Potentially "habitable" super earth, discovered

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
Well, sort of. Since it likely lacks a true atmosphere, since it had likely been blown away by the intense radiation from it's star ...


Maybe Weyland Industries can get some terraforming going.

http://www.weylandindustries.com/terraforming

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Well, sort of. Since it likely lacks a true atmosphere, since it had likely been blown away by the intense radiation from it's star ...


Maybe Weyland Industries can get some terraforming going.

http://www.weylandindustries.com/terraforming


The predecessor to Weyland-Yutani?

 

[Rhymingmechanic]

Astro14,

Thanks for your articulate and intelligent comment three posts up.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Rhymingmechanic
Astro14,

Thanks for your articulate and intelligent comment three posts up.


Thank you - I majored in Astrophysics in college (which explains the BITOG name)...I still go to Episcopal services...and I am a big reader of the history of science...

I've never seen science and religion as incompatible...but sadly, it seems, I am not in the majority...

 

[PandaBear]

No thanks. I'll move to Mars instead.

 

[mechtech2]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: mechtech2
This is science with an agenda.


What agenda?

We've been looking for exo-planets for a while. We found another one - and it's very different from what we've seen before...that's just another interesting discovery...what possible agenda is in that?


Public perception fuels funding.
Decades of science fiction has caused a bias in our outlook and expectations.
These extraordinary costs are better used on earth - for instance the Sea would produce much more good for us.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
So, science and religion are incompatible?

I've always found that oversimplification to be so irritating...it is often true that scientists are not religious, but it's not true that science and religion are incompatible reference frames.

Many of the deepest thinkers were quite religious or spritual. Great names like Galileo, who, despite the actions of the Catholic Church on his publishing his views of heliocentrism, was a devout Catholic who had once considered the priesthood as his profession.

He took, as many scientists do, the St. Augustine position; that the passages of scripture that were poetic, or lyrical, were not intended to be taken literally...

I'll stop here before I run afoul of the board's rules, but for me personally, I don't see that the two disciplines of science and religion are in conflict. They seek different sets of answers to different questions.

It is often only the ignorant who see the conflict between the two.


Love that last line, it is oh so true! Thanks for pointing out that some EXTREMELY cerebral folks had a touch of religion in their lives.

Balance is the key, and well rounded individuals seldom have closed minds about anything.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: mechtech2
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: mechtech2
This is science with an agenda.


What agenda?

We've been looking for exo-planets for a while. We found another one - and it's very different from what we've seen before...that's just another interesting discovery...what possible agenda is in that?


Public perception fuels funding.
Decades of science fiction has caused a bias in our outlook and expectations.
These extraordinary costs are better used on earth - for instance the Sea would produce much more good for us.


ah...I see where you might interpret it that way.

Science funding has always been an issue (Galileo needed a "patron" for example while Newton was a man of means)...and the debate on "that money is better spent here" has been with us for 500 years...naturally, there is always a political aspect to science and scientific discoveries...

But the ROI on science investment may not be realized for decades, even centuries, and that ROI has given us the civilization that we have today.

Even now, the National Science Foundation represents a $7B investment, in a $3.5T budget...or about 2%...

Seems to me that the preponderance of the US budget is spent on things other than science....

But if your point is what avenues of science? What disciplines to fund and explore? That's a matter of debate and has a political dimension as well - principally resting on the ROI - what do I get for this research?

As a former Astronomer, I am a big fan of Astronomy - and much of our fundamental understanding of physics has derived from Astronomy...I would go one step further and say that our understanding of our place in the universe has come from Astronomy - it has yielded profound shifts in our paradigms and understanding.

To me, it's a noble pursuit.

 

[crinkles]

i have never believed science and religion are mutually exclusive.

A HS physics teacher I remember but for what she said was that for her, science WAS proof of God;

Guess it's our human interpretations that muck it all up.

 

[Shannow]

There was probably a lot of Portugese sitting around tables discussing the merits of ocean exploration a few hundred years ago, in light of "known" science.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: mechtech2
These extraordinary costs are better used on earth - for instance the Sea would produce much more good for us.


That might be true. However, as others have pointed out, the ROI may not always be immediately apparent, or even in the same vein or direction as the study originally was.

The average person on this planet doesn't understand Newton's laws of motion, much less the mathematics behind them. When they're taught in school, they furrow their brows and complain it's of no use. Right.

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
and much of our fundamental understanding of physics has derived from Astronomy.


Well, maybe some of it.

I would say most of our understanding of physics has come from experimental physics. In Astronomy, we develop a lot of hypotheses and guesses from the spectroscopy of gaseous emissions.

 

[yonyon]

Wait, this is supposed to be a family-friendly board. Shouldn't "spectroscopy of gaseous emissions" be censored?

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: yonyon
Wait, this is supposed to be a family-friendly board. Shouldn't "spectroscopy of gaseous emissions" be censored?


Precisely how have you been using that spectroscope?!?!?

 

[Vikas]

Quote:

Even now, the National Science Foundation represents a $7B investment, in a $3.5T budget...or about 2%...


Priceless! Be glad that we are talking about National Science Foundation and NOT National Math Foundation. (I think you need to fire up the old calculator and do that math again)

I know that was a typo on your part but interestingly enough you should have caught that as it makes your point even stronger.

I had similar experience over the weekend. I was talking to my good friend who is very good with numbers and was commenting on the national debt. He said he would be willing to write the check today for his share of national debt. Mind you he knew his numbers cold, 14 Trillions, 300 Millions etc. He told me he would be willing pay thousands of dollars. When I pointed out that his family of four owes close to $180K portion of the national debt, he was no longer willing to write the check

- Vikas

 

[mechtech2]

It is VERY true that peripheral advances in technology are often the real benefit of any scientific endeavor.
I am not dead set against National programs, but many are basically self serving.
Anyone find having a cell phone is handy?

 

[javacontour]

Only sometimes. Sometimes I find it as handy as being in handcuffs

Originally Posted By: mechtech2
It is VERY true that peripheral advances in technology are often the real benefit of any scientific endeavor.
I am not dead set against National programs, but many are basically self serving.
Anyone find having a cell phone is handy?

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
Quote:

Even now, the National Science Foundation represents a $7B investment, in a $3.5T budget...or about 2%...


Priceless! Be glad that we are talking about National Science Foundation and NOT National Math Foundation. (I think you need to fire up the old calculator and do that math again)

I know that was a typo on your part but interestingly enough you should have caught that as it makes your point even stronger.

I had similar experience over the weekend. I was talking to my good friend who is very good with numbers and was commenting on the national debt. He said he would be willing to write the check today for his share of national debt. Mind you he knew his numbers cold, 14 Trillions, 300 Millions etc. He told me he would be willing pay thousands of dollars. When I pointed out that his family of four owes close to $180K portion of the national debt, he was no longer willing to write the check

- Vikas


Vikas - good catch, I meant 0.2%...but one typo on a blog does not make me an example of math failures in American Society...

 

[Vikas]

Isn't it striking though that as a nation we only spend 0.2% of federal budget on science? I am assuming your numbers are correct.

I was just joking and seriously, if I had thought you would take it wrongly, I would NOT have made that jab. We all make mistakes; I have made even worse ones on this forum.

 

[PandaBear]

I think we spend more than 0.2%. If you factor in the researches that got categorized into education and defense, it would be more than this.