Anyone see that article in the Irish Independent on Friday?

Tar.Aldarion

o1s1n wrote:

See, it's this "luck" that bothers me. Not only are we alive to witness this, our planet is just far enough/close enough from the sun so that we wont all be frazzled or freeze. Our axis just happens to be tilted at 23.5 degrees to give us seasons. I could think of many more such instances of luck but my brain is quite knackered at the moment to be honest. They could all have been formed by natural occurances, granted. But all of them together on one planet is a little odd.
I'm not saying it was a creator, I just think we have a frighteningly large amount of "luck"!

Why do you think life has to exactly like it is on Earth?
It could be silicon based, so where we would fry, others could live. If there was no water, ammonia could be a substitute. Life does not even require light. It's not that this planet happened to have everything we need exactly, it is that we evolved on this planet to use everything that is on it, carbon based, water being the solvent in which biochemical reactions take place.
Life is not a lot more than any self-replicating reaction, which could arise in a great many conditions and with various ingredients.
Look at the stars in the sky, thousands, billions, now know that 1 in 3 of those planets you see has planets surrounding it, I don't think it is so improbable as to be hard to believe that life exists outside of earth.


As of dec 06 there have only been 209 planets found out of our solar system, that's all. This has been found already
http://planet.iap.fr/OB05390.news.html
There are about 400 billion stars in our galaxy alone, multiply that by an estimated 125 billion galaxies in the universe. Now imagine how many planets there is in the universe. Now, we have only discovered about 200, and already one not too disimilar to Earth. although, I doubt it could support life.
I think that other life could be lucky too.

robindch

> That chess analogy should be used much much more often - it's certainly
> the first time I've ever heard it, and it's a brilliantly simple summary.

I've posted it a couple of times before, at least on the creation thread, so it must have sunk beneath the waves of foaming two-cent crud which slosh about there!

The chess analogy belongs, I believe, to Richard Feynman and there's a documentary from 1982, or thereabouts, in which he brings it up. The explanation begins at 27m20s in this video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6586235597476141009

BTW, any suggestions as to why google's serving up a link to "Sexy Women humping a dryer" as the next best match to Feynman?

Zillah

I love this forum. Its one of the few forums where by the end of a controvertial thread I no longer need to laboriously explain to everyone why they're wrong

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

BTW, any suggestions as to why google's serving up a link to "Sexy Women humping a dryer" as the next best match to Feynman?

Because its (still kinda) Christmas....?

[sound of wicknight unzipping]

Dades

o1s1n wrote:

How could you possibly work that out without knowing all the different variables which are needed for a planet to spawn life?

I'm inclined to agree. But if you haven't before, have a read about the Drake Equation. Very speculative but thought-provoking nonetheless.

robindch wrote:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6586235597476141009

BTW, any suggestions as to why google's serving up a link to "Sexy Women humping a dryer" as the next best match to Feynman?

Dammit I've only time to watch one of those videos.
Is that a Zanussi?

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

I'm inclined to agree. But if you haven't before, have a read about the Drake Equation. Very speculative but thought-provoking nonetheless.

That's what I based the calculations on - the short form of the Drake Equation, which contains the less speculative bits. As the planet-hunting search gets into swing, a lot of the terms in that part of the equation are firming up - it's the bits dealing with lifespans of civilisations etc that are complete guesswork.

I can't find the post, which is a shame, because it was a bit of a tour de force of back-of-the-envelope-in-the-pub calculation, if I do say so myself.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

As the planet-hunting search gets into swing

That reminds me. What are they using to find planets these days? Last I heard the two methods were the sun wobble caused by orbiting planets (needs big assed Jupiter type planets) and minor drop in star brightness at regular intervals as a planet intervenes between us and it, again, needs big ass planets and a very lucky orbit.

This is going on half remembered documentaries from years ago, I assume theres better methods employed now?

Zombrex

Zillah wrote:

That reminds me. What are they using to find planets these days?

Dolphins last I heard .....

Oh yeah, and this thing

http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/news/corotMission.cfm

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

That reminds me. What are they using to find planets these days? Last I heard the two methods were the sun wobble caused by orbiting planets (needs big assed Jupiter type planets) and minor drop in star brightness at regular intervals as a planet intervenes between us and it, again, needs big ass planets and a very lucky orbit.

This is going on half remembered documentaries from years ago, I assume theres better methods employed now?

Same basic techniques, I think, with better sensitivity. They reckon on being able to detect Earth-sized planets for some stars.


cordially,
Scofflaw