Category: space

Posted on

Scientists Say There Could Be 36 Alien Civilizations in the Milky Way

We’ve all wondered–could there be, not just life, but intelligent life, out there?

And while relative intelligence of life on Earth could be debatable, two scientists from the University of Nottingham have a new theory that suggests there is.

36 different potential civilizations, to be exact.

Image credit: NASA via Rawpixel

How can scientists possibly make a prediction about the number of undiscovered civilizations?

It’s a mathematical theory based on a fifty-year-old equation called the Drake equation.

As Popular Mechanics explains:

Drake’s seven key variables, which range from how many habitable planets exoplanets there are in the galaxy to the amount of time over which intelligent life takes shape, are almost impossible to pin down.

The formula acts more like a framework for the probability of finding life; previous estimates have ranged from zero to over a billion civilizations.

But Professor of Astrophysics Christopher Conselice, his colleague Tom Westby, and their team at the University of Nottingham used new technology and assumptions about our galaxy, the Milky Way, to formulate a new hypothesis.

They published their work last summer in The Astrophysical Journal.

Image credit: NASA via Rawpixel

As quoted in Phys.org, Conselice explains that they based their assumption on the length of time it took a civilization to develop on Earth:

“There should be at least a few dozen active civilizations in our Galaxy under the assumption that it takes 5 billion years for intelligent life to form on other planets, as on Earth.

The idea is looking at evolution, but on a cosmic scale. We call this calculation the Astrobiological Copernican Limit.”

The Copernican limit guides researchers to think on a pretty large scale–where intelligent life develops in either more or less than 5 billion years.

By intelligent life, scientists mean a civilization capable of communication.

On Earth, that development took more than 4.5 billion years, thus the 5 billion year threshold.

Image credit: NASA via Rawpixel

These calculations have been used for years, but the Nottingham team took it one step further, factoring in the specific composition of Earth’s sun.

As Westby explained:

“In the strong criteria, whereby a metal content equal to that of the Sun is needed (the Sun is relatively speaking quite metal rich), we calculate that there should be around 36 active civilizations in our Galaxy.”

When all of the data is combined and analyzed, they believe just 36 exoplanets possess all the right conditions to support the development of an alien civilization.

Of course that means 36 alien civilizations that are enough like us to be recognizable as communicative beings.

Who knows how many are out there that are so different that we might not even recognize them if we saw them.

The problem is, a theory needs to be proven, and the exoplanets are so far away that while we can see them with high powered telescopes and gather some sensory data on them, we don’t yet have the technology to visit them–even with probes.

Image credit: NASA via Rawpixel

If they’re so far away, why do we even care?

Well aside from the intrinsic human need to explore and discover, finding out how many other civilizations co-exist could actually tell us something about how long life on earth will last.

As Professor Conselice points out:

If we find that intelligent life is common then this would reveal that our civilization could exist for much longer than a few hundred years, alternatively if we find that there are no active civilizations in our Galaxy it is a bad sign for our own long-term existence.

By searching for extraterrestrial intelligent life—even if we find nothing—we are discovering our own future and fate

This is very exciting in the world of astronomy.

But according to Popular Mechanics and The Guardian, not every scientist is convinced.

Oliver Shorttle of the University of Cambridge told the news organization that more factors need to be considered—such as how exactly life formed on Earth—before taking the new findings as fact.

That’s science for you. There’s always more to consider.

Even so, it’s pretty cool to have such a specific number, don’t you think?

Do you believe there’s life out there? Let us know your theories in the comments!

The post Scientists Say There Could Be 36 Alien Civilizations in the Milky Way appeared first on UberFacts.

Posted on

Did You Know That Mass Extinction Events Happen Every 27 Million Years?

Right now, we’re in the middle of a mass extinction event, in which we are in danger of losing hundreds, maybe thousands, species of animals forever.

It’s sad to think about, this morbid marking of time passing, of the marks we humans leave on the planet, but recent evidence suggests it’s not a novel event at all.

Image Credit: iStock

In fact, the mass extinction of land-dwellers – amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds – cycles around every 27 million years.

The study also found that these events align with major asteroid impacts and volcanic eruptions, which could have encouraged the acceleration of these events, says lead author Michael Rampino, a biology professor at New York University.

“It seems that large-body impacts and the pulses of internal Earth activity that create flood-basalt volcanism may be marching to the same 27-million-year drumbeat as the extinctions, perhaps paced by our orbit in the galaxy.”

66 million years ago, 70% of all species – land and sea – suddenly went extinct in the aftermath of a large asteroid or comet collision.

This study examined the record of mass-extinctions of land-dwelling animals and concluded that they coincided with the extinctions of ocean life as well.

Image Credit: iStock

Until our current mass extinction event, every one previous seems to have happened alongside a catastrophic even like we mentioned earlier, and some events – like comet showers – also appear every 26-30 million years.

The planets also cycle through the Milky Way in the same period of time, the movements creating conditions that would stress and potentially kill off life on Earth due to widespread dark and cold, wildfires, acid rain, and ozone depletion.

Image Credit: Pexels

Those massive volcanic eruptions – flood-basalt eruptions – could also have come into play.

“These new findings of coinciding, sudden mass extinctions on land and in the oceans, and of the common 26- to 27-million-year cycle, lend credence to the idea of periodic global catastrophic events as the triggers for the extinctions.

In fact, three of the mass annihilations of species on land and in the sea are already known to have occurred at the same times as the three largest impacts of the last 250 million years, each capable of causing a global disaster and resulting mass extinctions.”

Ramptino adds,

“The global mass extinctions were apparently caused by the largest cataclysmic impacts and massive volcanism, perhaps sometimes working in concert.”

What do you think about this information? Could an extinction event be coming sooner than we had anticipated based on this new theory?

Let us know your thoughts in the comments!

The post Did You Know That Mass Extinction Events Happen Every 27 Million Years? appeared first on UberFacts.

Posted on

This is Why the Discovery of Water on the Sunlit Moon Is Such a Game-Changer

You’ve probably noticed that whenever scientists find water in outer space, they get super excited about it.

Unless you’re a scientist yourself, or maybe a space enthusiast, you might not know why we’re supposed to be so amazed and excited, too, though – and we just can’t stand for that.

Image Credit: Pexels

NASA has always known there is water on the sunlit side of the moon, but late last year, telescope observations revealed that it exists in more abundance than anyone had thought.

Image Credit: NASA

NASA’s SOFIA (Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy) confirmed that water exists across the lunar surface, not just in cold, shadowed places – even in the Clavius Crater, which is visible from Earth.

Here’s a video about how they did it.

There are several theories about how the water got there, including that micrometeorites could have deposited water as they rained down, or that hydrogen carried from the Sun’s solar winds interacts with oxygen in the moon’s soil to create the water, but discussions are ongoing.

Another mystery scientists are looking to solve is how the water accumulates there, and how and where it is stored.

Image Credit: Pixabay

But back to the question at hand – why are scientists so exited?

Along with the obvious thrill of discovery, they’re also looking to figure out whether the existence – and the continued existence – of water across the lunar surface could mean less trouble for astronauts who want to visit (or even for those who might want to stay on a planned lunar base near the South Pole).

As of now, NASA still plans to land in that location, and eventually establish a permanent base where they know water ice exists in nearby craters. The highlands in the area also catch sunlight, which will be essential for the planned solar power collectors.

One of the reasons NASA hasn’t been back to the moon is that, for a long time, the moon was assumed to be dry. That changed when a probe found the water ice at the lunar poles, and then on subsequent missions, confirmed by NASA and other organizations.

Image Credit: Pixabay

Dr. Paul Spudis, who worked on the majority of these robotic missions, was the first to realize what this could mean for additional manned missions to the moon.

There are great resources on the moon, but it’s the water that could enable us to be able to access the rest of them – whether it’s used for drinking, refueling, for crops, or something else, it’s a most precious resource that could be a key to making life beyond Earth possible.

The post This is Why the Discovery of Water on the Sunlit Moon Is Such a Game-Changer appeared first on UberFacts.

Posted on

People Debate if Nuclear Energy Is the Best Option for the Good of the Environment

Whenever the word “nuclear” is mentioned, some people seem to get nervous because of the negative connotation it has.

But maybe nuclear energy is the ideal component we need moving forward when it comes to concerns about the environment?

I really don’t know much of anything about this subject, so I’m gonna leave it to the folks on AskReddit to debate this one for me.

Let’s take a look at what they had to say about it.

1. Here’s a hot take.

“The amount of long term waste with solar and wind is undeniably higher than with nuclear energy. Nuclear power plants in America that are not on fault lines are safe and are designed to be impossible to melt down (really).

A decentralized power system will always be more expensive than a centralized one, and we have the ability to make our grid carbon neutral in a matter of years. What are the downsides?

Why are politicians ignoring this obvious option. I’m not even talking fusion, just fission.”

2. Fear mongering.

“Of course people don’t talk about it, they hear the word nuclear and they think of Hiroshima, Chernobyl, Nagasaki.

The idea of nuclear energy has been pushed to be something feared.”

3. Fired up.

“This gets me f*cking mad.

