Well a lot of people have been making those topics of "Should we travel into space onto another planet." Well a recently found planet dubbed "Earth's Twin" was found in the Galaxy of Alpha Centauri about four light years away. Read this short article: [quote=Earth's Twin Article] [img=http://space.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn13393/dn13393-1_650.jpg] Though it looks like a single star, Alpha Centauri (the bright spot left of centre) is actually a triplet> Another Earth may be orbiting the star next door, and we coulddetect its presence within a few years, a new study argues. A telescope trained permanently on Alpha Centauri should be able to pick up the slight stellar wobbles induced by a small, rocky, Earth-like planet. Alpha Centauri lies just over 4 light years away and is the closest star system to the Sun. It appears to be a triple system, with two Sun-like stars orbiting each other relatively closely (about 23 times the Earth-Sun distance). The two stars have high concentrations of heavy elements, which is characteristic of stars that are born surrounded by dusty, planet-forming discs. Previous computer simulations suggested terrestrial planets probably formed around one or both stars. That is borne out by the work of Javiera Guedes at the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC), US, and colleagues, who have gone a step further and worked out how to detect such planets. "If our understanding of terrestrial planet formation is at all correct, then there should definitely be terrestrial planets orbiting both members of the Alpha Centauri binary pair," team member Greg Laughlin of UCSC told New Scientist. What's more, any such planets might boast the conditions thought to be necessary to support life. In the team's simulations of planet formation around the smaller star, Alpha Centauri B, an Earth-like world often coalesced in or near the star's habitable zone, where liquid water could exist on the planet's surface. Finding these planets could be time-consuming, but it does not require any new techniques, they say. They suggest using the "radial velocity" method, which looks for spectral signs that a star is wobbling due to gravitational tugs from an orbiting planet. Calm atmosphereThe method has discovered most of the 228 known exoplanets. But until now, it has turned up only giant Jupiter-like planets, which produce relatively large wobbles in their host stars. "Our aim is to find rocky planets by muscling up the same technique that has been so successful in finding more massive planets," says team member Debra Fischer of San Francisco State University in California, US. Laughlin realised that Alpha Centauri B was an exceptionally good target for this method, in part because it is a calm star. The atmospheres of most stars of its type churn more violently, which would obscure the slight movement caused by orbiting Earth-like planets. And because it is so near to Earth, Alpha Centauri B is very bright. That means astronomers can rapidly capture a precise spectrum of its light, which is ideal for measuring small Doppler shifts due to terrestrial planets. Faint signalEven so, the researchers think they will need several years of data to smooth out random noise in their observations to be able to spot the faint signal of another Earth. That's because a terrestrial planet would cause Alpha Centauri B to wobble at speeds of only about 10 centimetres per second. Laughlin and his team will start to monitor Alpha Centauri in May, using a 1.5-metre telescope at the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory in Chile. As well as searching for planets, their observations will be used to analyse the stars' natural oscillations, which could reveal details about their internal structures. Not all astronomers are convinced by the simulations that Alpha Centauri should host terrestrial planets. "I tend to be sceptical of planet-formation models," says Sara Seager of MIT in Cambridge, US, who did not take part in the study. But Seager is impressed with the second part of the paper, demonstrating that these planets should be detectable. "It is tremendously exciting that we can search for an Earth cousin in a habitable zone of a nearby star with current technology," she told New Scientist.[/quote] So, SEN, could we be well on our way to another inhabitable planet?

Well a lot of people have been making those topics of "Should we travel into space onto another planet." Well a recently found planet dubbed "Earth's Twin" was found in the Galaxy of Alpha Centauri about four light years away. Read this short article:

Quote from Earth's Twin Article

Though it looks like a single star, Alpha Centauri (the bright spot left of centre) is actually a triplet>

