Looking for other Earths? Here’s a list

msnbc.com ^ | 02/19/06 | Alan Boyle

[KevinDavis]

ST. LOUIS - An astronomer involved in a NASA mission to look for Earthlike planets beyond our solar system has winnowed through thousands of stars to come up with a top-10 list that includes some of the favorite haunts for science-fiction aliens.

Actually, the lineup from Margaret Turnbull at the Carnegie Institute of Washington is broken down into two top-five lists: one for the radio-based search for extraterrestrial intelligence, or SETI, and the other for the NASA mission, known as the Terrestrial Planet Finder.

The SETI stars will be on the list of targets for the privately funded Allen Telescope Array in California, which is due to begin limited operation with 42 linked radio dishes this spring. But the top prospects for the Terrestrial Planet Finder are currently in limbo, because NASA has put the mission on indefinite hold.

[andy58-in-nh]

Well, it is a perfectly good (if homonymic) description of the location of Algore's thought process. It suits him.

[longshadow]

Yet another example of "how little" we know about the Universe:

[text from source (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html)]:

As with the COBE temperature measurement, the agreement between the predicted shape of the CMBR power spectrum and the actual observations is staggering. The balloon-borne experiments (particularly BOOMERang, MAXIMA, and DASI) were able to provide convincing detections of the first and second acoustic peaks before WMAP, but none of those experiments were able to map a large enough area of the sky to match with the COBE DMR data. WMAP bridged that gap and provided much tighter measurement of the positions of the first and second peaks. This was a major confirmation of not only the Lambda CDM version of BBT, but also the basic picture of how the cosmos transitioned from an early radiation-dominated, plasma-filled universe to the matter-dominated universe where most of the large scale structure we see today began to form.

Another stunning example of actual empirical data confirming the theoretical predictions of the cosmological models currently in use by scientists.

Some people seem to be bent on celebrating their ignorance; I prefer to celebrate the light that science has been able to shed on the workings of the Universe. One point of view is negative, and one positive. As our knowledge increases, the negative view will have less and less and less to celebrate, while the positive view, which I hold, will have more an more and more to celebrate.

If our knowledge of the Universe is so paltry, how is that the angular power spectrum predictions Lamda-CDM model fit the actual measured data so well? Again, I'm not holding my breath for answers from the "it's a mystery" crowd. I DO predict another round of whining and hysterical obfuscation from the usual suspects.

[beezdotcom]

You may have added /sarc but I have no problem with it whatsoever. If there are advances to be made at it and it is profitable to do so, then private industry will take it over. In fact I would hope they do so. Either way, shut down federal funding of it.

I understand your position, but being somewhat of a pessimist, I feel a compulsion to get all our eggs out of this one single basket as quickly as possible. Therefore, I lean towards supporting efforts that would facilitate colonization of other worlds - and these would not necessarily be seen as profitable until the mid-to-distant future, unless an asteroid was hanging directly over our heads.

However, truth be told, I think a detailed risk analysis would find that studying the terraforming of Mars might have more immediate benefits than finding an Earth-like planet in a remote star system. The latter gives us important data on the broader distribution of habitable worlds - but the former gives us a quicker foothold to drive the entire process of exploration. I would fund both - but make their proportions relative to their cost/benefit. Besides, we humans are more contemplative when looking up at the sky with a full belly (literally and metaphorically speaking...)

[Gumlegs]

How close to this Earth do the others have to be?

[PatrickHenry]

Me and the boys at the saw mill were talkin' 'bout how you smarty-pants science guys are always changing your theories, so we decided that at the rate you're going, just about everything you geniuses think you know will be wrong in a few years. You're just a bunch of arrogant jackasses for claiming you know so much. You don't know nothin' except how smart you are, and that isn't very smart. I'm glad I never went in for all that fancy education, because by now I'd have no brains left. If you want to debate me, come on down to the saw mill. We'll be waitin' for ya.
</luddite mode>

[bvw]

SETI is hobby astronomy. Hobbyist, even fantasy. Not science, except to the kind of mind that might also attempt to study the politics of Disnayland's Main Street USA.

The measurements of the early universe are real science.

Trouble is that many the "Gods of Science" seem unable to distinguish the difference.

[beezdotcom]

Some people seem to be bent on celebrating their ignorance;

Really? On THIS thread? I never knew that 'recognizing' and 'celebrating' are one and the same - and I'm not 'celebrating' my ignorance of that 'fact', either.

I prefer to celebrate the light that science has been able to shed on the workings of the Universe.

