Some may even have the necessary elements to support life.
https://astronomynow.com/2017/02/22/watch-nasas-exoplanet-announcement/
They are so close to each other, that a person standing the surface of any of them can see the other planets not as we see the other planets in our solar system (as points of light), but rather as we see our moon.
two words: quantum mechanics
Umm, a light year measures distance, not time. Each Light year is roughly 6 trillion miles.
Light Years to Earth Years! - ( New Window )
That's not a conversion, it's a comparison. The distance light travels in one year is equal to the distance the earth travels in its orbit in roughly 10K years. Yes, we can measure those orbits in units of time, but since a light year is a measure of distance and not time, it's still a comparison and not an actual conversion, like say converting days to years.
Personally, when I think of things like light years and cosmic distances it's hard to not get dizzy. Light travels a little over 186,000 miles per second. Per second. At the equator the Earth has a circumference of about 25,000 miles. So light could circle the Earth roughly 7 times per second. That's 240 million trips around the planet in one earth year. I've seen several articles about Proxima Centauri, the closest star to our solar system, as being "only 4 light years away". That's 24 TRILLION miles. Talk about feeling like a speck of dust in the universe, like I said, I find it to be absolutely dizzying.
There's a realistic possibility that this system could support several NFL franchises in the next 5 years.
-Roger Goodell
Given those numbers, alien life is inevitable and might be common.... Except for one strong possibility...life self-destructs at a certain point in its evolution, be it by bombs or pollution...and that law is universal and immutable.
Our planet is a little over 70% water, which may or may not seem significant. But the oceans, seas, and mighty lakes are crucial to sustaining our lives. The water acts as a climate control mechanism (a natural thermostat if you will) keeping it cool enough to survive during the daytime as well as warm enough during nighttime for natural plant growth. If earth's waters were 10% smaller or bigger we would either freeze to death or live in a desert where the temperature averaged 150F degrees. The swings from night to day would be so overwhelming nothing could grow.
Additionally, the life sustaining rains would dry up if we had 10% less water and would be living in humidity, constant rain, and daily flooding if there was 10% more water. The biodiversity of our planet allowing plant growth as well as life sustaining carbon so that we can breathe is a very delicate and complex balance. So complex that most people cannot fathom it or simply don't care and don't bother to study. Just because a planet is a certain size and a certain distance from a star does NOT automatically mean that it can sustain life as we know it.
Read an article about this solar system yesterday speculating that these planets are close enough together that you could see geographical features from one to the other.
Imagine if there were life on both that spent centuries peering out at one another until they developed the technology to communicate?
The star Trappsit-1 is an ultra cool dwarf star. These are a sub class of red dwarfs, which are themselves very cool. Red dwarfs make up 70-85% of the stars in the Milky Way. (The sun is a yellow dwarf.)
The furthermost of these seven planets orbits the star in about twenty days. All seven are close to the star than Mercury is to the sun. Planets that close to a sun are usually "tidally locked," meaning that only one side faces the sun. Ultra cool and red dwarf stars are also prone to extreme dimming and flares that can strip away atmospheres.
From the Wikipedia entry for Trappist-1:
"An XMM-Newton X-ray study shows that the Earth-sized planets in the habitable zone of the star are subject to sufficient X-ray and extreme ultraviolet (EUV/XUV) irradiation to significantly alter their primary and perhaps secondary atmospheres."
"All seven planets are likely to be tidally synchronized (or possibly but less likely trapped in a higher-order spin-orbit resonance), making alien life less likely but "not an insurmountable obstacle"."
"Tidally locked planets likely have very large differences in temperature between their permanently lit day sides and their permanently dark night sides, which could produce very strong winds circling the planets, while making the best places for life close to the mild twilight regions between the two sides. Another important consideration is that red dwarf stars are subject to frequent, intense flares that are likely to have stripped away the atmospheres of any planets in such close orbits."
Trappist-1
Habitability of red dwarf systems
Quote:
out there? Or am I getting ahead of myself
There's a realistic possibility that this system could support several NFL franchises in the next 5 years.
-Roger Goodell
LOL.
Personally, while I think it is an almost certainty that there is some kind of life somewhere else in the universe and very, very likely there is some kind of life even somewhere else in the Milky Way galaxy, I'm becoming increasingly pessimistic that there is intelligent life relatively close (within say 500 light years) to our Solar System.
