Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Home Alone In The Universe?
First Things ^ | March 2002 | Fred Heeren

Posted on 04/19/2002 6:07:56 AM PDT by Exnihilo

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last
Another long but excellent piece from First Things.
1 posted on 04/19/2002 6:07:56 AM PDT by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Too long to read right now, but there is no life on other planets.
2 posted on 04/19/2002 6:16:02 AM PDT by biblewonk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Good article...we are the first and the proving ground...
3 posted on 04/19/2002 6:25:26 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Very enjoyable read. Thanks for posting it.
4 posted on 04/19/2002 6:47:04 AM PDT by Seeking the truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
At the very least, by this time we were supposed to be doing manned missions to Jupiter’s moons.

How could we, when the focus is on subsidizing the poor and increasing their numbers so as to insure a 'rat voter group?

5 posted on 04/19/2002 6:56:21 AM PDT by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimt
LOL! Good point.
6 posted on 04/19/2002 7:51:11 AM PDT by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: radioastronomer
Hey, RA thought you might find this thread of interest.

For anyone that's interested here's a way to help with the research: Seti @ home

7 posted on 04/19/2002 8:04:58 AM PDT by ASA Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Humans will come to learn that consciousness is the most powerful force in the universe and is an integral part of existence...

In fact, consciousness is SO important that...

All of existence is meaningless without consciousness in it...

It is consciousness that gives everything meaning and value...

8 posted on 04/19/2002 8:14:02 AM PDT by Ferris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
"It seems to me a sort of hubris to think that God made the universe just for us," said cosmologist George Smoot.

I would suggest that God didn't make the universe for us. God made the universe for God -- for God's own purposes. To acknowledge that we somehow advance those purposes by our existence, and are even necessary for that process, doesn't sound like hubris to me.

9 posted on 04/19/2002 8:56:33 AM PDT by Maceman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ferris
It is consciousness that gives everything meaning and value...

Consciousness gives us the oppty to look for or assign meaning to things, indeed, but I think that death (the fact that all of us at one time didn't exist, and at some time in the future will again cease to exist) also gives everything meaning and value. I think that few immortals would ever ask "why am i here? what does life mean"?

10 posted on 04/19/2002 9:03:12 AM PDT by in_troth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: in_troth
An immortal human would be destined for madness.
11 posted on 04/19/2002 11:25:09 AM PDT by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: Exnihilo
The Moon’s mass creates a stabilizing anchor for the Earth, preventing the Earth from undue attraction to the Sun or to Jupiter, which would cause the Earth to tilt too far on its spin axis.

Venus has no moon and Mars has two much smaller ones orbiting a different frequencies yet Venus "tilts" much less and Mars only very slightly more. Back to the drawing board on this one.

Without an extra-large moon orbiting at the right distance from us, scientists predict that Earth would be subject to a runaway greenhouse effect, as on Venus, or a permanent ice age, as Mars would experience if it had more water.

Omits that Venus is much closer to the Sun and Mars much further away, but the probably much more important difference of abundant life which has a dramatic effect on climate. Call it the weak Gaia hypothesis.

Anthropic Principle ... says that the features of the universe are constrained by the need to permit observers like us. The less delicate way to put this is to say that the universe appears to have been finely tuned in its fundamental force strengths, particle mass ratios, etc., for our benefit.

That's not less delicate, it's different and, if the author has actually read the book, the statement is an egregious case of spin (I could have put it less charitably). The latter is a religious statement (which I've heard called the Strong AP). The former (Weak AP) is a simple observation - the nature of the Universe must be compatible with our being here.

Fermi’s Paradox—Back in Style.

Seems like a slam dunk against alien civilizations in our galaxy. With an application of Weak AP you can probably draw another inference - a galaxy may only ever have one civilzation. Suppose "higher" life is quite rare so that it's very unlikely that two will arise in a brief period like that postulated for galactic colonization. Once one civilization is galaxy wide, it may be impossible for another to arise. That seems a likely outcome if humanity does so spread.

If that guess is correct then it's not surprising we don't see any others.

13 posted on 04/19/2002 1:51:16 PM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
How did you reach that conclusion?
14 posted on 04/19/2002 2:12:44 PM PDT by Senator Pardek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa
Venus has no moon and Mars has two much smaller ones orbiting a different frequencies yet Venus "tilts" much less and Mars only very slightly more. Back to the drawing board on this one.

I think this one is actually correct. Here is a good ref describing the stabilizing influence:
http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/teaching/hm/phase/ORIENTATIONOFTHEMOON.htm

The idea is that given mass of the earth, and its distance from the sun, a moon (the size of our moon) is important for obliquity. You want some small variation in energy deposition to the planet (polar vice equatorial) but not too much. Climate (and therefore the chances for multicellular life) then depends in a complicated way on the tilt. Mars & Venus show strong evidence of catastrophic (for life, anyways) changes in obliquity in the past because of a lack of a sizeable moon.
15 posted on 04/19/2002 2:23:53 PM PDT by NukeMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
Too long to read right now, but there is no life on other planets.

Whether we are unique in being granted life doesn't negate God's love for us.
16 posted on 04/19/2002 2:38:00 PM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
.....but there is no life on other planets.

At time I have my doubts as to existance of intelligent life on this planet ;-)

17 posted on 04/19/2002 2:59:15 PM PDT by varon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Today the Drake Equation is being superseded by the Rare Earth Equation, as it was named by geologist Peter Ward and astronomer Donald Brownlee

Their book, "Rare Earth," C 2000, published by Springer-Verlag / Copernicus, is right here on my shelf if anyone wants to borrow it. It's still pretty current, although at the rate new data arrives, it will begin getting stale soon enough. I was pleased to see the book be published since it represented a break in the growing trend to believe in extraterrestrials.

Fermi's Paradox: If there are extraterrestrials, where are they?

It looks like we are alone. Usually things are as they appear to be.

18 posted on 04/19/2002 3:07:53 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

To: NukeMan
Thanks, but there's no explanation of how the moon stabilizes the Earth's tilt. Perhaps it's too complicated. But curious that Venus and Mars happen to not be extraordinarily tilted just at this time. Just more randomness I guess.

BTW, your reference has an interesting proposal that the Moon may once have been a mere 20K from the Earth. By my calculation that corresponds to an orbital period of about 0.35 days. Obviously then the tides would have been much larger (the Moon being so much closer) but also would have gone "backward" relative to how they go today. (IOW they would propogate around the Earth faster than the Earth's rotation.) My intuition is that in that circumstance the Moon would have been attracted toward the Earth by tidal friction - the opposite effect of today with the Moon eventually crashing into the Earth. I'd conclude that, unless the Earth's day was very much shorter than today's, the Moon was never so close.

20 posted on 04/19/2002 6:18:11 PM PDT by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-32 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson