earth 2.0

[Ghenghis Kahn]

[Snowball]

The claims of NASA that are sensationalized in the popular media are nothing but suppositionary, assumptive untruths intentionally presented in a manipulative manner. It is not logically valid to extrapolate the evidence they have of "planets" in the Kepler belt and launch media campaigns purporting that they have discovered new Earth-like planets. In truth, they know absolutely nothing about the objects. They have not even seen the objects. If the objects exist at all, the only verifiable characteristic is that a reduction in the nearby star's light has been observed which suggests, according to their mathematical models, that an object is present within a "habitable zone" which they have outlined according to their limited understanding of that star's power.
Yet, it is possible that this interference is not caused by any object, but is a property of the star itself. Still, even if there is an object, they have not seen it and cannot verify any of the object's properties, such as mass or composition. For example, Venus lies within the sun's "habitable zone" but is not habitable. Presentations such as this video are intentionally misleading to the public, and makes us wonder why they are so desperate to lie about their accomplishments.

[brooks85]

The claims of NASA that are sensationalized in the popular media are nothing but suppositionary, assumptive untruths intentionally presented in a manipulative manner. It is not logically valid to extrapolate the evidence they have of "planets" in the Kepler belt and launch media campaigns purporting that they have discovered new Earth-like planets. In truth, they know absolutely nothing about the objects. They have not even seen the objects. If the objects exist at all, the only verifiable characteristic is that a reduction in the nearby star's light has been observed which suggests, according to their mathematical models, that an object is present within a "habitable zone" which they have outlined according to their limited understanding of that star's power.
Yet, it is possible that this interference is not caused by any object, but is a property of the star itself. Still, even if there is an object, they have not seen it and cannot verify any of the object's properties, such as mass or composition. For example, Venus lies within the sun's "habitable zone" but is not habitable. Presentations such as this video are intentionally misleading to the public, and makes us wonder why they are so desperate to lie about their accomplishments.

don't speak on subjects you have no business speaking on.

[survive]

There are 100 earth-like planets for every grain of sand in the world. Still pretty interesting stuff

[Ghenghis Kahn]

the universe is infinite. to think that there aren't other earth like planets or other life forms is being close-minded however you interpret nasa's claims.

[brooks85]

Recently MSU did a simulation and said there might be a whole order of magnitude difference between how many galaxies were predicted compared to their estimates. Even if they are right, still a plenty of galaxies out there.

http://io9.com/there-may-be-nowhere-near-the-number-of-galaxies-we-tho-1715476292

[Ghenghis Kahn]

so instead of the universe being infinitely infinite, it's just infinite. still bigger than we can ever fathom though.

[sourtwist]

The concept is one in which our minds cannot comprehend, nor will the truths known ever be told to the simple man.

-sourtwist

[ACoochy]

So much more out there other than us humans...

[Ghenghis Kahn]

but good thing those earth like planets are far far away so that us humans can't destroy them...