". I say it's alive if it consumes energy and can self-replicate without external help (i.e. not a virus).
Tiger/Lion hybrids cannot reproduce so that would not be a valid definition of life.
The only real way to define life is to work by the celluar level.

[Good_Apollo]

So are Viruses alive?

[Warsaw]

No, because it can't replicate without external help. It also doesn't consume energy, not really; the host cell does.

Yeah, my definition does have some holes in it. I'm too distracted to put much thought into it right now, but if you want I can come back later with a more thorough definition. The official textbook definition says something is alive if it "consumes energy, produces waste, and reproduces," though that still leaves out mules.

[kid908]

There's the scientific view of life and then there's the philosophic view. Sure it may philosophically be life, but it's not scientifically living.

Built from the ground up from nanites which act like organelles of cells and have to consume to have energy. It replicate, make copies, carry out command lines, operate as a whole. Basically us but down the the cellular level, replacing the organic parts with mechanical. Is it living? It fits Warsaw's definition of life, but would it be consider a life form? Instead of starting out microscopic and becoming more complex, it starts its evolution at a Macro level and goes micro. And this is why it's so hard to define life.

[Warsaw]

I would consider it a life form.

No matter how you define life though, you are always going to find a case that bends the rules or is a straight-up exception to them.

[Heathen]

If it lives, and has a life, it is living and is alive.

Computers aren't alive.
Machines arent alive.

Viruses and other microbes are.


You all know this, so a definition is unnecessary. Perhaps it isn't one of those things you can map out with a definition, you can just know.

[Good_Apollo]

Well after looking it around it up, apparently it hasn't been established whether viruses are living organisms or not. They're just pieces of genetic material until they come across a cell they can infest.

[Warsaw]

I don't consider them alive. They don't require energy and they can't reproduce on their own. They are just protein shells with some malicious RNA or DNA inside of them. I call them chemistry's evolutionary dead end.

[Rob Oplawar]

Life is a fuzzy definition of a fuzzy subject. In my opinion it can only be a practical definition if it defines life in terms of cellular biology, ie, only things on earth that follow the fundamental cell architecture are considered scientifically alive. For right now, that's all the definition needs to be, and assuming that, I think it's extremely unlikely that we will find "life". It might be practical to expand the definition of life to encompass other things we find that we would like to call alive, but until we know what they are, making a broad definition of life that works for what we think we might someday find has little practical use. Am I making any sense?

[ejburke]

"Super Earth" is a misleading term. A cat is "bigger than a bread box", but people don't assume that it resembles said bread box. This planet hasn't even been confirmed to have water. It's one of several models. It could just as easily be a ball of gas.

Given that the star is a red dwarf (low visible light energy output, high output variance) and given how close this planet is (high temperatures, tidal lock) and given how old the planet is (dead magnetic field, loss of virtually all primordial gasses/liquid water), there's really not much of a chance that this planet can support life that hadn't already evolved elsewhere to survive in extreme environments.

My definition of a life form is a construct that converts energy into work with the specific goal of sustaining its ability to convert energy into work. DNA is not a life form, so a virus is not a life form, either. It's a catalyst for a chemical chain reaction, similar to a seed crystal.

[Good_Apollo]

"Super Earth" is a misleading term. A cat is "bigger than a bread box", but people don't assume that it resembles said bread box. This planet hasn't even been confirmed to have water. It's one of several models. It could just as easily be a ball of gas.

Given that the star is a red dwarf (low visible light energy output, high output variance) and given how close this planet is (high temperatures, tidal lock) and given how old the planet is (dead magnetic field, loss of virtually all primordial gasses/liquid water), there's really not much of a chance that this planet can support life that hadn't already evolved elsewhere to survive in extreme environments.

My definition of a life form is a construct that converts energy into work with the specific goal of sustaining its ability to convert energy into work. DNA is not a life form, so a virus is not a life form, either. It's a catalyst for a chemical chain reaction, similar to a seed crystal.The whole point of calling it a super-earth just means that's it's larger than usual for a terrestrial planet, aka not a giant ball of gas.

[ejburke]

I know, but people see "Earth" and assume oceans and habitability. And while it might not be a giant ball of gas, it may very well be a ball of gas. It's just smaller than the gas planets in our solar system. That's all Super Earth means, really: bigger than Earth, smaller than Neptune. Well woop-dee-doo.

[sleepy1212]

I don't consider them alive. They don't require energy and they can't reproduce on their own. They are just protein shells with some malicious RNA or DNA inside of them. I call them chemistry's evolutionary dead end.

actually viruses evolve fairly quickly and R-replicase (Q-replicase from E. coli) has been shown to evolve complete immunity to certain poisons in as little as 100 generations. But i don't think life has to be even that complicated. a handful of molecules capable of replicating themselves will do.

[Warsaw]

I didn't say evolution was necessary for it to be alive or not. Evolution != Reproduction. Reproduction is necessary for evolution, yes, but since the virus doesn't reproduce on its own I don't think it fair to say that it evolves on its own, too.

[ejburke]

Evolution is an external force, like a coffee filter is external to a cup of coffee. It is not a characteristic of life. Reproduction is only tangentially necessary because life, by definition, can die. Fertility or sterility do not determine whether something is alive, but if a population can't reproduce, it won't be around for long.

[kid908]

Evolution is an external force, like a coffee filter is external to a cup of coffee. It is not a characteristic of life. Reproduction is only tangentially necessary because life, by definition, can die. Fertility or sterility do not determine whether something is alive, but if a population can't reproduce, it won't be around for long.

Unless the race can interface neurological to their technology, which is be way more advance than our current level, we can barely decrypt (not sure if that's the right word to use) our own neurotransmissions. If the race can building a more efficient body and download their consciousness into it, I think reproduction become somewhat obsolete as they really "can't die." But for our purposes, that doesn't need to be added to the definition since it hasn't happen. You could also argue that they're really no longer "alive."

Defining life is an extreme challenge until we really have more answers and some form of extraterrestrial life to compare and find common ground.

If you're going to speculate, you should also speculate on the other side of the spectrum as well seeing as you're looking for unconfirmed life elsewhere.

E: I've also been thought that viruses aren't living and I see why. Warsaw have it right with viruses.

[Botolf]

You all know this, so a definition is unnecessary. Perhaps it isn't one of those things you can map out with a definition, you can just know.
This is sarcasm, right? :ohdear:

[ejburke]

A consciousness trying to sustain itself with an artificial body would satisfy my definition of "alive". The robot body may not be mortal, but the consciousness can be destroyed.

[sleepy1212]

I didn't say evolution was necessary for it to be alive or not. Evolution != Reproduction. Reproduction is necessary for evolution, yes, but since the virus doesn't reproduce on its own I don't think it fair to say that it evolves on its own, too.

i was just pointing out that viruses aren't an evolutionary dead end. further, the DNA/RNA/R-replicase is capable of reproducing on its own. it only requires a specific habitat. The Q-replicase - in nature- does so in E. coli but will also readily reproduce in a test tube of protein solution.The very nature of the replicase is that it does replicate on it's own. In fact, it's highly probably that all life on earth was started by molecules similar to DNA/RNA/R-replicase -or- similar to the structure of "modern" viruses.



Evolution is an external force, like a coffee filter is external to a cup of coffee. It is not a characteristic of life. Reproduction is only tangentially necessary because life, by definition, can die. Fertility or sterility do not determine whether something is alive, but if a population can't reproduce, it won't be around for long.

That's a lot like saying rolling isn't a characteristic of tires.

Fertility/Sterility aren't definitions of life, they are defined by life. Things that aren't living are neither fertile nor sterile but living things can be either. You are right that reproduction is only necessary for the continuance of life but it limits the definition to an individual, which would be even more improbable to find on a distant planet. Moreover, in nature so far, we have only found sterile life that comes from non-sterile life. and, sterility tends to be condition rather than phenotypic of a population.

[CN3089]

Call It United States of America.

Then send all the stupid people to it.
Call me when you get there.

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/emot-damn.gif

[ejburke]

i was just pointing out that viruses aren't an evolutionary dead end. further, the DNA/RNA/R-replicase is capable of reproducing on its own. it only requires a specific habitat. The Q-replicase - in nature- does so in E. coli but will also readily reproduce in a test tube of protein solution.The very nature of the replicase is that it does replicate on it's own. In fact, it's highly probably that all life on earth was started by molecules similar to DNA/RNA/R-replicase -or- similar to the structure of "modern" viruses.




That's a lot like saying rolling isn't a characteristic of tires.