Another Earth may be orbiting the star next door, and we coulddetect its presence within a few years, a new study argues. A telescope trained permanently on Alpha Centauri should be able to pick up the slight stellar wobbles induced by a small, rocky, Earth-like planet.
Alpha Centauri lies just over 4 light years away and is the closest star system to the Sun. It appears to be a triple system, with two Sun-like stars orbiting each other relatively closely (about 23 times the Earth-Sun distance). The two stars have high concentrations of heavy elements, which is characteristic of stars that are born surrounded by dusty, planet-forming discs.
Previous computer simulations suggested terrestrial planets probably formed around one or both stars. That is borne out by the work of Javiera Guedes at the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC), US, and colleagues, who have gone a step further and worked out how to detect such planets.
"If our understanding of terrestrial planet formation is at all correct, then there should definitely be terrestrial planets orbiting both members of the Alpha Centauri binary pair," team member Greg Laughlin of UCSC told New Scientist.
What's more, any such planets might boast the conditions thought to be necessary to support life. In the team's simulations of planet formation around the smaller star, Alpha Centauri B, an Earth-like world often coalesced in or near the star's habitable zone, where liquid water could exist on the planet's surface.
Finding these planets could be time-consuming, but it does not require any new techniques, they say. They suggest using the "radial velocity" method, which looks for spectral signs that a star is wobbling due to gravitational tugs from an orbiting planet.
Calm atmosphereThe method has discovered most of the 228 known exoplanets. But until now, it has turned up only giant Jupiter-like planets, which produce relatively large wobbles in their host stars.
"Our aim is to find rocky planets by muscling up the same technique that has been so successful in finding more massive planets," says team member Debra Fischer of San Francisco State University in California, US.
Laughlin realised that Alpha Centauri B was an exceptionally good target for this method, in part because it is a calm star. The atmospheres of most stars of its type churn more violently, which would obscure the slight movement caused by orbiting Earth-like planets.
And because it is so near to Earth, Alpha Centauri B is very bright. That means astronomers can rapidly capture a precise spectrum of its light, which is ideal for measuring small Doppler shifts due to terrestrial planets.
Faint signalEven so, the researchers think they will need several years of data to smooth out random noise in their observations to be able to spot the faint signal of another Earth. That's because a terrestrial planet would cause Alpha Centauri B to wobble at speeds of only about 10 centimetres per second.
Laughlin and his team will start to monitor Alpha Centauri in May, using a 1.5-metre telescope at the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory in Chile. As well as searching for planets, their observations will be used to analyse the stars' natural oscillations, which could reveal details about their internal structures.
Not all astronomers are convinced by the simulations that Alpha Centauri should host terrestrial planets. "I tend to be sceptical of planet-formation models," says Sara Seager of MIT in Cambridge, US, who did not take part in the study.
But Seager is impressed with the second part of the paper, demonstrating that these planets should be detectable. "It is tremendously exciting that we can search for an Earth cousin in a habitable zone of a nearby star with current technology," she told New Scientist.

So, SEN, could we be well on our way to another inhabitable planet?

a) So nobody really knows if there is a planet here, it's just a guess? b) It would not be Earth's twin. It might be a similarly sized planet a similar distance from a similar sun. To be a twin, it would need to have exactly the right atmospheric conditions to support life like our special planet does. c) I'm rather skeptical of the whole "we think life should be here" thing. It's never proved to be the case, and I doubt it ever will.

a) So nobody really knows if there is a planet here, it's just a guess?

b) It would not be Earth's twin. It might be a similarly sized planet a similar distance from a similar sun. To be a twin, it would need to have exactly the right atmospheric conditions to support life like our special planet does.

c) I'm rather skeptical of the whole "we think life should be here" thing. It's never proved to be the case, and I doubt it ever will.

[quote=name:frazz]a) So nobody really knows if there is a planet here, it's just a guess? b) It would not be Earth's twin. It might be a similarly sized planet a similar distance from a similar sun. To be a twin, it would need to have exactly the right atmospheric conditions to support life like our special planet does. c) I'm rather skeptical of the whole "we think life should be here" thing. It's never proved to be the case, and I doubt it ever will.[/quote] a) As is the state with every single extrasolar planet. We can only observe them indirectly. b) True c) We've never explored somewhere there /should/ be life.

Quote from frazz

a) So nobody really knows if there is a planet here, it's just a guess?

b) It would not be Earth's twin. It might be a similarly sized planet a similar distance from a similar sun. To be a twin, it would need to have exactly the right atmospheric conditions to support life like our special planet does.

c) I'm rather skeptical of the whole "we think life should be here" thing. It's never proved to be the case, and I doubt it ever will.

a) As is the state with every single extrasolar planet. We can only observe them indirectly.

b) True

c) We've never explored somewhere there /should/ be life.

[quote=name:Syphon][quote=name:frazz]a) So nobody really knows if there is a planet here, it's just a guess? b) It would not be Earth's twin. It might be a similarly sized planet a similar distance from a similar sun. To be a twin, it would need to have exactly the right atmospheric conditions to support life like our special planet does. c) I'm rather skeptical of the whole "we think life should be here" thing. It's never proved to be the case, and I doubt it ever will.[/quote] a) As is the state with every single extrasolar planet. We can only observe them indirectly. b) True c) We've never explored somewhere there /should/ be life.[/quote] c) We probably never will either. Another reason I'm not a fan of this area of space exploration and astronomy.

