https://autodailyz.com/2022/01/30/its-official-researchers-have-discovered-a-second-earth/

Is this true or just another BS?

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 20:11:57 -0800 (PST), StarDust <csoka01@gmail.com>
wrote:

>https://autodailyz.com/2022/01/30/its-official-researchers-have-discovered-a-second-earth/
>
>Is this true or just another BS?

It might be true. The story as presented is more in the BS category.

Good info with actual references:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri_b

On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:17:57 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

> Good info with actual references:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri_b

I remember reading about Proxima Centauri b quite some time ago.
I found the news to be exciting, even though it's very likely to be
a lifeless planet, since apparently because it is so close to its parent
star, its atmosphere is almost certain to have been stripped away.

Humans could still settle it, and live in underground habitats. Solar
energy could be concentrated from the surface and brought down to
them.
The enormous benefit is that Proxima Centauri is far enough from
Alpha Centauri to be safe when the latter goes nova. A smaller star
like Proxima Centauri will last not for 10 billion years, but for 100 billion.
So if the human race could settle on Proxima Centauri b, it could survive
for a longer period of time.

John Savard

On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 2:40:25 AM UTC-8, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 9:17:57 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
> > Good info with actual references:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri_b
> I remember reading about Proxima Centauri b quite some time ago.
> I found the news to be exciting, even though it's very likely to be
> a lifeless planet, since apparently because it is so close to its parent
> star, its atmosphere is almost certain to have been stripped away.
>
> Humans could still settle it, and live in underground habitats. Solar
> energy could be concentrated from the surface and brought down to
> them.
> The enormous benefit is that Proxima Centauri is far enough from
> Alpha Centauri to be safe when the latter goes nova. A smaller star
> like Proxima Centauri will last not for 10 billion years, but for 100 billion.
> So if the human race could settle on Proxima Centauri b, it could survive
> for a longer period of time.
>
> John Savard

Maybe a million years from now?
Until, eat dirt here on earth, make babies on Mars!

On 04/02/2022 04.40, Quadibloc wrote:

> I remember reading about Proxima Centauri b quite some time ago.
> I found the news to be exciting, even though it's very likely to be
> a lifeless planet, since apparently because it is so close to its parent
> star, its atmosphere is almost certain to have been stripped away.
>
> Humans could still settle it, and live in underground habitats. Solar
> energy could be concentrated from the surface and brought down to
> them.

People could live in underground habitats right here, without having to
travel over a parsec to do so. We could even build those habitats starting
from existing mine shafts.

--
Michael F. Stemper
Isaiah 58:6-7

On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 7:07:37 AM UTC-7, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> On 04/02/2022 04.40, Quadibloc wrote:

> > I remember reading about Proxima Centauri b quite some time ago.
> > I found the news to be exciting, even though it's very likely to be
> > a lifeless planet, since apparently because it is so close to its parent
> > star, its atmosphere is almost certain to have been stripped away.

> > Humans could still settle it, and live in underground habitats. Solar
> > energy could be concentrated from the surface and brought down to
> > them.

> People could live in underground habitats right here, without having to
> travel over a parsec to do so. We could even build those habitats starting
> from existing mine shafts.

And they could live in underground habitats on Mars too.

The point isn't to live in an underground habitat.

The point is to live somewhere where the supply of solar energy will
be roughly constant for the next 100 billion years, instead of just the
next 10 billion or so.

Living on Pluto would be a way to avoid being gobbled up by the Sun
when it temporarily became a red supergiant, but then afterwards the
available solar energy would be badly diminished.

John Savard

On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 10:45:35 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

>On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 7:07:37 AM UTC-7, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>> On 04/02/2022 04.40, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> > I remember reading about Proxima Centauri b quite some time ago.
>> > I found the news to be exciting, even though it's very likely to be
>> > a lifeless planet, since apparently because it is so close to its parent
>> > star, its atmosphere is almost certain to have been stripped away.
>
>> > Humans could still settle it, and live in underground habitats. Solar
>> > energy could be concentrated from the surface and brought down to
>> > them.
>
>> People could live in underground habitats right here, without having to
>> travel over a parsec to do so. We could even build those habitats starting
>> from existing mine shafts.
>
>And they could live in underground habitats on Mars too.
>
>The point isn't to live in an underground habitat.
>
>The point is to live somewhere where the supply of solar energy will
>be roughly constant for the next 100 billion years, instead of just the
>next 10 billion or so.
>
>Living on Pluto would be a way to avoid being gobbled up by the Sun
>when it temporarily became a red supergiant, but then afterwards the
>available solar energy would be badly diminished.

It's rather laughable to think that we will exist in a billion years.
Or a million, for that matter.

