Posted on 01/07/2002 8:54:10 AM PST by RightWhale
We wouldn't worry unless it sounded like OBL.
Jupiter has protected Earth from too many cataclysmic asteroid collisions, he explained -- but on the other hand, a neighbor much larger that Jupiter would not allow formation of an Earth-like planet in the first place. Similarly, our moon is just the right size to help stabilize Earth's spin axis and, as a consequence, the Earth's climate. With a bigger moon or no moon at all, a planet similar to Earth in other respects might not sustain life.Looks like more evidence for the "anthropic principle."
I disagree. Or rather, I disagree that it's necessarily compelling evidence. It all hinges on qualifications. "a neighbor much larger that Jupiter", he says. Well, "How much larger?" I ask. Can this Jupiter-like planet be 10% larger & still be a net benefit? 1x101 bigger? 1x102 bigger? 1x103 bigger? In astronomy, these numbers are always so big, it's easy to forget that the range between two numbers is often also very big - allowing for many possibilities - even though when that range gets distilled into conversational written English it sounds impressively small. Same thing with the size of the Moon, or with the ratios of subatomic particles & basic physical constants, etc.
The other, more basic problem I have with the Anthropic Principle is that it's a logical error right from the start. As we discover nature's regularities & relationships - how the world works - we naturally ask ourselves "why?". This means, "Why does it work this way instead of all the other ways I can imagine it 'could have' worked?"
The AP argument seems to be a more sophisticated sounding version of that question. But that question is invalid. Every time we study a natural phenomenon & discover why it works the way it does, we simultaneously discover why it could not have worked any other way. We discover the regularities that give rise to the regularities we seek to explain. It literally could not have worked any other way.
Here's an example: You live in a hot climate, & you have never seen what happens to water when it goes below 32oF. I come along & tell you that water changes drastically at 32oF. Now you start to wonder: What could water do at 32oF? You start to list the possibilities:
As your imagination wanders, you go thru all possible combinations of the above "possibilities" & more, and if your imagination is big enough, you can generate an astronomical number of "possibilities" this way.
Then I show you an ice cube. Now, what are the odds that that would happen instead of something else? Well, it all depends on how big your imagination was! So in our example, the odds of it turning out this way were vanishingly small. And yet, as you learn about molecules, molecular bonds, thermal energy, & how light waves interact with molecules of different sizes, you begin to see why almost all of your possibilities were never "possible" in the first place.
Then, your curiosity piqued, you begin to wonder why the H atoms in H2O have to stay at 110o (?) instead of some other angle, etc. etc., & the cycle repeats - until we get to the question of why the charge of an electron is a certain ratio to the size of a graviton (or whatever). IOW, where we are today with AP.
So, IMO the wonder that AP writers express at how "fine tuned" the universe seems to be in order to produce the universe we see is nothing more than a misunderstanding of how the hypothetico-deductive reasoning process works.
(I always wanted to use the term "hypothetico-deductive" someday!)
As for intelligent life, it depends on how hungry they are and/or how cute (as with pets) they think we are!
You may have attended one of those small private colleges. Most State graduates say deducto-hypothetive.
Not really, since it means we won't have anybody else shooting at us when we want to grab some good real estate.
Oh yeah, you are right. In that case....
THE UNIVERSE IS MINE !
I absolutely thrill at reading the thoughts of more intelligent people on FR. It humbles oneself when you start to realize yours truly is in the bottom 5 percentile.
I just needed to share....I promise I won't do it again...I hate that touchy feely stuff.
I for one hope we never encounter a civilization more advanced than we are. If they are at all militaristic and even a few hundred years more advanced than we are -- never mind millions of years more advanced -- we're goners.
I don't know about this rare earth stuff, either, having not read the book . . . But do we really know enough about life to say that advanced forms cannot evolve unless they have an environment just like earth's? I'm skeptical.
I used to think advanced life was probably abundant in the universe, but no more; the failure of the many SETI searches of the last few decades to turn up even one, argues strongly against it, IMHO.
So I'm with you, RW . . . NASA should change the focus from searching for life to exploiting and developing space near earth.
NASA should leave the search for life in the capable hands of RadioAstronomer and his crew. For them it's not a job, it's what they want to do.
Interesting comment, as I do believe that if "other life" is to be found, it might only come from our own planetary expansion.
But then again I live under a rock.
What? The bottom 5% of Mensa? It beats being in Intertel, the qualifications being in the top 1% of Mensa and a signed pledge to use your noodle only for good. There is nobody there to talk to unless you enjoy being looked down the nose at. They don't have conversations. Reversations, inversations, aversations, but not conversations.
When I was ten..I think I tested out at around 120-125.....ten years later I tested at about 110.......now I'm 46....I think I'm in a degrading orbit.
But I got real good English gramma' skills....that really helps pay the bills!!!
I think I read somewhere they use either Unubtanium or Seldomsenium.
Flattery will get you everywhere! :) Thank you for the compliment.
We have just barely scratched the surface. Only recently have we had the computer power and the front-end sensitivity to do it right. I have almost finished my upgrade of our system to look at 30 million channels instead of the paltry 3.1 million we have been so far. Also most searches have been in the "water hole" frequency range, which in MHO is a futile effort. So The project I am currently involved in is looking at about 3 times that frequency.
curious>>
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.