With one data point (i.e. the Earth), it is very hard to know how "special" the conditions present on the Earth really are. All the exoplanets being discovered has answered the question about how common planets are around other stars, how likely rocky planet in a "Goldie Locks Zone" are etc. (i.e. very common).
The stability of the orbits of the planets in the Solar System, the stabilizing effects of the Moon, the stabilizing effects of microbial life are all only beginning to be understood. The effects of the "right amount of water" mentioned earlier in this thread are another factor.
Again, while I think we may find evidence of microbial life beyond the Earth (maybe even in the Solar System) within the next couple of decades, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that it will be long time before we see evidence of intelligent life beyond the Earth.
Personally, while I think it is an almost certainty that there is some kind of life somewhere else in the universe and very, very likely there is some kind of life even somewhere else in the Milky Way galaxy, I'm becoming increasingly pessimistic that there is intelligent life relatively close (within say 500 light years) to our Solar System.
With one data point (i.e. the Earth), it is very hard to know how "special" the conditions present on the Earth really are. All the exoplanets being discovered has answered the question about how common planets are around other stars, how likely rocky planet in a "Goldie Locks Zone" are etc. (i.e. very common).
The stability of the orbits of the planets in the Solar System, the stabilizing effects of the Moon, the stabilizing effects of microbial life are all only beginning to be understood. The effects of the "right amount of water" mentioned earlier in this thread are another factor.
Again, while I think we may find evidence of microbial life beyond the Earth (maybe even in the Solar System) within the next couple of decades, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that it will be long time before we see evidence of intelligent life beyond the Earth.
The crazy thing is that there are places on the earth that are thought be uninhabitable by living organisms, but somehow mother nature has allowed organisms the ability to adapt and live in the harshest of environments. How do we know that the same can't be said of other environments on other planets?
Our planet is a little over 70% water, which may or may not seem significant. But the oceans, seas, and mighty lakes are crucial to sustaining our lives. The water acts as a climate control mechanism (a natural thermostat if you will) keeping it cool enough to survive during the daytime as well as warm enough during nighttime for natural plant growth. If earth's waters were 10% smaller or bigger we would either freeze to death or live in a desert where the temperature averaged 150F degrees. The swings from night to day would be so overwhelming nothing could grow.
Additionally, the life sustaining rains would dry up if we had 10% less water and would be living in humidity, constant rain, and daily flooding if there was 10% more water. The biodiversity of our planet allowing plant growth as well as life sustaining carbon so that we can breathe is a very delicate and complex balance. So complex that most people cannot fathom it or simply don't care and don't bother to study. Just because a planet is a certain size and a certain distance from a star does NOT automatically mean that it can sustain life as we know it.
Excellent points, let's also throw in the presence of our Moon, keeping all the water in balance.
The distance of our moon to earth is just right in order to control the tides and ocean currents so that earth's waters do not lie dormant nor is so strong as to cause unstable flooding on a daily basis. It also maintains earth's speed of rotation with its gravitational pull.
It gets pretty freaky if you really grasp how incredibly perfect everything has to be. The complex atmosphere that absorbs most of the gamma ray bombardment from outer space. The steady rotation of earth (which is slowing by the way, but only like a half a second every ten years) that will eventually come to a halt - probably long after the sun burns out so the point is moot.
Then consider the orbit of earth around the sun. Like a rubber band holding a ball being whipped around a giant fireball, except there is no rubber band, but rather the gravitational pull from the sun that decides the orbiting bodies. And of course, keep in mind the sun is 1.3 million times bigger than earth - think a BB next to a beach ball. And the sun is erratic and unpredictable. Our orbit around the sun differs each time it goes around as it is not on some kind of physical track to force it into an exact path each time. Throw in sun flares, fluctuating magnetic fields, varying gravitational pull, the effects of other heavenly bodies in our solar system and basically - it can blow your mind.
So, what do you call the absence of chaos, or, what do you call a mindful effort at organization, or what do you call something that is impossible without a plan, within a reality that lacks all life?
So, what do you call the absence of chaos, or, what do you call a mindful effort at organization, or what do you call something that is impossible without a plan, within a reality that lacks all life?
This is the concept behind "intelligent design" or "ID" as called in science circles and is a subject of great (and oftentimes heated) debate. It's based on mathematics and probability. Basically, the premise is that the probability of random chance designing a perfectly working anything is too remote to calculate. Prior to the idea of ID, some people called it the "Blind Watchmaker" concept. Another analogy has been the chances of a tornado ripping through a junkyard and leaving behind a working fighter jet.