Quote from Syphon[MM]

Quote from frazz

a) So nobody really knows if there is a planet here, it's just a guess?

b) It would not be Earth's twin. It might be a similarly sized planet a similar distance from a similar sun. To be a twin, it would need to have exactly the right atmospheric conditions to support life like our special planet does.

c) I'm rather skeptical of the whole "we think life should be here" thing. It's never proved to be the case, and I doubt it ever will.

a) As is the state with every single extrasolar planet. We can only observe them indirectly.

b) True

c) We've never explored somewhere there /should/ be life.

c) We probably never will either. Another reason I'm not a fan of this area of space exploration and astronomy.

The whole "Earth's Twin" thing was just a title made up because this planet may be able to support life. I've always been interested in what's beyond our galaxy, and this is a huge discovery that interested me.

The whole "Earth's Twin" thing was just a title made up because this planet may be able to support life. I've always been interested in what's beyond our galaxy, and this is a huge discovery that interested me.

Isn't it more of a conjecture than a discovery?

Isn't it more of a conjecture than a discovery?

[quote]"If our understanding of terrestrial planet formation is at all correct, then there should definitely be terrestrial planets orbiting both members of the Alpha Centauri binary pair," team member Greg Laughlin of UCSC told New Scientist.[/quote] That would be an assertion. Anywho, while it would be great to find a habitable planet in Alpha Centari, our closest neighboring star system, the odds are slim. Even if there are rocky planets, they could be like Mercury, Venus, or Mars. That is, too close, too poisonous, or have a dead dynamo.

Quote

"If our understanding of terrestrial planet formation is at all correct, then there should definitely be terrestrial planets orbiting both members of the Alpha Centauri binary pair," team member Greg Laughlin of UCSC told New Scientist.

That would be an assertion.

Anywho, while it would be great to find a habitable planet in Alpha Centari, our closest neighboring star system, the odds are slim. Even if there are rocky planets, they could be like Mercury, Venus, or Mars. That is, too close, too poisonous, or have a dead dynamo.

It's worth exploring the next planet. After acquiring the new planet, lock Earth into an industrial planet. Fux it's resources, fux it's clean air, and fux the life on it. It's industrial. That's what I'd do... oh, and I'd start drilling out all the Oil on ALpha Centari.

It's worth exploring the next planet. After acquiring the new planet, lock Earth into an industrial planet. Fux it's resources, fux it's clean air, and fux the life on it. It's industrial.

That's what I'd do... oh, and I'd start drilling out all the Oil on ALpha Centari.

If the atmosphere has too dense CO2, planting algaes on the planet will cause the CO2 levels to subside and Oxygen levels to increase. If the atmosphere has too dense methane, burning it would help. Any planet that is with Earth like [b]Gravity[/b] is considered habitable. ( Through a process called terraformation. ) With that kind of gravity, a gas giant is impossible. Also, the planet might be larger in volume if the core is not molten iron with the same level of gravity of earth's, since iron is a highly dense metallic element. (We'd want a planet with tons of metal. :\ )

If the atmosphere has too dense CO2, planting algaes on the planet will cause the CO2 levels to subside and Oxygen levels to increase.
If the atmosphere has too dense methane, burning it would help.

Any planet that is with Earth like Gravity is considered habitable. ( Through a process called terraformation. )
With that kind of gravity, a gas giant is impossible. Also, the planet might be larger in volume if the core is not molten iron with the same level of gravity of earth's, since iron is a highly dense metallic element. (We'd want a planet with tons of metal. :\ )

[quote=name:frazz][quote=name:Syphon][quote=name:frazz]a) So nobody really knows if there is a planet here, it's just a guess? b) It would not be Earth's twin. It might be a similarly sized planet a similar distance from a similar sun. To be a twin, it would need to have exactly the right atmospheric conditions to support life like our special planet does. c) I'm rather skeptical of the whole "we think life should be here" thing. It's never proved to be the case, and I doubt it ever will.[/quote] a) As is the state with every single extrasolar planet. We can only observe them indirectly. b) True c) We've never explored somewhere there /should/ be life.[/quote] c) We probably never will either. Another reason I'm not a fan of this area of space exploration and astronomy.[/quote] Europa. [quote=name:frazz]Isn't it more of a conjecture than a discovery?[/quote] No, based on the type of star and its distance from the planet, we can pretty much exactly know what it's like.

Quote from frazz

Quote from Syphon[MM]

Quote from frazz

a) So nobody really knows if there is a planet here, it's just a guess?

b) It would not be Earth's twin. It might be a similarly sized planet a similar distance from a similar sun. To be a twin, it would need to have exactly the right atmospheric conditions to support life like our special planet does.

c) I'm rather skeptical of the whole "we think life should be here" thing. It's never proved to be the case, and I doubt it ever will.

a) As is the state with every single extrasolar planet. We can only observe them indirectly.

b) True

c) We've never explored somewhere there /should/ be life.

c) We probably never will either. Another reason I'm not a fan of this area of space exploration and astronomy.

Europa.

Quote from frazz

Isn't it more of a conjecture than a discovery?

No, based on the type of star and its distance from the planet, we can pretty much exactly know what it's like.

[quote=name:frazz][quote=name:Syphon][quote=name:frazz]a) So nobody really knows if there is a planet here, it's just a guess? b) It would not be Earth's twin. It might be a similarly sized planet a similar distance from a similar sun. To be a twin, it would need to have exactly the right atmospheric conditions to support life like our special planet does. c) I'm rather skeptical of the whole "we think life should be here" thing. It's never proved to be the case, and I doubt it ever will.[/quote] a) As is the state with every single extrasolar planet. We can only observe them indirectly. b) True c) We've never explored somewhere there /should/ be life.[/quote] c) We probably never will either. Another reason I'm not a fan of this area of space exploration and astronomy.[/quote] And the Egyptians never thought we could go anywhere on the planet in under 24 hours and communicate at the speed of light.

Quote from frazz

Quote from Syphon[MM]

Quote from frazz

a) So nobody really knows if there is a planet here, it's just a guess?

b) It would not be Earth's twin. It might be a similarly sized planet a similar distance from a similar sun. To be a twin, it would need to have exactly the right atmospheric conditions to support life like our special planet does.

c) I'm rather skeptical of the whole "we think life should be here" thing. It's never proved to be the case, and I doubt it ever will.

a) As is the state with every single extrasolar planet. We can only observe them indirectly.

b) True

c) We've never explored somewhere there /should/ be life.

c) We probably never will either. Another reason I'm not a fan of this area of space exploration and astronomy.

And the Egyptians never thought we could go anywhere on the planet in under 24 hours and communicate at the speed of light.

[quote]To be a twin, it would need to have exactly the right atmospheric conditions to support life like our special planet does.[/quote] This is measurable with todays equipment. However, I have a feeling that we'd be better off looking for life on mars.

Quote

To be a twin, it would need to have exactly the right atmospheric conditions to support life like our special planet does.

This is measurable with todays equipment.

However, I have a feeling that we'd be better off looking for life on mars.

Mars has approximately 1/3 the gravity of Earth's. No we're actually looking for planets with similar gravity as Earth's does.

Mars has approximately 1/3 the gravity of Earth's. No we're actually looking for planets with similar gravity as Earth's does.

[quote=name:BeDazed]Mars has approximately 1/3 the gravity of Earth's. No we're actually looking for planets with similar gravity as Earth's does.[/quote] I don't think gravity is that important. Except maybe for the atmosphere creation, but anyway a planet that is 1/3g gravity could probably be habitable. Being able to detect that kind of planets is actually quite exciting. But anyway probably the protoss will have already been there when we get to explore them.

Quote from BeDazed

Mars has approximately 1/3 the gravity of Earth's. No we're actually looking for planets with similar gravity as Earth's does.

I don't think gravity is that important. Except maybe for the atmosphere creation, but anyway a planet that is 1/3g gravity could probably be habitable.


Being able to detect that kind of planets is actually quite exciting. But anyway probably the protoss will have already been there when we get to explore them.

You think gravity isn't important? Living in a gravitically weak environment will degrade your muscles? Weaken your pressure? Degrade your life span? And we don't have technology to create artificial gravity. We have yet to even understand thoroughly about the effects low gravity causes to our body. A planet with one third of Earth's gravity will never be used as a effective populative planet. It would most likely be a planet that would be stripped of its resources down to the core and be abandoned.

You think gravity isn't important? Living in a gravitically weak environment will degrade your muscles? Weaken your pressure? Degrade your life span? And we don't have technology to create artificial gravity. We have yet to even understand thoroughly about the effects low gravity causes to our body. A planet with one third of Earth's gravity will never be used as a effective populative planet. It would most likely be a planet that would be stripped of its resources down to the core and be abandoned.

