The Goldilocks zone???

maninasia

Seems like I'm not the only one who thinks like this, from the wiki article above.


Criticism

• The concept of a habitable zone is criticized by Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen in their book Evolving the Alien, for two reasons: the first is that the hypothesis assumes alien life has the same requirements as terrestrial life; the second is that, even assuming this, other circumstances may result in suitable planets outside the "habitable zone". For instance, Jupiter's moon Europa is thought to have a subsurface ocean with an environment similar to the deep oceans of Earth. The existence of extremophiles (such as the tardigrades) on Earth makes life on Europa seem more plausible, despite the fact that Europa is not in the presumed CHZ. Astronomer Carl Sagan believed that life was also possible on the gas giants, such as Jupiter itself. A discovery of any form of life in such an environment would expose these hypothetical restrictions as too conservative. Life can evolve to tolerate extreme conditions when the relevant selection pressures dictate, and thus it is not necessary for them to be "just right".[28]

• Differing levels of volcanic activity, lunar effects, planetary mass, and even radioactive decay may affect the radiation and heat levels acting on a planet to modify conditions supporting life. And while it is likely that Earth life could adapt to an environment like Europa's, it is far less likely for life to develop there in the first place, or to move there and adapt without advanced technology. Therefore, a planet that has moved away from a habitable zone is more likely to have life than one that has moved into it.[29]

maninasia

I have since discovered this fact that I was not aware of previously.

Look at this picture- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Titan_cutaway.svg

I think too much emphasis is put on bodies of liquid water at the surface. The emphasis should be on bodies of liquid water, period. After all the ocean is supposed to be where life got started or at least was first predominant. How much of the life lives on the surface of the ocean. Bacteria can exist happily from the surface right down to the sea floor and then far below the sea floor.


Read the wiki here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(moon)

Cú Giobach

maninasia wrote: »

I think too much emphasis is put on bodies of liquid water at the surface. The emphasis should be on bodies of liquid water, period. After all the ocean is supposed to be where life got started or at least was first predominant. How much of the life lives on the surface of the ocean. Bacteria can exist happily from the surface right down to the sea floor and then far below the sea floor.

Just a quick question,
What does the fact that life is probably abundant in water under the surface of icy moons/planets or under the surface of rocky ones and maybe floating in the atmospheres of gassy ones or even free floating in space got to do with the search for a spot that could be called Earth like (think the savannas of Africa or the Rainforests or even your own back garden)??
"Earth like" just means a huge variety of life living on the surface of a planet, all the quotes you gave were dubunking an argument nobody is giving, you practically acknowledged this in an earlier post, then go off on one again.
Looking for a place similar to your own home is quite a natural thing to do and it's quite understandable that this is something we are looking for.
There would only be a problem if that was the only thing we were searching for but since it isn't (by a long shot), what on earth is the problem??

maninasia

My problem is the terminology first of all. Goldilocks zone is interchangeable for habitable zone (habitable zone supposedly being the grown-up scientific term for this), habitable zone means the zone that life could inhabit and then that means they mean areas that need liquid water on a planet but not only that it means the distance from the sun within a rather narrow range, when much of Earth life (i.e. bacteria/archaea) could survive off Earth outside the supposed habitable zone..basically the idea behind it is incorrect if you understand anything about microbes or evolution or the history of the Earth.

Second of all the Earth has a wide range of habitats and life on earth survives in liquid water even when frozen on top, it also survives on land and the subsurface, life even survives and prospers in frozen ice (algae/microbes/some crustaceans). What part of earth do we choose to be earth-like (answer you say large bodies of liquid water on surface but then you might miss Mars even though it could have life under the surface).

Third conditions on earth have changed tremendously over the years, what 'earth-like' period are we talking about? Now, snowball earth, earth before the oxygen catastrophe, the jurassic, before plants evolved, when?


I was okay about leaving this alone but when I found Goldilocks zone is interchangeable for habitable zone (and habitable zone is the supposed scientific term for it) that set me off again

Cu Giobach..are you forgetting something? Huge amounts of earth-life (as per your definition with all the national geographic favourites we know and love, not my definition by the way) live UNDER THE SURFACE of the ocean. We have just as much chance of finding earth-like life (at least as per your marine NGC special) on a moon than on a planet. My point being that if liquid water is the concern the goldilocks zone strict definition as in the distance from the sun is ignorant. Now as there are people familiar with astronomy here that is a massive gaping hole in this theory as there are more moons with liquid water than planets in our solar system and those moons aren't even in the 'goldilocks zone' meanwhile Mars is the Goldilocks zone and it is frozen solid.

Cú Giobach

maninasia wrote: »

Cu Giobach..are you forgetting something? Huge amounts of earth-life (as per your definition with all the national geographic favourites we know and love, not my definition by the way) live UNDER THE SURFACE of the ocean. We have just as much chance of finding earth-like life (at least as per your marine NGC special) on a moon than on a planet. My point being that if liquid water is the concern the goldilocks zone strict definition as in the distance from the sun is ignorant.

I am not forgetting anything :rolleyes: and I defined nothing, I asked you a question, What is wrong with searching for planets where liquid water can be stable on the surface of a planet??
The search for planets with this characteristic is not THE search for life, but the search for a certain(ish) kind of "ecosystem" .
Of course the zone where this is possible depends on many variables from the size/mass of the star and planets, the thickness of an atmosphere etc....consequently it is a very lose term, but it is a handy guide. ie close as Mercury....too hot, far as Jupiter....too cold.
The problem here is you seem to be assuming (that is the impression you are giving) everyone who comments on this zone hasn't a clue about what is out there, and this is quite simply wrong.
You are going on about the likes of Europa etc and this has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.
Go outside, stand on a hill in the countryside and look around, that is the kind of environment that is being talked about, where would you yourself look for this kind of environment? Not on an icy moon I hope.

Now as there are people familiar with astronomy here that is a massive gaping hole in this theory as there are more moons with liquid water than planets in our solar system and those moons aren't even in the 'goldilocks zone' meanwhile Mars is the Goldilocks zone and it is frozen solid.

Since the term "goldilocks zone" is referring to liquid water on the SURFACE of a body, I will ask you, what the hell does the fact that there is a huge amount of subsurface water on bodies around the solar system got to do with anything??
You are just going on about where life in general could be found and totally ignoring the point again and again.

The terms Habitable and Goldilocks zones in this context are not strict scientific terms and are only roughly referring to a certain kind of area.

Johnmb

maninasia wrote: »

My problem is the terminology first of all.

I think this sums up your position nicely. You don't understand the terminology, and it is either going over your head or you are just too stubborn to pay attention when others have tried to explain it to you, and show you where your errors are. But ultimately, it is your problem. Everyone who would be using the concept, or following those that do, understands the terminology just fine. And it makes perfect sense for what it is. Are there other areas to look in for life? Yes, obviously. Based on the samples we actually have now (i.e. Earth), the Habitual zone concept makes sense, if you have to narrow down your search area, then narrow it down to something as similar as possible to the only place we currently know of that definitely has life that we are capable of recognising as life. Simple really.

Johnmb

maninasia wrote: »

Yah try to be nice to people and feed them a bone and this is what happens.

Goldilocks Zone = Habitable Zone!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitable_zone

Seems like somebody is telling porkie pies about 'habitual zone'.

What specifically do you think is a "porkie pie"?

But even from this definition it is just such a ridiculous concept...habitable zone my arse!

Still not sure on the whole Earth-like life and Earth-like conditions bit...as I have explained VERY clearly Earth-like life is happy to live in the massive array of conditions found on Earth (these conditions themselves have changed enormously over billions of years and different time periods), these conditions can be replicated on different parts of moons or planets or even on comets in different zones.

And whoever said they couldn't be? You still choose to ignore what the Habitual zone concept actually is, and why it exists.

maninasia

It's habitable zone, not habitual zone. Habitable zone as a terminology is wrong because as I have clearly explained already earth-like life (i.e. bacteria/marine life at the very least) can easily live outside the defined area as expressed in distance from the sun and the need for a liquid surface (tell me... WHY the need for a liquid surface, even Earth didn't have a liquid surface for millions of years) and the need for it to be a planet. With the number of moons outnumbering planets by a factor of 10-20X in any given solar system it could easily make as much or even more sense to look at the moons for earth-like life.

maninasia

'The terms Habitable and Goldilocks zones in this context are not strict scientific terms and are only roughly referring to a certain kind of area. '

So you admit they are not very scientific now . As I said the whole idea is ridiculous as the parameters are so loose as to make the idea meaningless and even misleading.

Cú Giobach

maninasia wrote: »

So you admit they are not very scientific now . As I said the whole idea is ridiculous as the parameters are so loose as to make the idea meaningless and even misleading.

What do you mean by "admit Now" I never claimed anything else,
Why can't you actually respond to anything I have written, you haven't actually commented on a single point I have made.

maninasia wrote: »

it could easily make as much or even more sense to look at the moons for earth-like life.

So you think we will find a rainforest on Enceladus. Because what is being looked for is a possible biosphere as varied as the one here.

FFS what is it about the concept of the search for an "Earth like" planet do you not understand, it really is a simple concept that even an 8 year old would understand.

There are people out there looking for traces of past and present life on Mars, people working on ways to explore Europa, Enceladus etc, there are people working to find traces of life all over the solar system and there are people looking for a possible "Earth like" extrasolar planet.
The area where one of these planets/moons could be found would be in place where liquid water would be stable on the surface and could be HABITABLE for humans (without a pressure suit and/or oxygen breathing app).
How many times do you have to be told the term doesn't refer to the ONLY place life can be found.

