"Pangur Ban" <Whistleblower@att.net> wrote in message
news:mn.da5c7d74a71e6880.73271@att.net...

on 4/26/2007, Smiler supposed :

"Pangur Ban" <Whistleblower@att.net> wrote in message
news:mn.d4c97d74d2be3e53.73271@att.net...

Smiler wrote :

"Pangur Ban" <Whistleblower@att.net> wrote in message
news:mn.c9a77d744eb609c6.73271@att.net...

Christopher A.Lee presented the following explanation :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6589157.stm

"20.5 light-years" is how long of a trip with today's technology?

"....its radius should be only 1.5 times the Earth's radius" means how
much of an increase in gravity?

"These missions will put telescopes in space that can discern the
tell-tale light "signatures" that might be associated with biological
processes." Uh, light signatures??????

We already have satelites that, from space, can detect what kind of
plants are growing in which areas of the earth.

Oh, the War on Drugs? >:|

They do this by detecting the light signatures of various plants.
The technology is there, but the problem would be the time factor.
To get a reliable reading from this planet, you'd have to 'fire' a
powerful laser beam at it and wait 40 years for the reflected signal to
return.

It could be worth the wait - life! I'd gladly wait 40 years.....

On the lighter side...just imagine the reaction of any intelligent
'inhabitants' of this planet when the laser beam strikes 20 years after
it's 'fired'.
"WTF was that?" "Goddidit?"

ROFL!

Pang - contemplating the first landing .... "We? Fired a laser at your
planet? Oh, no, not us! We wouldn't do such a thing!" (Voiced by
descendents of Bush's handlers.)

Pang...You forgot to mention their fingers were crossed behind their backs
:-)

ROFL!

I think that finding that we're not alone in this universe would finally
put paid to most religions.
How could they explain that Earth, the only inhabited planet created by
god (according to their holy books) is NOT the only inhabited planet in
the universe?

Nawww ... they would just come back with some quote like "In My father's
house are many mansions" claiming that means other planets. Then they
would start planning "missions" to those other "mansions". Oh, goody! More
heathens to convert...." :-(

I hope the natives are NOT friendly.

Smiler,
The godless one

On Apr 26, 4:30 pm, Pangur Ban <Whistleblo...@att.net> wrote:

Al Klein wrote on 4/25/2007 :

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:11:39 -0600, Pangur Ban <Whistleblo...@att.net>
wrote:

However, the article does not cover biological processes ... what am I
missing? High oxygen? I knew about spectroscopy (a tiny bit) but am
not relating it to biological processes. ?????

If the planet transits the star (comes between us and the star), we
can see what parts of the spectrum of the star's light get absorbed by
the planet's atmosphere - and that'll tell us something of the
atmospheric composition of the planet. Different substances absorb
different colors.

However, we know that the composition of Earth"s atmosphere has changed
dramatically over the past few billion years and still supported life.
A very high or very low oxygen content does not preclude life.

The presence of molecular oxygen would be quite conclusive. There
isn't any plausible process other than life that could produce an
oxidizing atmosphere.
As you say lack of oxygen wouldn't rule out
life. The mention of chlorine gas by another poster is highly unlikely
both because it is far less abundant in the universe than oxygen,
nitrogen and carbon but also because it goes into solution when water
is present. Far more likely candidates for terrestrial planet
significant atmospheric components are just those we see in the local
solar system. ie CO2, O2, N2, CH4 and for a more massive planet such
as being discussed H2, The presence of significant O2 would of course
knock out CH4 and H2. If no O2 then NH3 might also be present but
would tend to be removed by any liquid water until the water was
saturated..

Additionally, can the assumption be made that an atmosphere which is
not terra-like would not support life? Or has the determination been
made that oxygen is essential for life anywhere?

Oxygen is toxic to many organisms right here on Earth. The increasing
concentration of it in our atmosphere would probably have been fatal
for our ancestral proto Eukaryotic cells except for the symbiotic
arrangement with Mitochondria, which were once a free living type of
aerobic bacteria.