In statistics, a number can be affixed to any cause and effect analysis as the premise starts with nothing is impossible and anything is possible in the theoretical world. If you are familiar with the Gaussian distribution curve ("bell curve"), the tails of the "bell" never touch the base line as it accounts for the possibility of any instance. For instance, the distribution of height among all human males would have a mean around 5'8". In a normal distribution of +/- 3 sigma (standard deviations) that would include 97.3% of all possible data. The more standard deviations one uses, the greater percentage of data that the curve would include. But because the tail of the distribution curve is endless and never touches the base line, it assumes there is no impossible scenario in which 100% of all data can fit under the curve. So a number can be affixed to the probability that a man actually exists who is 200 feet tall (or for that matter, a man who is 200 miles tall) because in numbers, probability, and theory must be available to explain things.
This is where scientific notation comes into a helpful way to define outrageous numbers. Well dittos for calculating the chances of chaos manufacturing a perfectly working complex mechanism. Hence, people see that the chances of chaos developing life in perfection and all that we see around us can be given a number and that with an infinite number of time and chances, it seems possible or plausible. Mathematicians with a thorough grasp on statistics and probability are the ones that promote the idea that there has to be intelligence behind perfectly made life. In most cases, they will immediately state this doesn't mean there is a God, but there is some kind of intelligence guiding the mechanism of life.
And that's the short answer!
There is no telling what other kinds of conditions may seem utterly inhospitable to us that could support other forms of life.
Some reading on the erroneous logical of intelligent design below:
"Hoyle's Fallacy" - ( New Window )
''
So, its semantics maybe, one persons beardy dude in flowing white robes is anothers undefinable intelligence/guide.
I loved that tornado analogy.
I guess, if the chance of life is very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very, very, very, very slim, than the universe had better be very,very,very,very,very,very,very,very, very, very, very...very, very, very, VERY great.
So, the seeming proliferation of solar systems, planets near stars, whatever you call them, must be encouraging.
My analogy was that with a 30th century telescope we may see some green dude in action, waving up at the sky, but due to the distance, even with the high speed of light, he and his people have actually been dead and gone for a quinta - bazillion years before we even existed, even though we see him waving in 'real time', since that is how far away he might be.
I am on the fence on that, since, the 'guide' could arise from all that just as easily as the fighter jet.
There is no telling what other kinds of conditions may seem utterly inhospitable to us that could support other forms of life.
Some reading on the erroneous logical of intelligent design below: "Hoyle's Fallacy" - ( New Window )
Like I said, there are heated debates on this. Some very notable scientists including 8 Nobel Laureates in Physics or Physiology and Medicine adhere to the theory of Intelligent Design. Others like world renown atheist and philosopher Dr. Antony Flew converted to a deist because he mathematically understood the groundwork for chaos creating masterpieces, etc. These guys are not "fools". Dr. Brian Josephson, Dr. Raymond Vahan Damadian (developed the MRI at MIT), Nobel Prize winner and long time UC Berkeley professor Dr. Charles Townes, etc., all have adhered to ID.
The problem with the debate is so many people (some of the most intelligent on earth) enter into the discussion with a pre-bent belief system and are immediately defensive and insulted to discover someone of equal intelligence completely disagrees with them. Egos among the intelligentsia are very fragile and when offended, can write endless refutations and sometimes scathing rebukes to hold onto that ego that's been rattled.
Hence, many laymen can cite any number of "experts" to back a foregone position on the subject. To simply state, "Intelligent Design is hokum" is simply an opinion, not a fact even though one can take to the internet and find articles from intelligent people to source as proof. There's many equally intelligent people who have a polar opposite opinion on the matter, but neither does that constitute "proof" either. Takes a real wise and intelligent person to enter a debate with an open mind.
But that argument has no logic. If it were hotter, we just wouldn't exist. Same with cooler. Something else might. Or it might not.
On the megascale of the cosmos with the trillions of planets around trillions of stars, the likelihood that one or more of those planets would have conditions conducive to life is not really surprising. It is actually harder to believe that life would not arise.
The conditions of our local solar system, and this planet in particular, ARE amazingly well tuned to the existence of life... or rather, the opposite is true. Life, over the course of billions of years of random mutation and natural selection, is well tuned to the conditions that exist.
Millions of years ago the composition of our atmosphere was very different and different types of life flourished.
The planet has gone through heating and cooling cycles, with various forms of life being more or less dominant during those periods of time.