On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 2:34:05 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

> It's rather laughable to think that we will exist in a billion years.
> Or a million, for that matter.

It's certainly true there are any number of ways in which we
could mess up. But we should try not to.

Also, as long as we last long enough to be able to mount an
expedition to Proxima Centauri b, the people there would not
be affected by mistakes made on Earth thereafter.

John Savard

On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 3:49:50 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 2:34:05 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
> > It's rather laughable to think that we will exist in a billion years.
> > Or a million, for that matter.
> It's certainly true there are any number of ways in which we
> could mess up. But we should try not to.
>
> Also, as long as we last long enough to be able to mount an
> expedition to Proxima Centauri b, the people there would not
> be affected by mistakes made on Earth thereafter.
>
> John Savard

Maybe there are already "people" there. "People" that don't mind
a burp from their sun every now and then. The triple star system
is about the same age as the sun & company, but I'd place my
bet on αCen A or B for a habitable planet:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Centauri#Hypothetical_planets

The folks there may already have claimed Proxima b for themselves.

On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 14:49:48 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

>On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 2:34:05 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
>> It's rather laughable to think that we will exist in a billion years.
>> Or a million, for that matter.
>
>It's certainly true there are any number of ways in which we
>could mess up. But we should try not to.
>
>Also, as long as we last long enough to be able to mount an
>expedition to Proxima Centauri b, the people there would not
>be affected by mistakes made on Earth thereafter.

Not mistakes. Just the natural rise and fall of species. That said,
our extinction is likely to rest on our "design" flaws, which are not
compatible with high technology. And those will exist no matter where
we live.

On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 2:50:43 PM UTC, Chris L Peterson wrote:

> Not mistakes. Just the natural rise and fall of species. That said,
> our extinction is likely to rest on our "design" flaws, which are not
> compatible with high technology. And those will exist no matter where
> we live.

The idea of species is tied to the awful notion of 'races' and therefore racism-

'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life' Charles Darwin

These Victorian airheads were convinced humanity was made up as favoured/less favoured 'races' with some societies destined to be replaced by more superior and more aggressive societies. Darwin was clever enough not to express the natural fall in the Irish/Celt 'race' directly so he deflected it to one of his sycophants-

"The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and in celibacy. Given a land originally peopled by a thousand Saxons and a thousand Celts- and in a dozen generations five-sixths of the population would be Celts, but five-sixths of the property, of the power, of the intellect, would belong to the one-sixth of Saxons that remained. In the eternal 'struggle for existence,' it would be the inferior and less favoured race that had prevailed- and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults and narrower brain. " Charles Darwin, Descent of Man, 1871

The German SS adopted natural selection as a governing principle for exterminating the Jewish culture including the expression of it in the Wannsee Conference in 1942-

" Under proper guidance, in the course of the final solution the Jews are to be allocated for appropriate labour in the East. Able-bodied Jews, separated according to sex, will be taken in large work columns to these areas for work on roads, in the course of which action doubtless a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes. The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and would, if released, act as the seed of a new Jewish revival" Wannsee Conference, 1942

Whatever happens in the future, the excesses of Royal Society academics and their awful assault on solar system research and Earth sciences will eventually end and with it people like yourself who threw their existence away to support doctrines that will horrify future generations.

On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 09:43:56 -0800 (PST), "kellehe...@gmail.com"
<kelleher.gerald@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 2:50:43 PM UTC, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
>> Not mistakes. Just the natural rise and fall of species. That said,
>> our extinction is likely to rest on our "design" flaws, which are not
>> compatible with high technology. And those will exist no matter where
>> we live.
>
>The idea of species is tied to the awful notion of 'races' and therefore racism-

Not really. While there is some gray area in the boundaries between
various species, the concept is biologically sound. Races are largely
socially defined. Species are defined by clear genetic differences.

On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 6:26:45 PM UTC, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 09:43:56 -0800 (PST), "kellehe...@gmail.com"
> <kellehe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 2:50:43 PM UTC, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >
> >> Not mistakes. Just the natural rise and fall of species. That said,
> >> our extinction is likely to rest on our "design" flaws, which are not
> >> compatible with high technology. And those will exist no matter where
> >> we live.
> >
> >The idea of species is tied to the awful notion of 'races' and therefore racism-
> Not really. While there is some gray area in the boundaries between
> various species, the concept is biologically sound. Races are largely
> socially defined. Species are defined by clear genetic differences.

