July 30, 2004
OUR GEOCENTRIC UNIVERSE:
Earth-like planets may be more rare than thought: In cosmic terms, our solar system could be special after all. (Philip Ball, 7/26/04, Nature)
We could be alone in the Universe after all. The discovery during the past decade of over a hundred planets around other stars has encouraged many scientists to think that habitable planets like ours might be common. But a recent study tells them to think again.Martin Beer of the University of Leicester, UK, and co-workers argue that our Solar System may be highly unusual, compared with the planetary systems of other stars. In a preprint published on Arxiv1, they point out that the alien planets we have seen so far could have been formed by a completely different process from the one that formed ours. If that is so, says Beer, "there won't necessarily be lots of other Earths up there".
Science will be the death of Scientism. Posted by Orrin Judd at July 30, 2004 2:56 PM
Color me "unimpressed".
Before we actually found any extra-solar planets, some people speculated that there were none to be found.
Our galaxy contains between 300 - 400 billion stars, and there are at least 125 billion galaxies, (possibly as many as 500 billion), containing between 10 billion and 1 trillion stars each.
My guess is that Earth-like worlds are a dime a dozen.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at July 30, 2004 6:12 PMThe problem with things like the Drake equation is that most of the factors can't even be estmated properly. So the people who use it tend to pick a single number that gives the best possible solution. Better would be to give a range, or an error factor, and include that in the calcuations. When that's done, you find that an answer approaching zero worlds is just as likely as there being "billions and billions" of worlds. The zero says, in effect, yes, we are unique, but any equation that gives that sort of range of answers is useless.
>Yet we're the point of it all.
How much of that is legit and how much because we just don't know of any others? (Personally, I subscribe to the "Rare Earths" hypothesis, but with only one known data point (Earth), we really can't draw a curve for all cases in the known universe.)
However, Christians can now jump all over this news and gloat.
Posted by: Ken at July 30, 2004 6:26 PMKen:
That one observation becomes significant in light of the Fermi Paradox.
From what we do know of the dynamics of planetary formation (a bit), the Earth's moon is a freakish concidence in at least two ways - it's relatively enormous, and currently is almost precisely the same apparent size as the.
Posted by: mike earl at July 30, 2004 8:30 PMKen:
Some Christians (notably C.S. Lewis) think there are other planets out there.
Posted by: jim hamlen at July 30, 2004 9:05 PMGen 1:31 And God saw all that He had made, and found it very good. Gen Rabah 9:2 This stament implies a comparison. From this, we may infer that God had created [and destroyed] previous worlds to which He could compare this one.
And his Grace cannot be constrained: Ex 33:19 I . . . will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.
Historical uniqueness is not a Jewish theological problem.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 30, 2004 9:43 PMRobert:
That makes no sense to me. I looked at my son and thought he was good. He was the first.
Posted by: oj at July 30, 2004 9:49 PMOJ You had seen other Human beings such as your self and Nicole Kidman.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 30, 2004 11:50 PMSo you're saying that nothing can be Good in absolute terms, only comparatively? God could only judge goodness if he'd seen badness? No, more than that, you're saying it would have to have been bad stuff He'd Created? That's nonsense.
Posted by: oj at July 30, 2004 11:59 PMThe question is asked: "Where are they?"
1) SF amd warp drive to the contrary not with standing, A. Einstein says: "They can't get here from there, even if there is a there."
2) If Al is wrong, and I personally hope he is, they may subscribe to the "Prime Directive" or don't think we are worth the trouble.
What makes us think we are able to detect folks who routinely circumvent the 'Laws of Physics' according to Einstein?
Back on topic, if the article is 'true', where is the hub of the universe? Boston? Rome?
Posted by: Uncle Bill at July 31, 2004 10:06 AMMan
Posted by: oj at July 31, 2004 10:13 AMNo new data, just new theorizing. Whatever opinion you held about this yesterday -- me, none at all -- there is no reason to have changed it today.
Orrin at least has taken the first step toward science. He has stated a testable premise.
Now he's a a hostage to fortune. He's hung an elaborate hypothesis on the evidence of no other Earthlike planets.
You're livin' dangerously, Orrin.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 31, 2004 2:49 PM"... there are at least 125 billion galaxies, (possibly as many as 500 billion), containing between 10 billion and 1 trillion stars each."
It would seem either galaxies are the point of it all. Far more of them than all the humans that have ever lived.
I think we are an accident in a universe created for something else altogether.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at August 1, 2004 9:12 AMThe galazies don't know they were Created.
Posted by: oj at August 1, 2004 9:27 AMSo?
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at August 1, 2004 1:21 PMOrrin, if it does turn out that there's another planet, even just one, with intelligent, self-conscious beings who have some notion of morality, then all your exclusivist theorizing collapses. Unless, I suppose, it turns out to have its own Eve, Serpent, apple, Messiah and all?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at August 2, 2004 1:01 AM