Chernobyl was an incredibly outdated reactor already at the time it exploded, there was a human and structural mistake and were talking about a time when you were allowed to smoke inside f*cking hospitals, let’s be honest it would never happen again.

And Fukushima just makes me laugh cause it was literally caused by a freaking tsunami.”

4. Perceived as dangerous.

“You can compare it with air traffic: Aeroplanes are statistically the safest method of traveling, but when something goes wrong there are hundreds of dead people, so we perceive it as dangerous, altough it is actually the safest way of travelling.

The same goes for nuclear energy: It is the safest and most efficient way to produce energy, even when you include (very rare) terrible cases such as Chernobyl and Fukushima.”

5. The best option.

“It’s all about energy capacity per acre of land. I heard a Ted Talk and the scientist was saying that to have the UK use only solar, it would require about 1/3 of the land to be covered in solar cells.

Plus, the solar system installed in the Mojave Desert which impact the Desert Tortoise habitat. Wind farms actually ensnare bats, birds, etc. Both however, only work on small portions of land (where the sun shines or the wind blows), but even these power sources are subject to mother nature.

Nuclear on the other hand is incredibly energy dense per acre. If we had invested in nuclear years ago, we would be on generation 250. Also, nuclear energy only produces steam. And finally, we have the land use available to store nuclear energy should we finally get a national plan on how to deal with it.

Again, it’s what options do you have today to solve climate change – warts and all?

Nuclear is the best.”

6. Fission and fusion.

“People are too afraid that a nuclear bomb will go off or something, which can’t possibly happen at a power plant.

Fission and fusion are the only renewables energy types we should even bother pursuing.”

7. Those politicians…

“The 1980s scared people away, once the majority of people who remember those times are dead, nuclear will be easier to push.

Nuclear being bad was the truth for them, people don’t like when you questions something they’ve fundamentally believed for decades, they will just push the discussion away.

Politicians ain’t discussing nuclear because they know this.”

8. Some good info.

“Nuclear plants in their traditional forms have numerous technical issues that can end up prematurely shuttering the plant. Graphic cracking for example.

There’s no denying that nuclear energy is great for base load generation normally provided by thermal fossil fuel generators but the cost of building nukes in their most updated and safe hi-tech forms is enormous compared to adding renewable capacity and using hydro storage or battery with renewables!

Obviously not every energy system is the same but in modern economies by the time FF thermal generation shifts off we could engineer completely renewable systems!”

9. Stigmatized.

“Chernobyl kinda put a stick in it. However it was because of faulty construction.

Nuclear energy provides constant, clean and efficient energy. If you want green energy, go Nuclear.

Today’s process is much safer with more knowledge and understanding in past mistakes. It is the best way to go forward. It’s because of either misinformation, fear and the general media/public view on it.”

10. We need new options.

“Yes nuclear has it’s benefits and fission is simple enough that I understood it when I was 10. And safety management is done very well, using the same principles as with aviation.

But the downsides to the rare but certain f*ck ups are so serious that they change nations and the planet. And we still don’t know the long term effects of all the strontium and other fall out chemicals we all carry around in us, along with every other mammal.

Are you are aware that our governments lied their rectums off about this, ruining lives and careers? And still are? That doesn’t necessarily negate the possibility but reasonable people hesitate in the face of interest-groups-fueled government f*ckery.

Your statement about centralized vs decentralized power systems is bold.

And the long term waste – what are you talking about? And the energy involved in the entirety of each cycle (and hence, the total cost) … are you are aware of how they compare?

Ultimately we need new and better nuclear power options in general and the ultimate aim is to get to a position of having endless energy available that is cheaper than water. Development depends on it. And the trick will be creating power cycles that remove the additional carbon and other compounds from the system over time.”

11. Not the way forward.

“The future of the energy industry is not nuclear.

I’ve spent my career so far building and running electricity companies, and there are a few simple facts that have become apparent:

In modern, deregulated electricity industries, off-grid low voltage generation (think household solar panels) is rapidly reaching cost/performance parity with on-grid power. Investment in storage-based supply in batteries (as opposed to peak generation such as fossil fuel) is f*cking massive – renewables and batteries are projected to take 80% of the $15.1 trillion forecast investment in new power generation.

We will reach a tipping point in about 2035 where transporting electricity (colossal steel pylons and cables across countries) is more expensive than generating it and storing it close to the consumer What this means: Tomorrow’s electricity grids are distributed, made of many small nodes of generation and consumption, and not made of giant power plants with long inefficient transmission lines.

Today’s solar and wind plants can be spun up to utility scale in under a year. A nuclear plant has historically taken over 8 years to build and cost massive up-front capital. Nuclear plants are also designed to have operating lifetimes of 60+ years. Investing in nuclear is not only making a bet that nuclear will stay at the top of the price/kWh curve, but also that it will be there in a decade’s time and then stay there for half a century.

What this means: Nuclear is not only a losing bet based on current economic forecasts, but it’s an absolutely colossal bet that ties you down for 70 years whether you win or lose.

Pro-nuclear research is tainted by pro-nuclear lobbies and governments. Schrader-Frechette found that the majority of research that has pro-nuclear conclusions is funded by parties with conflicts of interest.

Fossil fuels are dying anyway (never fast enough, sadly), so the true question is not if we go renewable but which renewable to take, and it seems we can’t take for granted that pro-nuclear attitudes are based in unbiased critical thought. What this means: It may not even be true that nuclear energy is a good option – nevermind the best option – if we cannot trust the research.

Now, this sucks for me. I’m a huge physics fanboy, and thorium reactors and fission are absolutely my favourite ideas for future energy production. I’m attracted to space-age nuclear ideals at a very emotional level – I know how it feels – but the facts just aren’t panning out that way.

In the end, it’s not true that politicians are ignoring the “obvious” nuclear option. This is a very serious issue that very, very many of the worlds smartest are working on, and the sensible option is already the one we’re taking.

Turns out scientists are largely pretty good at what they do. Who’d have thought?”

12. Fearful of nuclear.

“The fossil feul industry obviously has a vested interest to keep people fearful of nuclear. They’ll spend lots of money on add campaigns covered with nuclear bomb explosions and zero facts.

I read recently that nuclear deaths per year is even less than some other green energies, wind iirc and that has to be a wake up call for those that are fearful. As for fossil fuel, its a no contest in comparison.

Fossil fuel has powerful lobbies, powerful corps and the republican party receives about 90% of their donations or something.”

What do you think about this?

Is nuclear energy the way to go for the good of our environment?

Talk to us in the comments and share your thoughts. Thanks!

The post People Debate if Nuclear Energy Is the Best Option for the Good of the Environment appeared first on UberFacts.

Posted on

Nokia Won a NASA Contract for a 4G Network Based… on the Moon!

You actually read that headline right! Science is just getting weirder and weirder.

We’re one step closer to actually making the Star Wars universe a reality, since Nokia is about to put a 4G network on the Moon. Soon enough, there will be literally no excuse for any cell service to be bad.

Image Credit: Deseret

In NASA’s fifth Tipping Point solicitation, Nokia was awarded a $14.1 million contract to deploy an LTE/4G communication system on the Moon.

This would be the first ever lunar-based network of its kind. The system would assist Moon-based communications at greater speeds, further distances, and more reliability. The network will also support the operation of lunar rovers and video streaming. That’s right, soon enough we might be able to see livestreams from the Moon with minimal lag.

The network also means that astronauts in space could soon communicate more efficiently with those of us on Earth.

Don’t let the development mislead you, though. Space is by no means a dead zone. Astronauts have been able to tweet, email, and livestream pretty efficiently from the ISS since 2010.

Researchers have always aimed to keep outer space from feeling like a desolate no man’s land.

Image Credit: Pexels

Truly, the aim of this development is to further support the construction of a lunar base. With Artemis astronauts set to return to the Moon by 2024, Nokia’s network will help them conduct their necessary research with greater scope and accuracy.

Since NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine aims to have a base on the Moon by 2028, astronauts will need to work as efficiently as possible to get the job done.

Image Credit: Pexels

Nokia’s 4G network has the potential to make that happen.

What are your thoughts on this lunar 4G network? Is it inspiring or totally crazy?

Share your thoughts with us in the comments!

The post Nokia Won a NASA Contract for a 4G Network Based… on the Moon! appeared first on UberFacts.

Posted on

After just under a year in space…

After just under a year in space, astronaut Scott Kelly’s gene expression changed significantly and it’s different to his identical twin brother’s DNA. A new NASA statement suggests the physical and mental stresses of Scott Kelly’s year in orbit may have activated hundreds of “space genes” that altered the astronaut’s immune system, bone formation, eyesight […]

The post After just under a year in space… appeared first on Crazy Facts.

Posted on

Learn About Debunking the “Scientists” Who Say There’s a Black Hole in the Center of the Earth

A story like this one just goes to show that academic degrees don’t always mean a whole lot…

13 scientists actually claimed in a published journal that there’s a black hole in the center of the Earth. Basically, it’s close to the most unscientific claim ever.

Though this paper might be a clever hoax, the hypothesis here is still close to crazy. Science can be weird, but surely it’s not supposed to be this weird.

Image Credit: iStock

The essay, “A Black Hole at the Center of Earth Plays the Role of the Biggest System of Telecommunication for Connecting DNAs, Dark DNAs and Molecules of Water on 4+N- Dimensional Manifold,” squeaked by peer review and got published last year in the Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences.

Wait… what?!? First of all, as if that title isn’t a GIGANTIC red flag.

Second, one look at the paper is a deep-dive into some word salad. For example, the abstract reads:

“The earth’s core is the biggest system of telecommunication which exchanges waves with all DNAs and molecules of water.”

From there, the essay goes on to claim that DNA imprints on the Earth’s core created a black hole… Which resides conveniently in the middle of the planet. That idea has naturally given other scientists some pause.

If your jaw is already on the floor, just wait. It gets a whole lot crazier.

What’s even more shocking is the fact that this happens in the academic world pretty often. There’s also a VERY likely chance that this essay is just a regular part of trolling in the science world.

Researchers use this method of “peer-review-tricking” to ensure that journals stay accurate and reputable. They’ll sprinkle blatantly unscientific claims throughout their papers just to make sure readers are paying attention.

Sometimes, it works; other times, it totally backfires.

For instance, take this mind-blowing sentence:

“Each DNA has two parts which one can be seen on the four-dimensional universe, and another one has existed in extra dimensions.

This dark part of DNA called as a dark DNA in an extra dimension.”

Yes, sci-fi language actually made its way into an academic journal. (Note to self, never take anything from that journal seriously. They definitely give a whole new meaning to “open access.”)

Image Credit: iStock

When crazy theories like this one manage to slide by, it shows a serious issue with the peer review system. But hey – it sure beats Flat Earthers!

Well, this paper proves that anything is possible if you just set your mind to it. Then again, it sure helps when you have 13 other people in on the plan with you.

What are some crazy scientific theories you’ve come across?

Share them with us in the comments!

The post Learn About Debunking the “Scientists” Who Say There’s a Black Hole in the Center of the Earth appeared first on UberFacts.

Posted on

This is How to Tell the Difference Between an Asteroid, a Meteorite, and a Comet

I’m not advising that any of us get up close and personal with any of these things. We’ve all seen the movies (so many movies!) and obviously, close encounters with burning hot rock from outer space never goes well for the inhabitants of planet Earth.

That said, wouldn’t you like to sound (even) smarter the next time you engage in a game of Trivial Pursuit, or run into an ex with his new girlfriend?

Of course you would!

So, let’s take a look at the differences between asteroids, meteorites, comets, and for extra fun, meteors, too!

Asteroids

Image Credit: iStock

These rocky objects are smaller than planets, and are left over from the formation of our solar system. Basically, when a cloud of gas and dust collapsed to form our fun, the big chunks of remaining material turned into planets. The smaller fragments of dust are what’s left behind, just floating around waiting to kill us all.

There are millions of known asteroids. the largest, Ceres, is nearly 600 miles wide – big enough to be classified as a dwarf planet, technically. NASA tracks the asteroids that are nearest to Earth (Ceres is not one of them, thank goodness), and plots their trajectories to make sure they’re not coming too close.

Most of them are irregular in shape and sometimes orbit each other and the sun in small groups. Their compositions vary based on how far away they were from the sun when they formed.

The space between Marys and Jupiter is known as the asteroid belt, and that’s where most of them good-sized rocks reside.

Comets

Image Credit: iStock

Comets are also composed of leftover materials, and they formed around the same time as the asteroids. While asteroids formed toward the inner, hotter regions of the solar system, though, comets formed further out – beyond the frost (or snow) lines, where water can freeze.

That means that, instead of being comprised of only rock or other metals solid enough not to melt, comets are formed from frozen gas, rock, ice, and dust. Some scientists call them “dirty snowballs,” and are easily identifiable by their trailing jets of gas and dust that melt away as they fly too close to the sun.

Meteors

Image Credit: iStock

A meteor is an asteroid that is vaporized when it hits Earth’s atmosphere.

We sometimes see the glowing hot air left behind, and call them “shooting stars.”

We also see meteor showers, when more than one enters our atmosphere at the same time.

Meteorites

Image Credit: iStock

Meteorites are what survives the dive through the atmosphere to land on Earth’s surface.

They’re usually made from iron or stone, a mix of oxygen, silicon, magnesium, iron, and a smattering of other elements.

Studying these fragments has helped us understand the age and formation of our solar system, and how and when Earth came into existence.

Well, now you know!

This information will come in handy one day, I just know it!

The post This is How to Tell the Difference Between an Asteroid, a Meteorite, and a Comet appeared first on UberFacts.