Scientist Picks a Gem of a Star

UrgleHoth writes "According to a CNN report, the star Gem 37 is the most likely candidate for alien life. Astrobiologist Maggie Turnbull of the University of Arizona in Tuscon has taken a list of most likely habitable planets and stars. Gem 37 topped the list. The deciding factor? 'Gem 37, the 37th brightest star in the constellation of Gemini, came out on top because it looks most like our sun.' This work was done for NASA's Terrestrial Planet Finder."

In other news...

[seanmeister]

Astrobiologist Maggie Turnbull of the University of Arizona in Tuscon has taken a list of football teams most likely to win the next Super Bowl. The Carolina Panthers topped the list. The deciding factor? 'The Panthers, one of the newest teams in the NFL, came out on top because I like the kitty cat on their helmets.'

Re:In other news...

[Bingo Foo]

Speaking as someone who probably holds more views in common with you than you suspect, I can say that laws of probability are not the issue. It is that the laws of physics and detailed paths of chemical reactions are not known in sufficient detail to determine what probabilities even apply in the spontaneous evolution of life. In other words, there is ZERO proof that life can not arise spontaneously, and there is a nonzero probability that some driven physio-chemical self organization process which bootstra

Re:In other news...

[pyrrho]

if you really learn a lot you will learn that you don't know what's impossible in the naturalistic environment until you completely understand it.

No: "God made it" doesn't count as personal understanding, but if you want to give me God's number, it does mean that He Knows.

Re:In other news...

[pyrrho]

well, I'm getting a little pompous about God-think. I'm an atheist, but with a life long interest in spirituality. I tend to like people with a strong spiritual sense, if they are catholic or wiccan or whatever, I just like that. I did bible study in high school (as an avowed atheist, from interest). I have accomodated and respected religious sensitivities. I'm getting older. I'm getting tired of talking to respecting the sensitivies to the point you can't call a spade a spade. I realize that when I'

Re:In other news...

[pyrrho]

no naturalistic one put forth yet holds up to scientific scrutiny.

this should not be surpising. At one time there was no correct theory for everything. In fact, no final answer is really expected. I know few scientists that are worries of running out of stuff to learn. It looks like there is infinite information. Maybe not, but I think so.

Since a naturalistic explanation requires there be no driving force, no external organizing consciousness, the alternative is a purely stochastic process.

of c

warning: this is long.

[pyrrho]

If you don't see the parallels between the RCC and the Hindu religions, it is likely because you haven't studied the rituals of the RCC. They use idols, images, icons, rosaries (which came from both Hindu and Buddhist origins), and are increasingly embracing New Age concepts (which are purely Hindu in origin).


from where I sit all Christianity looks pretty full of images, icons, and idols. But I don't deny the link, but of course, it goes both ways, the Zoroastrians migrated to india from the Meditera

Re:warning: this is long.

[pyrrho]

Fine, but where did that come from? There has to be an ultimate cause, a Creator.

no there doesn't, both you and me speculate in things that have always existed without creation.

The weakness of your argument from CS Lewis is that 2, a good man might be a lunatic, just a harmless one. He might still be good because of the things that make anyone good, separate from his wilder beliefs, like being helpful and honest and peaceful.

In my reading of the Bible God is not trying to scare me. He is trying to sc

Re:warning: this is long.

[pyrrho]

All of them followed the simple formula to disaster that all who falsely claim godhood fall into: power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely. Jesus had none of those failings, therefore he has nothing in common with those failings.

and yet the churches founded hin His name have in fact had all those problems. This is one of the reasons I'm suspicious of the religious drive, it has gone so terribly wrong so many times.

Re:warning: this is long.

[pyrrho]

If you get the reading from the Bible that you do, I fear you are creating a God to be what you want Him to be. But He never changes; and look what He did to the pre-flood world - he annihilated all but 8 people. He is just as upset about sin now as then, since He does not change.


but you suppose that you have a more direct access to what God is... reading the same book, but taking it more literally. But I have pointed out the errors and human editing of that book, so you can't really claim a more litter

Re:The real reason

[WiKKeSH]

The real reason they chose it is being similar to Earth is that because they picked up broadcasts of "Saved by the Bell" coming from the 3rd planet of the star.

So much for intelligent life...

New Scientist Link to Original Article

[BurritoJ]

New Scientist [newscientist.com]

Re:New Scientist Link to Original Article

[Anonymous Coward]

More in depth article [astrobio.net] from NASA

Really?

[Jhonny]

And what kind of alien lifeforms will we find there? Gemtians?

Re:Really?

[HTH NE1]

No, holograms [imdb.com].

Let's go back to the Drake Equation

[bill_mcgonigle]

"This stable, middle-aged star is just a bit hotter and brighter than our sun. And if alien life is anywhere, it's likely to be there," New Scientist magazine said on Wednesday.

It's important to have a suitable star, but that's only one term of the Drake Equation [seti-inst.edu].

A less sensational quote might have been, "And if alien life is anywhere, it's possible that it's there."

