Posted on 07/03/2002 9:03:47 AM PDT by RightWhale
It is. The Hubble Deep Field image of galaxies is just about all the imagination can handle. Kind of puts a different scale to our problems on earth.
Yes, what is the estimate of time until the last star has burn out? 100 billion years?
Why do you say that? I'm sure if they have life it will be very different from life on earth, probably at a fundamental level. But no mild seasons? That's mostly a function of distance and inclination of the orbit, surely some of them will be in the sweet spot. Until recently I thought that there would be lots of earthlike worlds, but with the recent knowledge of how the earth moon system was formed, and knowing that having a large moon may have helped or made possible the developement of life on earth, I've become somewhat less optimistic. If ET is anywhere nearby, within say 50 light years, we should be hearing them, and we are not. Still hope springs eternal.
At the present state of the art, they couldn't detect and earthlike world if it was there. Too small and too close to the star. Too close to resolve from the (rather brighter) star, and too small to have enough effect on the motion of the star to detect.
It is logically possible to believe both (or is it all three). God could very well have created everything by using evolution as His tool. He, after all, created the universe with it's physical laws, laws which probably allow for the possibility of life and evolution.
(RightWhale)"... Add all the zeros you want. It's still zero."
The debate between you two can logically go no further.
I have to agree with RightWhale on scientific priciple: Until we see reproducible results -- that there are other planets like Earth that could sustain life -- the size of the sample only serves to prove that chances of actually finding reproducible results are increasingly negative.
Chile, you do understand the difference between a 'Universe' and a 'Galaxy', correct? ;)
On the contrary having any moon, especially a large one like ours, is a big plus. It gives you somewhere close to aim for. Then when you know you can do it, you can think about going farther. An airless world even has some advantages as a staging point for further explorations. The jury is still out on Europa, (IO is a sulpherous ball, heated by tidal friction resembling nothing so much as hell).
On the contrary having any moon, especially a large one like ours, is a big plus. It gives you somewhere close to aim for. Then when you know you can do it, you can think about going farther. An airless world even has some advantages as a staging point for further explorations. The jury is still out on Europa, (IO is a sulpherous ball, heated by tidal friction resembling nothing so much as hell).
Their assessment comes after the discovery of the 100th exoplanet - a planet that circles a star other than our own. The latest find is a gas giant, just like all the other exoplanets so far detected, and orbits a Sun-like star 293 light-years away.
It appears in the discovery of 100 exoplanetary gas-giants, Astronomers have mastered the ability to talk out of their asses.
100 exoplanets, not a one is rocky like Earth, and the feel they can estimate billions?
Woe to science. This is Dark Age hokey-pokey.
Instead of calculating how many other Earth's there are, they should be scratching their heads trying to figure out how THIS ONE ever got here. It's too perfect. Everything has to work out just right. The odds of another planet that harbors intellignet life in this galaxy is just about zero. Multiply those odds by 100 billion and it is still about zero. With 100 billion galaxies in the universe, the odds that there is another Earth are still just about zero.
The Earth itself is a miracle. If it is the result of chance, it beat incredible odds, even with 100 billion galaxies in the universe.
But they can, if the large planets they have found fit some model of planet formation. You could then use that model to estimate the number of earth sized and even earthlike if you define that as being in the "water zone" of the primary and of roughtly earth size. Of course some of those will be Venus like, which is about the same size as earth, but trapped in a runaway greenhouse hell. Maybe all of them, except those with large moons, like our own. But your model should help you estimate what fraction of the earth sized planets in the "life zone" would have large moons. I don't think all that was done in this case, but it could be.
'Tantalus'
Our situation is anything but perfect, but I am still happy about it anyway.
But at least we won't be worrying about fallig off the edge of the solar system. :) No we can't just sail to distant stars, but at least to ones not too far away, we can at least envision the technology to enable us to get there. Lots of different technologies in fact. Bussard ramjet is my favorite, but there are many others. Generation ships if we must, but I suspect before doing something like that, we'd send probes first, which would also take generations to get there. Speed of light is the only real limitation set by physics, but it's a big one given the size of the galaxy, let alone the universe.
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.