[quote=name:BeDazed]You think gravity isn't important? Living in a gravitically weak environment will degrade your muscles? Weaken your pressure? Degrade your life span? And we don't have technology to create artificial gravity. We have yet to even understand thoroughly about the effects low gravity causes to our body. A planet with one third of Earth's gravity will never be used as a effective populative planet. It would most likely be a planet that would be stripped of its resources down to the core and be abandoned.[/quote] [quote=Wikipedia][...]Mars, by contrast, is nearly (or perhaps totally) geologically dead and has lost much of its atmosphere.[14] Thus, it would be fair to infer that the lower mass limit for habitability lies somewhere between Mars and Earth-Venus; 0.3 Earth masses has been offered as a rough dividing line for habitable planets.[15] Exceptional circumstances do offer exceptional cases: Jupiter's moon Io (smaller than the terrestrial planets) is volcanically dynamic because of the gravitational stresses induced by its orbit; neighbouring Europa may have a liquid ocean underneath a frozen shell due also to power generated in its orbiting a gas giant; Saturn's Titan, meanwhile, has an outside chance of harbouring life as it has retained a thick atmosphere and bio-chemical reactions are possible in liquid methane on its surface. These satellites are exceptions, but they prove that mass as a habitability criterion cannot be considered definitive.[/quote] It's important, but not so important. Anyway I was talking about planets ranging from 0.3g to 1.6g or something like that, not 0.0002g.

Quote from BeDazed

You think gravity isn't important? Living in a gravitically weak environment will degrade your muscles? Weaken your pressure? Degrade your life span? And we don't have technology to create artificial gravity. We have yet to even understand thoroughly about the effects low gravity causes to our body. A planet with one third of Earth's gravity will never be used as a effective populative planet. It would most likely be a planet that would be stripped of its resources down to the core and be abandoned.

Quote from Wikipedia

[...]Mars, by contrast, is nearly (or perhaps totally) geologically dead and has lost much of its atmosphere.[14] Thus, it would be fair to infer that the lower mass limit for habitability lies somewhere between Mars and Earth-Venus; 0.3 Earth masses has been offered as a rough dividing line for habitable planets.[15] Exceptional circumstances do offer exceptional cases: Jupiter's moon Io (smaller than the terrestrial planets) is volcanically dynamic because of the gravitational stresses induced by its orbit; neighbouring Europa may have a liquid ocean underneath a frozen shell due also to power generated in its orbiting a gas giant; Saturn's Titan, meanwhile, has an outside chance of harbouring life as it has retained a thick atmosphere and bio-chemical reactions are possible in liquid methane on its surface. These satellites are exceptions, but they prove that mass as a habitability criterion cannot be considered definitive.

It's important, but not so important. Anyway I was talking about planets ranging from 0.3g to 1.6g or something like that, not 0.0002g.

[quote=name:Syphon][quote=name:frazz][quote=name:Syphon][quote=name:frazz]a) So nobody really knows if there is a planet here, it's just a guess? b) It would not be Earth's twin. It might be a similarly sized planet a similar distance from a similar sun. To be a twin, it would need to have exactly the right atmospheric conditions to support life like our special planet does. c) I'm rather skeptical of the whole "we think life should be here" thing. It's never proved to be the case, and I doubt it ever will.[/quote] a) As is the state with every single extrasolar planet. We can only observe them indirectly. b) True c) We've never explored somewhere there /should/ be life.[/quote] c) We probably never will either. Another reason I'm not a fan of this area of space exploration and astronomy.[/quote] Europa.[/quote] Oh sorry, I didn't know life was already discovered on Europa. Silly me. [quote=name:Syphon] [quote=name:frazz]Isn't it more of a conjecture than a discovery?[/quote] No, based on the type of star and its distance from the planet, we can pretty much exactly know what it's like.[/quote] Maybe we can know what shape or size it is, to a reasonable accuracy. If this is the closest planet to Earth ever "found" though, we don't really have a premise to work off of, besides Earth itself, and there's only one of those. I just think it's not right to say that it's "Earth's Twin," because that implies so much more than we really know. We don't even know if there's any water there.

