Replies

I think that a more careful analysis suggests why this means that Earth Planets are even more rare than previously thought.

First, most scientists accept that "binary" star systems (or - any arrangement where 2 or more stars rotate around each other) are not likely to have any conditions necessary to support life. The constantly changing gravitational stresses would probably prevent the formation of any planet that could support life, and if a planet existed - the constant upheavals, earthquakets, etc. would be catastrophic. [Oh, By The Way ... 70% of the stars are not "by themselves" ... and are in binary or higher configurations.]

Again, most scientists agree that the center of a galaxy, where 20 - 30% of the stars are in much higher density, the radiation levels are very high, and would not be conducive to life.

And most scientists agree that stars on the very outer reaches of a galaxy probably lack the "super nova" remnants that provide the heavy elements that are found on the Earth (elements with an atomic number greater 56 (Fe - iron). What would happen if a small earth sized planet formed but there was nothing heavier than iron??

So the first 3 suppositions remove possibly 95% of the stars from being considered as possibly supporting life.

The latest analysis considers the way planets form. The analysis suggests that perhaps a more normal way for planets to form is not the way our planets formed around our Sun. Suppose that 80% of the time, the method of planet formation is what we see elsewhere (large gas giants, closer to a star). .. and that method would not be conducive to creating a small planet that would be habitable to life ... This means that once again, we are removing additional stars from consideration where life might form.

Mike

There is also the "moon factor" which impacts the earths tilt and also provides other benefits of which I can't recall.

However, even adding all these all conditions, considering the vast number of stars out there, there has got to be a certain percentage of them which have planets capable of sustaining life. But as you and the article imply, that number may be small on a percentage basis.

And then there are alternate dimensions.

Not replying to any particular posts (yours just happened to be luck of the draw), but the entire thread (and attendant article) seem to assume life as we know it. That's a mighty big assumption, especially for the science-minded.

After reading all the numbers bandied about, the millions and billions, it's probably a safe assumption (!) that these are numbers on the low side.

Now, as a firm believer in the Creator, and all the powers bestowed upon all that is in his Creation, I find it more than a bit absurd that, except for us, the entire Universe (not to mention the possibility of Multiverses) is little more than a toxic dumping ground for all the efforts of said creation.

And even if this were true, if we are the pinnacle of development of these creation efforts, why does the Universe continue (and continuously) create? To what point, for what purpose, is the Universe continuously expanding? If it turns out we're the best the Creator can come up with, why is this being done, especially on such a massive scale?

Doesn't life, as the most potent and most permanent aspect of creation, seek to express itself wherever it can do so, regardless of the environment in which it finds itself? Life being such a force as it is, wouldn't it find ways to adapt to and develop in said environment, and thus allow itself to revel further and more fully in grateful and joyous thanks to the Creator? In all the powers of Creation, is this the only test tube where such expression can manifest itself?

I have my own ideas on these things, but whether you are Creationist or Scientist, Believer or non-Believer, the numbers game alone does not auger well for the argument that We Are Alone.

Anxiously awaiting all flames!

CA....

Of course, in order for the earth to be the only planet that has life, you have to eliminating 99% of all stars is insufficient. If you assume that the milky way has ~10^8 stars and that there are maybe 10^8 other galaxies out there, then there are 10^16 stars to be considered. If you eliminate 99% of them that leaves 10^14 planets which still could contain life. You'd have to eliminate 99.99999999999999% of the stars. So far, nobody has given convincing evidence for elimination of that high a percentage of stars. Life may not be very common, but it doesn't have to be common for there to be other life besides that on earth.