Fertility/Sterility aren't definitions of life, they are defined by life. Things that aren't living are neither fertile nor sterile but living things can be either. You are right that reproduction is only necessary for the continuance of life but it limits the definition to an individual, which would be even more improbable to find on a distant planet. Moreover, in nature so far, we have only found sterile life that comes from non-sterile life. and, sterility tends to be condition rather than phenotypic of a population.First of all, the whole "reproduces on its own" argument can't be a condition, because there are bacteria that reproduce exactly as viruses do.

Social insects are a great example of life being created without the ability to reproduce. Almost every bee you've ever encountered was a sterile female. Those species evolved to shift the reproductive burden onto a single queen, so the vast majority of the population can carry only the traits to best perform other tasks.

As far as your tire analogy goes, there are things that roll that are not tires. Planets evolve, stars evolve. They aren't alive. Theoretically, you could have a species that reproduces asexually, whose version of DNA was completely shielded from corruption. This species, however unlikely to exist, would have to be classified as alive, yet unable to evolve.

And back to reproduction, with technology, we could theoretically lose our biological ability to reproduce naturally and resort to things like cloning or using other species as surrogates. We would still be alive, without the ability to reproduce.

So, if we're going to define LIFE, there needs to be as few caveats as possible. It's entirely possible that the term is completely meaningless and I'd be willing to accept that. It is an ancient and abstract concept that perhaps is no longer relevant. I think what we're really hoping to discover on alien worlds is something OF INTEREST. Animate, inanimate, it doesn't really matter as long as it's not just more rocks and gases.

[sleepy1212]

First of all, the whole "reproduces on its own" argument can't be a condition, because there are bacteria that reproduce exactly as viruses do.

Social insects are a great example of life being created without the ability to reproduce. Almost every bee you've ever encountered was a sterile female. Those species evolved to shift the reproductive burden onto a single queen, so the vast majority of the population can carry only the traits to best perform other tasks.

The jury is still out on this one but there is a reasonable argument that claims ants,termites, bees,etc are actually one organism. I'm not completely convinced but here is something similar: most of our cells do not procreate (not to confuse mitosis with reproduction), only a very small proportion of the cells in our body, very specialized and unique cells, reproduce. we are like a colony.

As far as your tire analogy goes, there are things that roll that are not tires. Planets evolve, stars evolve. They aren't alive.


Planets and Stars do not evolve. They may change but they do not react to selection pressures. Additionally, nothing individually evolves, only populations of things. Therefore, a galaxy of stars would be needed.

Theoretically, you could have a species that reproduces asexually, whose version of DNA was completely shielded from corruption. This species, however unlikely to exist, would have to be classified as alive, yet unable to evolve.

This is interesting but without the ability to evolve it's likely they wouldn't be around long.


And back to reproduction, with technology, we could theoretically lose our biological ability to reproduce naturally and resort to things like cloning or using other species as surrogates. We would still be alive, without the ability to reproduce.

This is kind of philosophical but you could say that inclusion of technology in reproduction is simply one path of evolution. I could also argue that enzymes are the technology of primitive cells used to aid life processes.

So, if we're going to define LIFE, there needs to be as few caveats as possible. It's entirely possible that the term is completely meaningless and I'd be willing to accept that. It is an ancient and abstract concept that perhaps is no longer relevant. I think what we're really hoping to discover on alien worlds is something OF INTEREST. Animate, inanimate, it doesn't really matter as long as it's not just more rocks and gases.

Agreed. that's pretty much what i was getting at...it needs to be very simple.



stuff

[Kornman00]

Holy shit.


We went from naming a planet to trying to define life and what cell bodies and colonies constitute the label as having life.


Might as well go back to arguing about a game engine's water effects

[=sw=warlord]

Holy shit.


We went from naming a planet to trying to define life and what cell bodies and colonies constitute the label as having life.


Might as well go back to arguing about a game engine's water effects
Sir, i don't think this planets water looks real enough, sure I can drink it, sure I can wash myself but I want it more real.
Oh and i think the gravity is a little too high, can you tone it down a little bit? it's starting to make my bones bend.

[teh lag]

new "super mars" panet found will it have marshians???

[CN3089]

we are a super mars planet. think about it http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/emot-350.gif

[Cojafoji]

we are a super mars planet. think about it http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/emot-350.gif
Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Winner:
Warsaw with: "I say it's alive if it consumes energy and can self-replicate without external help."

