• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

Homeward bound

Four times in the last few years, scientists have announced finding planets orbiting other stars in the "sweet spot habitable zone" -- not too hot, not too cold -- where water and perhaps life are possible. Sooner rather than later, it is speculated, there will be discovered a "lukewarm planet with a size making it probably Earthlike." This brings up the usual cautionary notes:

Microbes can spring up anywhere that is wet and warm, astronomers say, although biologists are not so sanguine. But the emergence of large creatures, let alone intelligent ones, as evidenced by the history of the Earth, depends on a chain of events and accidents — from asteroid strikes to plate tectonics — that are unlikely to be repeated anytime soon. “If you reran Earth's history, how many times would you get animals?” asked Donald Brownlee, an astronomer at the University of Washington. He and a colleague, the paleontologist Peter Ward, made a case that we live on a lucky planet in their 1999 book, “Rare Earth.”

Single-cell life might be common, given the right simple conditions, explained Dr. Marcy in an e-mail. “But the steady, long-term evolution toward critters that play improv saxophone, write alliteration poems, and build heavy-lifting rocket boosters may depend on a prohibitive list of planetary prerequisites,” he added.

A rather Earthocentric view, so to speak. We think life might be improbable elsewhere because we know only about life here. And if a series of "unlikely accidents" happened in one place, it can't happen (perhaps in a slightly different way) on one of the vast number of planets out there? I'm afraid I'm an incurable romantic when it comes to life elsewhere in the universe. The alternative is too depressing. And before you bring in the religious angle, the idea that an omnipotent God with all of eternity and infinity to play with would be satisfied with this one tiny little lab experiment is even more depressing.

Posted in: Science

Comments

littlejohn
Mon, 12/05/2011 - 6:49pm

I agree. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and only one species capable of any technology more advanced than stripping leaves off a twig has evolved. Life - of some sort - may be likely under favorable circumstances, but a critter that can build, say, a radio, seems improbable.

Harl Delos
Tue, 12/06/2011 - 6:52am

The development of one intelligent species would tend to preclude the development of other intelligent species.

With a radius 40% greater than ours, gravity is going to be about 14 times ours. Bodies like ours wouldn't be possible; all our muscles and organs would be mushy. Anything 5-6 feet tall would need to be supported by an exoskeleton - and no tissue could be very far from the exoskeleton.

I'm not sure what the geometrical limitations would do to the development of intelligence. I think we'll find something out there somewhere - but I doubt this will be it.

Bob G.
Tue, 12/06/2011 - 12:59pm

Leo:
So, they found a possible habitable planet far away from Earth?
Sounds like we just SOLVED the prison-overcrowding problem...!
(or a getaway for democrats)

Either way...works for me.
;)

Phil Marx
Tue, 12/06/2011 - 9:05pm

Suppose this planet somehow had a massive inner core of helium, surrounded by only a thin layer of solid matter. That would make its gravitation field far weaker than we might assume from just it's size. And suppose that intelligent life very similar to our own actually did develop there. Two things could be certain then:

1) The beings of that planet would be convinced the fact that their planet was filled with enough helium to give them the exact gravitation for their specific life-form to develop was proof of divine intervention, rather than assumming that the conditions of the planet itself is what set the parameters for their existence.

2) The beings of this planet would now be looking at Earth and proclaiming "There's no way life could exist on such a tiny planet because it's helium core would make the gravitational field too weak to support this."

Harl Delos
Tue, 12/06/2011 - 10:06pm

You have a theory of planet formation that would result in a "shell" planet, Phil? Or one that would place such a planet so close to its sun?

Interesting conjecture, but.... The universe undoubted contains not only wonders more strange than we imagine, but wonders more strange than we can imagine, but I don't think this is likely to be one of them.

The same NASA press release with Kepler 22b says we'll probably find planets within a year that are not only in the habitable zone but are near-twins of Earth. What if they are not only inhabited, but the inhabitants are so similar to us that we can cross-breed? We'll be arguing forever. Does that mean the same designer? Does that mean all life is based on DNA, and evolution means mankind is inevitable? Either argument is quite logical. And perhaps both are true. Science just says how things happen, religion says why.

Phil Marx
Wed, 12/07/2011 - 1:05pm

Harl, I made no such conjecture. I didn't say "This might be the case." I only asked "What if?" Surely, you are not suggesting one should have some type of proof before merely asking a question. That would certainly stifle curiosity.

Regardless, one need know very little about planetary formation or science in general to see that many self-proclaimed experts constantly discover things that they themselves proclaimed were impossible. And when this happens, rather than just saying they were wrong and admitting that what they don't know will probably always be much greater than what they do know, they make some other pompous declaration that incorporates the new discovery into some new (and equally unprovable) all-encompassing theory.

I've always found it interesting how similar this egotistical manner of thinking is to that of people who proclaim themselves to be God's chosen people - especially when the scientific community largely derides the religious for their beliefs. It seems the one constant in humanity is to see oneself as the center of the universe and to have difficulty admitting that there is and always will be much that we just don't know. This is as true for the scientific zealots as it is for the religious ones.

So, as for your conjecture that such a planet is not possible, I would say the burden lies upon you to prove this. Because it seems to me that it wasn't that long ago that the scientific community ruled out the possibility of silicon based life-forms, simply because silicon is incompatible with our carbon based life forms.

I would also add that I find the idea that someone claims to know the surface temperature of a planet that is 600 light years away to be absiolutely ridiculous. There are simply too many unknown factors to determine this. But, as I said, most people (including scientists) seem either unable or unwilling to admit that there is such a thing as the unknown.

Harl Delos
Thu, 12/08/2011 - 12:08am

Phil, you're coming close to a personal attack on me when you refer to "people who proclaim themselves to be God

Phil Marx
Thu, 12/08/2011 - 3:07am

Well, it took me many years to realize that I was not really the center of the universe. But somebody has to be, and I never could figure who it was - until now.

My apologies, your Harlness! :)

Harl Delos
Fri, 12/09/2011 - 7:06am

It's obvious of course. No matter where I go, there I am, and what's more, the horizon moves to follow me.

It must be terribly sad to be someone else. Good thing I'm so humble, because it would be SO easy for me to become conceited.

Quantcast