Another thing to consider is that there have been multiple mass extinctions throughout the history of the planet. The evolution of life to all its many varied present forms was not a linear path progressing inerringly from simple to complex.
If there was some intelligence behind evolution, why all the dead end paths and mass extinctions, why the presence of malignant mutations like the various congenital deformities?
Further, what makes the theory of intelligent design more likely than the alternative? There is no evidence of intelligence guiding the natural processes of the universe, but supporters of the theory argue that because we can't explain everything right now at this point in history, we should assume some invisible and unknowable intelligence is guiding it all to work.
In past eras, people ascribed all kinds of totally explainable in the modern world natural processes to the willful actions of supernatural entities. If the crops failed, it was because somebody didn't pray hard enough, not because of blight. If the volcano might erupt, you better huck a virgin in there to keep it mellow.
Intelligent design is the same thing. I am not trying to insult anyone's intelligence or beliefs, but just trying to show how the theory does not hold up in the face of logic.
Those who boast of "scientific consensus" are bringing yet another anecdotal angle to support their own personal beliefs, yet that is meaningless. Ptolemy's geocentric view of the universe was the consensus of nearly every scientist for hundreds of years and even further embraced when modified by Tycho Brahe. Nicolaus Copernicus was considered a heretic for believing that the earth orbited the sun and not the other way around as Ptolemy had taught. Galileo further muddied the waters by embracing Copernicus' view and was so controversial that he was tried and found "vehemently suspect of heresy", and forced to recant before going to prison.
The reason for our existence has plagued mankind since man was able to ponder beyond what to eat next. Any research with a predetermined outcome or with a predisposition to prove their personal bent should be and is suspect IMMO. There are very few scientists in the world who actually take all the facts available and then try to unravel the world's greatest mystery without personal bias. And that's a real problem with research on the subject. People wish to prove what they already believe...and that is not pure scientific research.
2) Just because smart people believe something that lacks evidence, this does not mean it is not hokum.
3) The OP was about actual science and discovery so I have no idea why it's derailed into this nonsense. If you want to believe it, good for you. But don't drag this actual science into the area of creationist hocus pocus.
It is true sometimes scientists change their minds about certain topics, but that is the strength of the scientific method, it is endlessly self correcting as better data becomes available.
You claim that the argument for intelligent design is a mathematical or statistical one. That is just not true. There is no mathematical proof to show the existence of a creator figure, if there was the debate would be settled. Mathematics are able to be demonstrated and repeated by any number of mathematicians to derive a consensus.
The evidence you point to is the sheer improbability of all of the various conditions existing to create life as we know it, and then from that improbability you make a large leap of faith to posit that the improbability is evidence of a creator figure.
If you choose to believe that, it is your right to do so. But to make claims that there is some sort ot mathematical, statistical, scientific basis to intellieny design is absolute falsehood.
Odd that people get their panties in a bunch when they discover that mathematically, some things are not probable without outside manipulation. If someone told you the probability of buying one Power Ball Ticket (using the random number generator at the sales desk) for every drawing for 10 years straight, and that you would win every single drawing held for 10 years straight, you'd probably agree that it's "improbable" unless someone was manipulating the game behind the scenes. Same basic idea. But apply the same logic to the probability of nothing becoming something of great complexity that can feel emotion, think, design great things, love, hate, compete against each other and suddenly some people start yelling, "nonsense, hokum, not science, etc." or whatever it is that makes them feel secure in their own skin and belief system.
ID simply says it is mathematically improbable for nothing to create itself into something that happens to be the most incredibly complex system imaginable. If you have mathematical models that conclude it is probable, you should put together a White Paper and submit it to Cornell where they have routinely allowed (and even pursued) the discussion of ID among their professors and students. You'll be really famous in a very short period of time once you show your work and why it is probable.
Life existed on this planet before photosynthesis created the Great Oxygenation event mass extinction. It only took 2 billion years to basically change the underlying concepts of life. So why can't alien life evolve to adapt to seemingly impossible situations? And if that's the case, aren't we limiting ourselves by looking for life only in potentially habitable zones? Maybe some aliens live on Mercury with heat resistant skin and eat dried lava for sustenance.
Such an interesting topic.
Link - ( New Window )
ID is the same thing, let's insert God in here somewhere because otherwise things are too mind boggling.
But, like some clan from a small island, looking for people with like culture, that had practical reasons in an ancient world, they required a frame of reference, in a future universe, we will seek carbon and water based life forms that are within our area of understanding as those would appear be much more useful to us.
