Opinions certainly seem to vary on this topic.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-28 next last
To: VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Physicist; LogicWings; Doctor Stochastic; ..
Science list Ping! This is an elite subset of the Evolution list.
See the list's description in my freeper homepage. Then FReepmail me to be added or dropped.
2 posted on
07/30/2004 11:14:02 AM PDT by
PatrickHenry
(Since 28 Oct 1999, #26,303, over 192 threads posted, and somehow never suspended.)
To: PatrickHenry
To: PatrickHenry
All I know is that if space is infinite then there has to be at least one.
4 posted on
07/30/2004 11:17:07 AM PDT by
Bikers4Bush
(Flood waters rising, heading for more conservative ground. Vote for true conservatives!)
To: PatrickHenry
There was a book written on this very topic a few years back, but the name escapes me at the moment.
5 posted on
07/30/2004 11:17:12 AM PDT by
ECM
To: PatrickHenry
"Even then, the wobble is detectable only for giant planets, which are those about as big as Jupiter.."
So what does this tell them about the existance of earth-sized planets? Zippo.
In all the millions of galaxies, each with millions of stars, its hard to believe that whatever conditions were conducive to the formation of life here did not also occur elsewhere.
6 posted on
07/30/2004 11:17:37 AM PDT by
ZULU
To: PatrickHenry
Creationist arguments aside, its hard to say really if another Earth could develop somewhere.
8 posted on
07/30/2004 11:18:29 AM PDT by
RockinRight
(Liberalism IS the status quo)
To: PatrickHenry
I wonder if Martin beer is any relation to the great german astronomer Wilhelm Beer.
9 posted on
07/30/2004 11:18:49 AM PDT by
RightWingAtheist
(<A HREF=http://www.michaelmoore.com>stupid blob</A>)
To: PatrickHenry
110 out of BILLIONs of stars in one galaxy alone and they are already throwing in the towel? Sheesh... we just got started!
Do these knotheads never stop to think that there may be as many different processes for planet formation as there are dust clouds coalescing into stellar nebula? That each may be radically different from the next depending on the ratio and composition of elements contained therein?
That just because one person uses Nestle and I use Hersey's that the end result couldn't still be one darn tasty chocolate chip cookie?
Don't they teach logic any more?
10 posted on
07/30/2004 11:20:13 AM PDT by
Dead Corpse
(For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
To: PatrickHenry
Big News, the longer we study the Universe the more it invariably points to a Creator who designed this little "happenstance" called Earth.
12 posted on
07/30/2004 11:23:56 AM PDT by
RUCKUS INC.
("Wow, what a crapweasel." - Frank_Discussion)
To: PatrickHenry
There are 110 of these extrasolar planets, at the latest count, and they are all between about a tenth and ten times as massive as Jupiter. Most of them are, however, much closer to their sun than Jupiter is to ours Why is this surprising? If we're using gravitational anomolies to detect planets, of course it's going to be easier to find large planets that are close to their sun, because the effects of gravity are much greater.
To: PatrickHenry; AAABEST; Mycroft Holmes
Drake equation ping. I always go back and forth on this ....
26 posted on
07/30/2004 11:56:30 AM PDT by
fooman
(Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
To: PatrickHenry
When there are billions of stars in each galaxy, and billions of galaxies, it's kinda hard to believe we're unique.
28 posted on
07/30/2004 12:00:27 PM PDT by
jimt
To: PatrickHenry
To: PatrickHenry
They suggest that other planets were not formed by the same kind of process that produced our Solar System, so they might not have smaller, habitable companions. We've been over all this time and again on FR. Current detection methods select a highly specific (and probably highly unusual) sample which tells us little about Earth-like (or even Jupiter-like) worlds.
The idea that these close binary brown dwarf systems formed differently from our solar system in no way supports the title of this article, even if the idea is perfectly correct.
To: PatrickHenry
I know as much about this as any non-specialist. Rare Earth makes as good an argument as the SETI proponents. One significant difference: the negative case is falsifiable (just find some ETs or an Earthlike extra-solar planet). The positive case can be continued literally forever: "They are there, we just haven't found them yet." It is worth some effort to find out, but anyone who claims to have the answer now is frankly full of crap.
36 posted on
07/30/2004 12:07:16 PM PDT by
atomic conspiracy
(A few words for the media: Julius Streicher, follow his path, share his fate.)
To: PatrickHenry
They also tend to have more elongated orbits than those of Jupiter and the Earth, both of which orbit the Sun on almost circular paths. I thought our planets' orbits were "wildly elliptical."
39 posted on
07/30/2004 12:10:38 PM PDT by
Junior
(FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
To: PatrickHenry
Planets ten times as massive as Jupiter, those are some big-ass planets.
41 posted on
07/30/2004 12:11:20 PM PDT by
jpl
("Go balloons, go ballons! Confetti, confetti, where's the confetti?" - Don Mischer)
To: PatrickHenry
HMMPH! Bodes well for the rest of the galaxy, then...
To: PatrickHenry
Wow, 6 posts before the hijacking attempts.
53 posted on
07/30/2004 12:35:14 PM PDT by
ASA Vet
(Tourette's syndrome is just a $&#$*!% excuse for poor *%$#** language skills.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-28 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson