Earth-like planets may be more rare than thought

Nature Magazine ^ | 30 July 2004 | Philip Ball

[webstersII]

"There are BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of galaxies"

Didn't you steal that line from Sagan?

"Billyons and Billyons!

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Who has a cousin in Russia named Ivanna Beer.

Yes, but she never gets into trouble though. Because her big, burly brother is Pütdownda Beer

[Doctor Stochastic]

...I believe that the more complex a thing is, the more reasonable it is to believe that it was designed...

Why. Complexity theory indicates the opposite. Randomly formed objects are far and away the most complex.

[RUCKUS INC.]

I think a better question is why wouldn't complexity lean more toward design? You'd never walk up to a pyramid and say it was the result of time and chance, but you look at soemething as complex as the universe and say that it happened randomly? I don't get that. Please explain.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Pyramids are less complex than The Universe. Thus they are less likely to be generated by chance. (Roughly speaking.)

[RUCKUS INC.]

That makes no sense whatsoever and I think you know that. Tornado in a Junkyard

[webstersII]

"Pyramids are less complex than The Universe. Thus they are less likely to be generated by chance. (Roughly speaking.)"

You're working backward from the answer.

[Pres Raygun]

As I stated earlier; there is at least one data point for life in the Galaxy/Universe. Us! Even if all life is confined to these sparse regions of the galaxy, there could be huge numbers of life producing planets. And that is just in our galaxy alone.

They fall out side the life zone and/or are not the correct size to sustain an atmosphere. We are just beginning to explore our own neighborhood.

This is the point of Rare Earth. The idea behind the Drake equation properly applied, means that the habitable zones of galaxies, combined with the number of stable stars, with gas giant in circular orbits, combined with the number of solar systems with rocky planets with the right atmosphere and the correct distance from their star, plus dozens of other factors necessary for advanced life forms, whittles away at the billions and billions of stars, until it becomes improbable that there are other inhabitable planets let alone ones with advanced life.

For the record, I do not believe there are life bearing planets out there; however, I do suspect there are.

I'm not sure I understand what you were trying to say with that statement.

[Rock N Jones]

The question was whether the Bible said anything about other planets within the universe. I quoted Genesis 1. That's all.

[RightWingAtheist]

The simpler an object or system is, the more likely it was designed precisely because it is far easier to do so, and allows for greater precision. Pyramids are one of the simplest shapes, and, although found in nature (as are cubes), spheres are the only perfect shape with regularly turns up (and even then, you regularly have perfect spheres). Greater complexity means greater randomness, and the more complex a system or structure, the more likely randomness played a factor in its generation. If I'm wrong, Doc Stoch will correct me; as his name will tell you, he's an expert on these matters.

The universe isn't as neat and tidy as the anthropists would have us believe. Sure there are laws you can't break or bend, but they still allow for a lot, and serendipity is very much a part of the cosmos.

[RUCKUS INC.]

Wow! That is a heck of an unsubstantiated assumption. The more complex something is, the more random it is? So a Chevy Nova is mroe random than bicycle?

[gitmo]

Earth-like planets may be more rare than thought

Even then, the wobble is detectable only for giant planets, which are those about as big as Jupiter, the bloated ball of gas in our Solar System. It is not possible at present to detect planets as small as the Earth.

Doesn't this last sentence invalidate the premise of the article?

[RightWingAtheist]

A Chevy Nova may seem complex to mechanically disinclined, but compared to what goes on inside the human body, underneath the Earth's mantle, or the interior of a star, it's about as complex as Alec Baldwin.

[RUCKUS INC.]

I wasn't arguing for the complexity of the Chevy Nova, I was argue that under your definition a Chevy Nova is more random than a Bicycle. That makes no sense.

[cookcounty]

"We could be alone in the Universe after all."

There goes that Nature rag again, trying to ruin the "facts" that have already been decided on by the Science Gods.

[RightWhale]

The important thing is that by signing the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty, the US and all other signatories have asserted sovereignty over the entire universe, but also have agreed to not develop anything in outer space unless one or more withdraw from the treaty. Withdrawal will take one year.

[longshadow]

He responded that I didn't know what I was talking about and that the planets' orbits were "wildly elliptical."

More specifically, he asserted that you "didn't know beans" about it, which was pretty funny coming from a guy who thought that a circle wasn't an ellipse, that infrared light caused sunburn, and that 1⁷²⁰ was a really, really big number.

[null and void]

The question was whether the Bible said anything about other planets within the universe. I quoted Genesis 1. That's all.

*sigh* I'm trying very hard to make a simple point. Genesis 1 says "And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth" in other words, that the sun, moon and stars are there to provide the earth with light.

Do you agree with this statement or not???

(Yes, it's a trick question - Do you have enough faith in what you claim to believe to support a single sentence in your Faith's Holiest Work?)

"Now I know what you're thinking, did he ask six questions or five?

Being that this is the most powerful question in the universe, and can blow your soul clear to Hell, you gotta ask yourself the question:

Do I feel faithful?

Well, do ya? Punk?"

Just answer cuz "I gots ta know"...

[null and void]

Having owned one, I'd have to say yes...