[=sw=warlord]

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Winner:
Warsaw with: "I say it's alive if it consumes energy and can self-replicate without external help."
Wrong, that definition would mean lion/tiger hybrids are not alive because they cannot reproduce.

[Cojafoji]

Wrong, that definition would mean lion/tiger hybrids are not alive because they cannot reproduce.
i blame it on the mid-morning slump.

[sleepy1212]

Wrong, that definition would mean lion/tiger hybrids are not alive because they cannot reproduce.


sterility tends to be condition rather than phenotypic of a population.

can't type, can't read...you big winner you

[=sw=warlord]

can't type, can't read...you big winner you
Considering the hybrids cannot reproduce naturaly, i would say it is phenotypic to their species, your taking the genes of two distint species merging them and creating a new one, the only thing is by default that new species for one reason or another has had zero success at all reproducing.

[sleepy1212]

Considering the hybrids cannot reproduce naturaly, i would say it is phenotypic to their species, your taking the genes of two distint species merging them and creating a new one, the only thing is by default that new species for one reason or another has had zero success at all reproducing.
hybrids are by definition, not new species. Hybridization is a genetic condition which also has the condition of sterility. The fact that it has an incomplete genetic makeup makes it so on both counts.A species' ability to reproduce is different from an individual's fertility(or infertility).

In "Ligers" for example, either of the complete genetic makeups of the parents would produce viable offspring. In other words, it would be able to reproduce if it weren't missing some vital code. Much the same way a woman who has had a hysterectomy could reproduce if not for the surgery. Both are still considered living. Both are individuals. Neither are phenotypes.

[SnaFuBAR]

So parasitic organisms not on the microbial scale that require a host in order to reproduce are not alive?

Keep trying.

This whole thread is a laughable exercise in futility. Good day.

[Good_Apollo]

So parasitic organisms not on the microbial scale that require a host in order to reproduce are not alive?

Keep trying.

This whole thread is a laughable exercise in futility. Good day.:scientist: :snafubar:

[Botolf]

1. Acquires energy to fuel cellular processes
2. Grows/regenerates (whether that be on a large scale level or the regeneration of cells)
3. Strives for survival (whether that be by motility, symbiosis, parasitism, filter feeding or through other means)

That's the really basic definition I would go with. I wouldn't consider viruses to be living, because at the very least they fail two of those requirements (they're inert as far as self-preservation goes and don't require energy to continuing function). Perhaps a stepping stone in the development of life on this planet, but not what I'd call "true" life.

[Warsaw]

So parasitic organisms not on the microbial scale that require a host in order to reproduce are not alive?

Keep trying.

This whole thread is a laughable exercise in futility. Good day.

Difference between requiring an incubator and requiring the assembly mechanisms of the host. A virus doesn't just lay eggs and have them hatch, it actually commandeers the cell's production lines to manufacture more viruses. By contrast, a wasp will lay an egg in a caterpillar after it's already been fertilized. Therefore, the species is reproducing sexually, on its own. Try again.

But I digress, the thread is an exercise in futility simply because we don't know what is out there.

[Heathen]

Say...this sure is pretty off topic. Or am I wrong in assuming that the focus of the thread is the name of the new found planet?

[Kornman00]

Next post that is not about this planet and it's potential name gets an *drumroll*...


Infraction!

Hey, I've got a quota to fill

[Bodzilla]

Holy shit.


We went from naming a planet to trying to define life and what cell bodies and colonies constitute the label as having life.


Might as well go back to arguing about a game engine's water effects
tell me about it, and i've got to moderate this thread

:headache:
Slow down people i'm busy :(

I think we should call it Aiur
Dunno why, just want too.

[PopeAK49]

Given that the star is a red dwarf (low visible light energy output, high output variance) and given how close this planet is (high temperatures, tidal lock) and given how old the planet is (dead magnetic field, loss of virtually all primordial gasses/liquid water), there's really not much of a chance that this planet can support life that hadn't already evolved elsewhere to survive in extreme environments.


