Could There be 100 Billion Potentially Habitable Planets in the Galaxy?
by NANCY ATKINSON on MARCH 15, 2013


Read more:http://www.universetoday.com/100767/could-there-be-100-billion-potentially-habitable-planets-in-the-galaxy/#ixzz2Nrdu0rhv


A visualization of the “unseen” red dwarfs in the night sky. Credit: D. Aguilar & C. Pulliam (CfA)


As we’ve reported recently, the likelihood of findings habitable Earth-sized worlds just seems to keep getting better and better. But now the latest calculations from a new paper out this week are almost mind-bending. Using what the authors call a “very careful extrapolation” of the rate of small planets observed around M dwarf stars by the Kepler spacecraft, they estimate there could be upwards of 100 billion Earth-sized worlds in the habitable zones of M dwarf or red dwarf stars in our galaxy. And since the population of these stars themselves are estimated to be around 100 billion in the Milky Way, that’s – on average – an Earth-sized world for every red dwarf star in our galaxy.
Whoa.

And since our solar system is surrounded by red dwarfs – very cool, very dim stars not visible to the naked eye (less than a thousandth the brightness of the Sun) — these worlds could be close by, perhaps as close as 7 light-years away.
With the help of astronomer Darin Ragozzine, a postdoctoral associate at the University of Florida who works with the Kepler mission (see our Hangout interview with him last year), let’s take a look back at the recent findings that brought about this latest stunning projection.

Read more

MontanaHawk05 wrote:But so would the radiation from the galactic center. Our position is actually considered the galactic version of the "Goldilocks zone"...far enough to avoid radiation,, close enough to enjoy high metallicity in our star.

RolandDeschain wrote:It's a big assumption to think life in another part of the galaxy is based on carbon, though.

RolandDeschain wrote:Based on how many planets we've found that have life thus far, I'd say it's incredibly rare that carbon-based life forms came about in the first place. Human beings are still too egotistical to realize how unique our planet is and its rise with life was, IMO. We can't conceive of an "easy" way for there to be life based on something besides carbon, so it must be impossible or exceedingly rare.

One of the biggest, and most ignored, lessons that the history of science has taught us is that at any present time, we think we know significantly more than we actually do, and that we're always just about to turn a corner that changes a lot of things. It's ignorant and egotistical to assume everything we know right now is fact. We used to think the speed of light was a constant, did we not? It's the whole "go back and show Christopher Columbus a television, and he'll think it's witchcraft" thing. Nobody around that time would have the first clue about how a TV operated or how to make another one, or figure it out by taking that one apart.

It amazes me that ANYBODY thinks all of the things we can't explain right now, and half of the ones we THINK we can, are not in all likelihood incorrect assumptions on our part based on the limited knowledge we have right now. Wait until we've invented microscopes that are a thousand times more powerful than the best we currently have, and we'll probably discover a whole new level of sub-atomic particles or something that make up the smallest stuff we can see right now.

100 years from now, the human race will laugh at some of the ignorant stuff we believe to be fact right now, and those same people will be confident that all they know is correct, and that there is only a limited amount of information that we do not yet know at that point; and they'll be just as wrong then as we are now.

CANHawk wrote:We need to find the Mass Effect relay!

Spokane wrote:The old "Could Be" is what keeps NASA taking our money! The problem is (NASA's theory) that we can see dark items that move in front of stars, but what are those items?

It could be another plant, it could be a metor, it could be a black hole, it could be god, it could be anything...but lets spend some more cash to find out....nothing

OkieHawk wrote:

CANHawk wrote:We need to find the Mass Effect relay!

But then we'd have to fight off those Reapers eventually, no thanks.

MontanaHawk05 wrote:

OkieHawk wrote:

CANHawk wrote:We need to find the Mass Effect relay!

But then we'd have to fight off those Reapers eventually, no thanks.

Why do we keep coming back to Firefly?

Spokane wrote:The old "Could Be" is what keeps NASA taking our money! The problem is (NASA's theory) that we can see dark items that move in front of stars, but what are those items?

It could be another plant, it could be a metor, it could be a black hole, it could be god, it could be anything...but lets spend some more cash to find out....nothing

therealjohncarlson wrote:

Spokane wrote:The old "Could Be" is what keeps NASA taking our money! The problem is (NASA's theory) that we can see dark items that move in front of stars, but what are those items?

It could be another plant, it could be a metor, it could be a black hole, it could be god, it could be anything...but lets spend some more cash to find out....nothing

NASA is one of the most important things the US does and one of the only things the US gov has gotten right lately imo. There will always be a 1000 and 1 reasons to not "waste" money on space exploration. We need to spend money on war, on boosting the economy etc... But NASA is something we can always be proud of as citizens. That our gov is funding a program that is going towards humankind's curiosity and exploration of the unknown. But I guess you would rather see it turned into another dirty bomb for the middle east?

peachesenregalia wrote:Spokane, you are a God-troll, my friend. Thank you. I want you to post more.

peachesenregalia wrote:I mean, just look at his sig!!! He's the troll master.

OkieHawk wrote:

CANHawk wrote:We need to find the Mass Effect relay!

But then we'd have to fight off those Reapers eventually, no thanks.

OkieHawk wrote:...I do hope you aren't serious about that statement Montana or you're nerd card will be revoked and no more Star Trek for you!

twisted_steel2 wrote:Plus, isn't there evidence (a lot of evidence) that we get visitors all the time? Fermi just seems to ignore that.

RolandDeschain wrote:There are all kinds of crazy possibilities, many of which we can't even come up with in our own heads. You want to know why I'm confident we haven't had aliens in the traditional sense on this planet as of yet? Look at how they're visually portrayed by pretty much every account, anywhere. In broad terms, they are human. They are bipeds with builds similar to human beings. They have two eyes, a nose, a similar-looking mouth, a neck much thinner than the head, similarly-shaped appendages with digits on the end also known as fingers, etc.

RolandDeschain wrote:I can't speak for others, but my belief that we're probably alone in the universe as far as intelligent life goes is mainly due to how many incredible things had to happen to give rise to the evolution of man in the first place. We don't know either way, though; and I'm not a firm believer (as in, I don't think I 'know' we're alone) in it.

OkieHawk wrote:I also find it very egotistical to think that we are it, that there is nothing out there in an infinite universe. Maybe that's my faith to a certain extent, but I'm not going to join the Church of Scientology because of it though