Bill

Or am I being too fundamental for you?

Don't mind fundamentalism when science is the topic. lol

I've admitted freely that my scientific background is very poor so I
don't feel I am being "talked down to". I also admire the ability to
put ideas in terms easily comprehensible; it is a skill not everyone
has.

Pang - a teacher who enjoys being taught

Thank you for taking part in my (ever) continuing education! :-)

--
Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito.

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:30:53 -0600, Pangur Ban <Whistleblower@att.net>
wrote:

Al Klein wrote on 4/25/2007 :

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:11:39 -0600, Pangur Ban <Whistleblower@att.net>
wrote:

However, the article does not cover biological processes ... what am I
missing? High oxygen? I knew about spectroscopy (a tiny bit) but am
not relating it to biological processes. ?????

If the planet transits the star (comes between us and the star), we
can see what parts of the spectrum of the star's light get absorbed by
the planet's atmosphere - and that'll tell us something of the
atmospheric composition of the planet. Different substances absorb
different colors.

However, we know that the composition of Earth"s atmosphere has changed
dramatically over the past few billion years and still supported life.
A very high or very low oxygen content does not preclude life.

Additionally, can the assumption be made that an atmosphere which is
not terra-like would not support life?

Not life as we know it, but there are other possibilities. Chlorine,
for instance, could substitute for oxygen, but the chemistry would be
totally different. The "universal solvent" (ours is water) would
probably be hydrochloric acid. Oxygen would be highly poisonous and
corrosive.

Or has the determination been
made that oxygen is essential for life anywhere?

For our type of life. There are other possibilities, but whether any
of them actually happen is another matter.

I've admitted freely that my scientific background is very poor so I
don't feel I am being "talked down to". I also admire the ability to
put ideas in terms easily comprehensible; it is a skill not everyone
has.

It's a "skill" that can be developed. I instantly became a good
teacher after years of practice. :)

Pang - a teacher who enjoys being taught

I think most of us do.

Thank you for taking part in my (ever) continuing education! :-)

And you in mine.

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:30:53 -0600, Pangur Ban <Whistleblower@att.net>
wrote:

Al Klein wrote on 4/25/2007 :

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:11:39 -0600, Pangur Ban <Whistleblower@att.net>
wrote:

However, the article does not cover biological processes ... what am I
missing? High oxygen? I knew about spectroscopy (a tiny bit) but am
not relating it to biological processes. ?????

If the planet transits the star (comes between us and the star), we
can see what parts of the spectrum of the star's light get absorbed by
the planet's atmosphere - and that'll tell us something of the
atmospheric composition of the planet. Different substances absorb
different colors.

However, we know that the composition of Earth"s atmosphere has changed
dramatically over the past few billion years and still supported life.
A very high or very low oxygen content does not preclude life.

Additionally, can the assumption be made that an atmosphere which is
not terra-like would not support life?

Not life as we know it, but there are other possibilities. Chlorine,
for instance, could substitute for oxygen, but the chemistry would be
totally different. The "universal solvent" (ours is water) would
probably be hydrochloric acid. Oxygen would be highly poisonous and
corrosive.

Or has the determination been
made that oxygen is essential for life anywhere?

For our type of life. There are other possibilities, but whether any
of them actually happen is another matter.

I've admitted freely that my scientific background is very poor so I
don't feel I am being "talked down to". I also admire the ability to
put ideas in terms easily comprehensible; it is a skill not everyone
has.

It's a "skill" that can be developed. I instantly became a good
teacher after years of practice. :)

Pang - a teacher who enjoys being taught

I think most of us do.

Thank you for taking part in my (ever) continuing education! :-)

And you in mine.

Pangur Ban wrote in message ...

I also admire the ability to
put ideas in terms easily comprehensible; it is a skill not everyone
has.

recipients of attempts at pretty communication suffer in the same way as
allergy sufferers.
I know--such as like the prettiest it is outside--the more
allergy/respiratory provoking.