I can agree that this planet is probably nothing like earth let alone a "super earth", however that does not mean that the planet is "dead". Red dwarfs are one of the most long living and coolest stars in the universe that we know of, but wouldn't that mean that the planet would have to be more close to it's cooler red dwarf host star in order for water to be present? And just because it's host star doesn't produce much light doesn't mean life is sustainable. From what we discovered on our own planet, life can adapt to some of the most oddest and darkest places on earth. Waterbears or whatever those things are called that live on earth can live in the vacuum of space for several days. That's why I don't believe in a "formula" for creating life. I still have hopes about this planet.

[Good_Apollo]

I can agree that this planet is probably nothing like earth let alone a "super earth", however that does not mean that the planet is "dead". Red dwarfs are one of the most long living and coolest stars in the universe that we know of, but wouldn't that mean that the planet would have to be more close to it's cooler red dwarf host star in order for water to be present? And just because it's host star doesn't produce much light doesn't mean life is sustainable. From what we discovered on our own planet, life can adapt to some of the most oddest and darkest places on earth. Waterbears or whatever those things are called that live on earth can live in the vacuum of space for several days. That's why I don't believe in a "formula" for creating life. I still have hopes about this planet.For the umpteenth time, Super-Earth is just a planet classification for worlds that are larger than usual for terrestrial bodies.

[PopeAK49]

That's a really original classification name. But I'm still confused by what you mean by "larger than usual". Everything in the universe to us is "larger than usual" but maybe the earth is just smaller than usual for a terrestrial planet. Maybe it's just human nature to think that the earth and everything on it is perfect.

[Good_Apollo]

Considering they've seen enough planets so far to make an average, it's larger than average. Or are you right and all the astronomers are wrong?

[EDIT] Here's the explanation you find so hard to understand, in basic terms. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Earth)

[Choking Victim]

That's a really original classification name. But I'm still confused by what you mean by "larger than usual". Everything in the universe to us is "larger than usual" but maybe the earth is just smaller than usual for a terrestrial planet. Maybe it's just human nature to think that the earth and everything on it is perfect.
It's all relative.

It's human nature to classify things in comparison to objects we're familiar with. You might as well be disgruntled by the concept of 'down' and 'up' since those are earth relative terms too.

[PopeAK49]

Considering they've seen enough planets so far to make an average, it's larger than average. Or are you right and all the astronomers are wrong?

[EDIT] Here's the explanation you find so hard to understand, in basic terms. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Earth)

I didn't state anything about astronomers being wrong. I was just making an opinion of what I think about the universe. Everything seems to be bigger than average in the universe. It wasn't common that people back in the days were sent to jail just because they had opinions about the universe that proved theories about astronomy wrong. Some of those opinions were completely wackey and some were proven right like the earth not being the center of the universe and our solar system being one of them. We are not even close to say we've seen enough planets to say what is average. less than .0000001% of all planets discovered in the universe doesn't really say much. But you are absolutley right! who am I to have an opinion that goes against astronomy.


It's all relative.

It's human nature to classify things in comparison to objects we're familiar with. You might as well be disgruntled by the concept of 'down' and 'up' since those are earth relative terms too.

Actually I do.

[Good_Apollo]

I didn't state anything about astronomers being wrong. I was just making an opinion of what I think about the universe. Everything seems to be bigger than average in the universe. It wasn't common that people back in the days were sent to jail just because they had opinions about the universe that proved theories about astronomy wrong. Some of those opinions were completely wackey and some were proven right like the earth not being the center of the universe and our solar system being one of them. We are not even close to say we've seen enough planets to say what is average. less than .0000001% of all planets discovered in the universe doesn't really say much. But you are absolutley right! who am I to have an opinion that goes against astronomy.



Actually I do.You messed up. Those little factoids you're trying to throw at me were about religion suppressing astronomy, not your silly little opinion that goes against scientific researchers.

[DarkHalo003]

It'd be cool what was on it though. If I live till 2050 and they have a shuttle to ANY planet, then I'm taking it. It'd be cool to see what exactly has been made in this crazy universe besides our own planet.

[kid908]

*Facepalm*

Evolution of this thread:
Name planet -> life on planet -> life? -> Name planet NAOW! -> Classification of planets sucks...->Opinion v. religious suppression

What a long way this thread have come.

Name it GJ 1214b. It's a working system.

[Alwin Roth]

I wondering what if someone posted this a 4chan..........

[teh lag]

Yes, I also wondering what if someone posted this a 4chan.

[Bodzilla]

this a 4chan posted is indeed wondering yes.