Even lifeless rocky planets that have similar gravity, magnetic fields, temperature, etc. etc. etc., would seem to be more useful to us than gas giants etc.
But, regarding I.D. vs not:
The junkyard analogy vs the infinite junkyard analogy, the tornado vs the permanent everlasting in time tornado, and improbability vs probability seem to be where the debate lies, as opposed to within absolutes....for now.
But again, it may be just as likely for 'the universes +' to randomly give rise to a [creator] as it would be for the junkyard + tornado to randomly give rise to a [functioning fighter jet], so why not?
So, an argument FOR the creator may come right from the anti - I.D. people.
Ha.
'given the massive unfathomable extent of the 'universe' and the never ending quality of 'time' that even mathematically impossible or exceedingly, exceedingly improbable things (such as life) can come to exist without a 'guiding force.' '
Therefore:
- it is also -equally possible- then, that also given the never ending universe and permanent quality of time, that the creator or 'guiding force' can also come to exist simply due to random chance.
its just as likely
But, like some clan from a small island, looking for people with like culture, that had practical reasons in an ancient world, they required a frame of reference, in a future universe, we will seek carbon and water based life forms that are within our area of understanding as those would appear be much more useful to us.
Even lifeless rocky planets that have similar gravity, magnetic fields, temperature, etc. etc. etc., would seem to be more useful to us than gas giants etc.
But, regarding I.D. vs not:
The junkyard analogy vs the infinite junkyard analogy, the tornado vs the permanent everlasting in time tornado, and improbability vs probability seem to be where the debate lies, as opposed to within absolutes....for now.
But again, it may be just as likely for 'the universes +' to randomly give rise to a [creator] as it would be for the junkyard + tornado to randomly give rise to a [functioning fighter jet], so why not?
So, an argument FOR the creator may come right from the anti - I.D. people.
Ha.
Wrong. By definition, a creator precedes the creation. How do you figure random mutation and natural selection played out over billions of years gives rise to a creator, after the fact of creation?
With regard to your friend above arguing I should publish a white paper if I can prove a creator does not exist... you can't prove ANYTHING does not exist. That is why the burden of proof lies solely on the claimant. By that logic, why don't you prove to me that there is not a million dollar bill tree in existence somewhere in this world?
You guys are tossing around scientific concepts and buzzwords with no connection to what they actually mean, and with no intellectual honesty or rigor behind your analysis of why there must be an invisible sky wizard guiding evolution.
Again, if you want to believe that, go ahead. I want to believe I have a twelve inch dick and am 6'5", but I do not subvert the concepts of logic, science, and reality to convince others of it.
''Wrong. By definition, a creator precedes the creation.''
(so says who? you cannot have it both ways, you cannot say a god does not exist and also subscribe to a cultural notion of what god IS)
How do you figure random mutation and natural selection played out over billions of years gives rise to a creator, after the fact of creation?
(I said nothing of the sort, I said what you said, or what the anti- ID people say: that given the permanence of time and the never ending breadth of the universe, ...shit happens)
(nobody mentioned natural selection at all either way, but certainly, there is plenty of room for all the science within also having a creator, that's a no brainer, this is not 1870 and I a not a hick preacher)
''With regard to your friend above.... ''
(dont know the guy, seems nice enough)
''You guys are tossing around scientific concepts and buzzwords with no connection to what they actually mean,''
(aha, we discovered your true gift, irony)
and with no intellectual honesty or rigor behind your analysis of why there must be an invisible sky wizard guiding evolution.
(why don't you say what you REALLY think then, alrighty now)
Again, if you want to believe that, go ahead. I want to believe I have a twelve inch dick and am 6'5", but I do not subvert the concepts of logic, science, and reality to convince others of it.
(9" would do nicely for me, hmf)
something gigantic and unmeasurable, which happens to be the best argument AGAINST ID; (the infinite number of random chances to get things lined up and infinite space to do it in), ..
with
something terribly small and human-centric (however true, and as much as you want me to dispute evolution, I won't, its real and nobody even mentioned it, its not even part of the discussion typically) .
which is a terribly linear, self referential and small minded way to look at the infinite universe
Whereas I am not at all disputing evolution, I am neither restricting the discourse to it as we know it:
obviously, as clearly stated in the anti-ID theme, the universe is easily capable of anything.
The whole anti ID thing RESTS on that broader view.