What, you mean you can't do THAT, and still acknowledge we have much further to go? I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to prove by citing well-known scientific successes - but I expect the penultimate definition of "strawman" would probably suggest such a tactic. I certainly hope you're not expecting me to take some sort of position against science, or its ability to make testable hypotheses and valid predictions.

Perhaps you're confusing all this with some sort of crevo argument - but I find the following admonition from talk.origins relevant to your overall attitude on this thread:

"...And Science is happy, even eager, to accommodate! After all, the goal of science is to progress from less knowledge to more knowledge, from less understanding to more understanding. We already know that we don't know everything -- unlike certain people who (on religious grounds) think they have all knowledge and wisdom and power and might."

In short, you're arguing with the same defensiveness I would expect from a creationist. It's not even clear to me what set you off.

You bristle at the term "how little we know". I think it's a rather odd battle for you to choose, but fine; set us all straight. Give us a ballpark answer of how much knowledge of the universe is left to be discovered. Are we closer to knowing 10% of everything about the universe, or 90%? Your defensiveness seems to suggest that you do indeed have an opinion about the relative completeness of our knowledge, and I'm sure we'd all like to hear it.

[beezdotcom]

You're just a bunch of arrogant jackasses for claiming you know so much.

Me and the boys at MIT might be inclined to agree with you - but for very different reasons, I'm afraid.

[gore_sux]

I suppose it is appropriate under the circumstances to trot out my essay about the anti-knowledge Luddites:

Geez, all the guy said was that for all our knowledge we still don't know a damn thing about the universe. I'd say thats an extremely safe statement so I'd give it a rest if I was you.

Sheesh.

[longshadow]

Geez, all the guy said was that for all our knowledge we still don't know a damn thing about the universe. I'd say thats an extremely safe statement....

from #62:

"If our knowledge of the Universe is so paltry, how is that the angular power spectrum predictions [of the] Lamda-CDM model fit the actual measured data so well?"

[Matchett-PI]

LOL bttt

[RightWhale]

The measurements of the early universe are real science.

Only a first step. Might as well take notes on footprints on a crowded beach and make a science of the geometrical arrangement without getting around to what the footprints mean.

[Bender2]

I have more New York Slimes Editions on my FR Homepage and my Archives Page

[longshadow]

more examples of our "lack of knowledge" about the Universe can be seen HERE:

WMAP DATA!!! Don't worry; it won't bite!

[PatrickHenry]

You pompous know-it-all pointy-headed science types are all destined for the lake of fire! Then you'll finally learn something worth knowing. But it will be too late! And I will laugh!!!
</luddite mode>

[longshadow]

The mysteries of the Universe are apparently undeciperable:

MAP Data Released!

11 Feb 2003 - The results from the first year of observing by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe were announced today at a Space Science Update in the auditorium of NASA HQ. Important results include:

• The satellite has been renamed in honor of the late David T. Wilkinson of Princeton University, a key member of the project from its conception.
• The polarization of the microwave background anisotropy coming from scattering by electrons 200 million years after the Big Bang has been detected. This is evidence for an early generation of stars existing 4 to 5 times earlier than any object yet observed.
• The WMAP data agree with previous work showing the Universe is flat and in an accelerating expansion.
• The WMAP data give the most precise values for the density of ordinary [baryonic] matter made of protons and neutrons: 0.4 yoctograms per cubic meter, and for the total of dark and baryonic matter: 2.5 yoctograms per cubic meter. These correspond to omega_b = 0.0224 +/- 0.0009 and omega_m = 0.135 +/- 0.009.
• The WMAP data give the most precise value for the age of the Universe: 13.7 +/- 0.2 Gyr. The Hubble constant is H_o = 71 +/- 4 km/sec/Mpc, and the vacuum energy density corresponds to lambda = 0.73 +/- 0.04.

source:

Yet Another Link that Doesn't Bite!"

[PatrickHenry]

Fool! You dare to trespass into realms of forbidden knowledge. Repent!!!
</luddite mode>

[Wolfstar]

While I fully agree with the thrust of your essay, it is stuffy, a bit pompous and, as a consequence, annoying.

People are not obligated to learn. In fact, I don't think the point of a forum such as this is to educate so much as it is to: (1) be an alternative source of news, and (2) function as a place to discuss and debate news, the broad culture, and public policy.

As for your assertion that "the experts here on these threads ought to be revered," I totally disagree. Appreciated, sure, assuming their expertise is genuine. Respected, perhaps, assuming each individual earns respect. But revered? Heck no!

[RightWhale]

Unless the universe has something else going on we are doomed to the heat death. It will be a while, but it seems certain.

[longshadow]

Unless the universe has something else going on we are doomed to the heat death. It will be a while, but it seems certain.

That's what the data are indicating...

;-)