Re:Let's go back to the Drake Equation

[LWATCDR]

The Drake Equation is for intellegent technologicaly advanced life. The earth of 100 years ago would not be a hit for the Drake Equation.
Of course life with at least radio is the most interesting for us to find. :) I want to see the alien version of I love Lucy. Dziggrabits I am home... Goolock I want to be in the showwwww.....

In the constellation of Gemini?

[weeboo0104]

I'll bet they have two heads.

They probably look a lot like this guy [bbc.co.uk].

Re:In the constellation of Gemini?

[kalidasa]

And Zaphod was from Betelgeuse, which is in Orion. No?

Time for a...

[advocate_one]

ROAD TRIP!!!!!!!!!

Speaking of alien life...

[Lendrick]

Whatever happened to that list of candidates that SETI@HOME found? Have those been thoroughly investigated yet? If not, when are they planning to do so? I remember hearing that they were going to have a look at them, but I don't recall when that was going to be.

Re:Speaking of alien life...

[Cujo]

They are reobserving them, as time and geometry permit. However, since they used Arecibo observations, they are limited to only part of the sky.

Why o why..

[BinLadenMyHero]

do they insist in thinking that life developed elsewhere must be anything like earth's life?

Re:Why o why..

[asimulator]

"And if alien life is anywhere, it's likely to be there"

says the article. It's not that alien life *must* be like earth's life, but alien life like earth's like will likely be on a star like earth's star. And since we don't know anything about how alien like unlike earth's is like, we don't know what kind of star to look for.

Re:Why o why..

[CheshireCatCO]

Because if you open the criteria up too much, you end up having no clue what to look for and whether you've found it when you see it. We know how things work on Earth, so that's where we begin. Note that it isn't the *end* of the search, but just the start.

Re:Why o why..

[annisette]

I agree, and what a better sphere of search than carbon based(life), the steps and the needs for these steps, for it to happen.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:exo-biological marine life

[barawn]

Oxygen in the atmosphere.

Any significant amount of oxygen is almost certainly from something like photosynthesis. Oxygen's too reactive to stay in the atmosphere for any significant amount of time without something constantly generating it, and that's likely to be life.

Now, before everyone jumps down my throat saying "You don't need oxygen for life! Oxygen is poison! It's extremely dangerous!" - they'd be right, and wrong (as many people are...). Oxygen IS very reactive and corrosive - but that's why life wants it around. Oxygen generates a lot of chemical activity and a lot of chemical potential, allowing for complicated reactions to happen. This isn't "Earth-centric", it's basic chemistry.

And yes, even life in the ocean would likely generate oxygen in the atmosphere, and yes, it is possible to have life in the ocean WITHOUT oxygen in the atmosphere, but unless there's no solar insolation there at all, organisms that use sunlight will beat out those that don't virtually everywhere, and photosynthesis works best with oxygen involved in the process (to generate the many, many different oxidation potentials needed).

Re:exo-biological marine life

[CheshireCatCO]

Very well put.
However (and this is trivia, not a correction), I'm betting that they'll look not for molecular oxygen (O2), but ozone (O3). The latter has a much better spectroscopic signature since the former is a homonuclear diatomic (2 atoms of the same species) and therefore doesn't absorb a lot of light. And ozone is almost certainly around if any significant amount of molecular oxygen is present.

37 Gem star images

[chongo]

My 37 Gemini [isthe.com] page contains several images from the POSS2/UKSTU and the HST Phase 2 digital plate stacks.

Need a Submission Mod, too.

[Cragen]

This is NOT a worthy submission. IMHO, it's not even interesting science!. How about giving us mod points to the submission area and to the stories given a place on the home page? Users could mod up submissions to the point they make the home page and, more importantly, mod down stories OFF the home page. (Heck, even msnbc.com lets users rate the articles.)

Cragen.

How far is Gem 37 from here?

[motown]

I can't seem to find the distance between here and Gem 37 in any of the mentioned links.

Is it tens of light years, hundreds of light years, thousands, even?

Even if there were indeed some intelligent life in the Gem 37 system, only in the first case (tens of light years) could we hope to ever communicate with them. Unless if Einstein's theory somehow turns out to be wrong (or not entirely correct) and both mankind and the folks at Gem 37 eventually develop some sort of FTL communication and/or propulsion t

Re:How far is Gem 37 from here?

[Stuntmonkey]

Even if there were indeed some intelligent life in the Gem 37 system, only in the first case (tens of light years) could we hope to ever communicate with them.

The goal of TPF is somewhat broader than SETI, which will only find life that is intelligent (i.e. capable and willing to send beamed radio transmissions to other stars). TPF will hunt for signs of ANY biological activity by looking for certain chemical signatures (e.g., an oxygen atmosphere).

The exciting thing about TPF is that it skips severa

About 56 light-years

[sdedeo]

According to Simbad [u-strasbg.fr], 37 Gem has a parallax of about 50 milliarcseconds; this data is from the Hipparcos satellite. In other words, it's about 17 parsecs (56 light years) away.

No doubt, the inhabitants of 37 Gem are listening with interest to our broadcast stations from 1947. Perhaps they consider World War II a big "reality TV" show.