Natural selection is cultural prejudice railroaded into the Earth science of biology based on the Victorian notions about themselves and who they considered less favoured, savage or uncivilised. After WWII, they reframed natural selection as 'social darwinism' and carried on as though the idea of 'races' and racism played no part in its original format and remains so to this day despite its explicit statements by thos who created it-

“I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.” ― Charles Darwin

Americans, like yourself, cannot frame natural selection in its original context and its antecedent principle from Malthus. In the American view, Darwin's cultural prejudice doctrine is a 'science versus religion' vehicle via the Scopes Monkey Trial despite Osburn's use of the Piltdown Man skull to segregate humanity into 5 'races' in support of natural selection-

https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1925/07/12/104178924.html?pageNumber=157

There are only black complexion and white complexion Americans within a single culture, there are no 'races' which are an academic concept and not a social concept as long as natural selection survives as a doctrine.

The original cultural prejudice doctrine was formulated out of Malthus where the needs of an invading nation in terms of food supply (Lebensraum in WWII) outweighed the concerns for the population of the invaded nation-

"An Alaric, an Attila, or a Zingis Khan, and the chiefs around them, might fight for glory, for the fame of extensive conquests, but the true cause that set in motion the great tide of northern emigration, and that continued to propel it till it rolled at different periods against China, Persia, Italy, and even Egypt, was a scarcity of food, a population extended beyond the means of supporting it. " Thomas Malthus

This academic principle operated in 1840's Ireland where food was exported at the same time a population was starving and dying from famine disease. To be fair, the English Quakers took on food relief at the same time a section of English politicians were enacting land clearing policies for the then emerging industrial society in England.

What is worse is that Malthus provided the incentive for Darwin and Wallace to shift the balance away from the needs of the invader to the faults of the invaded hence 'Origin of Species'-

"One day something brought to my recollection Malthus's "Principles of Population," which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of his clear exposition of "the positive checks to increase"--disease, accidents, war, and famine--which keep down the population of savage races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are continually acting in the case of animals also..... because in every generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the superior would remain--that is, the fittest would survive..... The more I thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the origin of species. " Alfred Russel Wallace

What an awful thing to do to biology by re-working cultural prejudice into the animal kingdom and especially the partitioning of humanity into 'races' and therefore racism. When faced with the horror we inherit from another era which so influences ours, the result is understandable silence although it should not be.

On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 10:43:58 AM UTC-7, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:

> The idea of species is tied to the awful notion of 'races' and therefore racism-

I read a statement like that, and although I realize you don't really
intend to fault Lincoln for not also including _horses_ in the Emancipation
Proclamation_... that's still what it sounds like.

I mean, there are horses, there are cows, there are pigs, there are robins,
there are crows... and there are chimpanzees, and there are people. None
of that has anything to do with making a false division between some people
and other people.

John Savard

On Sunday, February 6, 2022 at 3:44:24 AM UTC-7, kellehe...@gmail.com wrote:
> The original cultural prejudice doctrine was formulated out of Malthus where the needs of an invading nation in terms of food supply (Lebensraum in WWII) outweighed the concerns for the population of the invaded nation-

> What is worse is that Malthus provided the incentive for Darwin and Wallace to shift the balance away from the needs of the invader to the faults of the invaded

Well, the _weaknesses_ of the invaded.

Thomas Malthus deserves some censure, but not for the reasons you
are advancing. From Malthus, we eventually got the "iron law of
wages"; employers should keep the working classes on starvation
wages _now_ and avoid the rush, because if they paid decent wages,
the workers would just breed until the country couldn't afford to pay
them more than starvation wages... thus generosity towards one's
employees would have the effect of _increasing_ the total sum of
human misery.

People... being the end product of natural selection, share with
pretty well *all other forms of life* the tendency to breed like
rabbits. So when times are good, they don't _stay_ good forever.

Science has tried to do something about it. Thus, modern
contraceptives have been invented, so that humans can satisfy
their sexual appetites without having more children than they
can feed. I should hardly need to remind you that the Roman
Catholic Church has not exactly been helpful towards this effort
to remove humanity from the bad situation Malthus noted.

Apparently, your issue is that Malthus described the behavior
of animal - and human - populations affected by population
pressure in an *amoral* fashion.

Humans are morally responsible for their actions. None the
less, one _is_ likely to be disappointed if one expects a tribe
with limited resources _not_ to attempt to enrich itself through
aggression against its neighbors if it sees an opportunity, and
its children are going hungry.

To expect that kind of restraint from... mere beasts... whether
complex intelligent mammals, or perhaps also tiny insects...
is, on the other hand, not merely mistaken, but ludicrous.

Moral behavior is important, but that doesn't mean we ought
to see all behavior only through a moral lens, and not attempt
to predict the likely actual behavior of real-world organisms in
an accurate fashion.

So it seems like you are opposed to scientific investigation in
other fields than astronomy as well.

John Savard