Quote from Syphon[MM]

Quote from frazz

Quote from Syphon[MM]

Quote from frazz

a) So nobody really knows if there is a planet here, it's just a guess?

b) It would not be Earth's twin. It might be a similarly sized planet a similar distance from a similar sun. To be a twin, it would need to have exactly the right atmospheric conditions to support life like our special planet does.

c) I'm rather skeptical of the whole "we think life should be here" thing. It's never proved to be the case, and I doubt it ever will.

a) As is the state with every single extrasolar planet. We can only observe them indirectly.

b) True

c) We've never explored somewhere there /should/ be life.

c) We probably never will either. Another reason I'm not a fan of this area of space exploration and astronomy.

Europa.

Oh sorry, I didn't know life was already discovered on Europa. Silly me.

Quote from Syphon[MM]

Quote from frazz

Isn't it more of a conjecture than a discovery?

No, based on the type of star and its distance from the planet, we can pretty much exactly know what it's like.

Maybe we can know what shape or size it is, to a reasonable accuracy. If this is the closest planet to Earth ever "found" though, we don't really have a premise to work off of, besides Earth itself, and there's only one of those.
I just think it's not right to say that it's "Earth's Twin," because that implies so much more than we really know. We don't even know if there's any water there.

[quote=name:frazz][quote=name:Syphon][quote=name:frazz][quote=name:Syphon][quote=name:frazz]a) So nobody really knows if there is a planet here, it's just a guess? b) It would not be Earth's twin. It might be a similarly sized planet a similar distance from a similar sun. To be a twin, it would need to have exactly the right atmospheric conditions to support life like our special planet does. c) I'm rather skeptical of the whole "we think life should be here" thing. It's never proved to be the case, and I doubt it ever will.[/quote] a) As is the state with every single extrasolar planet. We can only observe them indirectly. b) True c) We've never explored somewhere there /should/ be life.[/quote] c) We probably never will either. Another reason I'm not a fan of this area of space exploration and astronomy.[/quote] Europa.[/quote] Oh sorry, I didn't know life was already discovered on Europa. Silly me. [quote=name:Syphon] [quote=name:frazz]Isn't it more of a conjecture than a discovery?[/quote] No, based on the type of star and its distance from the planet, we can pretty much exactly know what it's like.[/quote] Maybe we can know what shape or size it is, to a reasonable accuracy. If this is the closest planet to Earth ever "found" though, we don't really have a premise to work off of, besides Earth itself, and there's only one of those. I just think it's not right to say that it's "Earth's Twin," because that implies so much more than we really know. We don't even know if there's any water there.[/quote] Silly me, I forgot to write should. Oh wait? I didn't?! Reading comprehension, smartass. Water is a wholly insignificant part of Earth's chemical composition, density, and location in the solar system.

Quote from frazz

Quote from Syphon[MM]

Quote from frazz

Quote from Syphon[MM]

Quote from frazz

a) So nobody really knows if there is a planet here, it's just a guess?

b) It would not be Earth's twin. It might be a similarly sized planet a similar distance from a similar sun. To be a twin, it would need to have exactly the right atmospheric conditions to support life like our special planet does.

c) I'm rather skeptical of the whole "we think life should be here" thing. It's never proved to be the case, and I doubt it ever will.

a) As is the state with every single extrasolar planet. We can only observe them indirectly.

b) True

c) We've never explored somewhere there /should/ be life.

c) We probably never will either. Another reason I'm not a fan of this area of space exploration and astronomy.

Europa.

Oh sorry, I didn't know life was already discovered on Europa. Silly me.

Quote from Syphon[MM]

Quote from frazz

Isn't it more of a conjecture than a discovery?

No, based on the type of star and its distance from the planet, we can pretty much exactly know what it's like.

Maybe we can know what shape or size it is, to a reasonable accuracy. If this is the closest planet to Earth ever "found" though, we don't really have a premise to work off of, besides Earth itself, and there's only one of those.
I just think it's not right to say that it's "Earth's Twin," because that implies so much more than we really know. We don't even know if there's any water there.

Silly me, I forgot to write should. Oh wait? I didn't?! Reading comprehension, smartass.

Water is a wholly insignificant part of Earth's chemical composition, density, and location in the solar system.

[quote]Water is a wholly insignificant part of Earth's chemical composition, density, and location in the solar system.[/quote] But relatively important for (known) biological systems. In a few years we will know if there's water on the planet. (If we don't already.)

Quote

Water is a wholly insignificant part of Earth's chemical composition, density, and location in the solar system.

But relatively important for (known) biological systems.
In a few years we will know if there's water on the planet. (If we don't already.)

Wasn't another earth like plante already found before this one, and everyone kinda just forgot about it?

Wasn't another earth like plante already found before this one, and everyone kinda just forgot about it?