Since this search is not the only one going on as I said earlier by a long shot, I will ask you again and would appreciate an answer this time (you haven't answered a single question I have put to you yet), What is wrong with this search??

From your comments on every single thread here regarding ETlife I can quite comfortably state, thank f*ck you aren't in a position of power (funding etc) in NASA, SETI etc as your obsession with your own theories and inability to see past your own ideas (The history of science is full of such people) would curtail and narrow down what is a very broad and wide ranging search , and many of the greatest discoveries in science have been from quite unexpected directions.

Johnmb

maninasia wrote: »

It's habitable zone, not habitual zone. Habitable zone as a terminology is wrong because as I have clearly explained already earth-like life (i.e. bacteria/marine life at the very least) can easily live outside the defined area as expressed in distance from the sun and the need for a liquid surface

And you have had it clearly explained already that the Habitable zone concept does not, and never has, say otherwise. What is it that is so difficult for you to understand about such a simple thing?

(tell me... WHY the need for a liquid surface, even Earth didn't have a liquid surface for millions of years) and the need for it to be a planet.

Because that was how they chose to narrow down the search. While Earth may not have always have had a liquid surface, life is not believed to have started here until liquid water established itself on the surface.

With the number of moons outnumbering planets by a factor of 10-20X in any given solar system it could easily make as much or even more sense to look at the moons for earth-like life.

That's for other people who are using other concepts to narrow down their searches. Those who are using the Habitable zone criteria are not interested in the moons (not least because it is impossible to find any outside our solar system at this point in time). Seriously, do you think that there is only one group of people looking for evidence of non-Earth based life, and that they are only using the Habitable zone concept for their search?

maninasia

'From your comments on every single thread here regarding ETlife I can quite comfortably state, thank f*ck you aren't in a position of power (funding etc) in NASA, SETI etc as your obsession with your own theories and inability to see past your own ideas (The history of science is full of such people) would curtail and narrow down what is a very broad and wide ranging search , and many of the greatest discoveries in science have been from quite unexpected directions.'

This is quite amazing when it is I stating that people need to be more open-minded than focusing on such a thing as a Goldilocks zone. It is also I who has explained clearly how most Earth-like life i.e. bacteria, exists in a vast variety of environments and that 'earth-like' is actually quite hard to define when you really think about it. I understand the idea of looking for planets similar to Earth as part of a strategy for the search for ET life but as I explained the terminology of Goldilocks zone and Habitable zone is misleading and rankles with me.

The likeliehood of even an 'earth-like' planet supporting human life is extremely low. The atmospheric ratio of gases would be different, the strength of gravity would be different, the magnetosphere would be different, the length of night/day/seasons would be different, the biota different, the types of salt and salt concentration in the water would be different. It is going to be one in a million planets that support life as diverse as earth that we could just land on and be 'habitable' for humans or even most other animal or plant species on Earth.

The focus on liquid water surface doesn't make too much sense either. Looking for a body of liquid water, I get that, but liquid water surface, seems not too neccessary.

SETI is doing a poor job of looking for life, they only recently copped on that most intelligent life would probably be machine based, 40 years after science fiction greats like Isaac Asimov gave them the game plan. NASA is not doing a great job either otherwise they would have sent some nucleic acid/organic material detectors with their latest instruments to Mars insted of waiting for another 10-20 years, it wouldn't be too hard to do better than those organisations have been doing (read about the ambiguity from original viking lander..it is actually possible that life has been detected already...there was no conclusive result http://news.discovery.com/space/viking-lander-mars-microbes.html). Why has it taken so long to repeat and improve upon these experiments?
They are getting there but very very slowly.

Johnmb

maninasia wrote: »

This is quite amazing when it is I stating that people need to be more open-minded than focusing on such a thing as a Goldilocks zone. It is also I who has explained clearly how most Earth-like life i.e. bacteria, exists in a vast variety of environments and that 'earth-like' is actually quite hard to define when you really think about it. I understand the idea of looking for planets similar to Earth as part of a strategy for the search for ET life but as I explained the terminology of Goldilocks zone and Habitable zone is misleading and rankles with me.

I honestly can't believe that anyone who knows how to turn on a computer can really be this slow. That just leaves me to assume you are trolling.

Cú Giobach

maninasia wrote: »

This is quite amazing when it is I stating that people need to be more open-minded than focusing on such a thing as a Goldilocks zone. It is also I who has explained clearly how most Earth-like life i.e. bacteria, exists in a vast variety of environments and that 'earth-like' is actually quite hard to define when you really think about it. I understand the idea of looking for planets similar to Earth as part of a strategy for the search for ET life but as I explained the terminology of Goldilocks zone and Habitable zone is misleading and rankles with me.

The focus on liquid water surface doesn't make too much sense either. Looking for a body of liquid water, I get that, but liquid water surface, seems not too neccessary.

In the first quote you say how open minded you are and in the second you show how you are not.
You also say people should be more open minded than looking for a "goldilocks zone", all your arguments would be valid if the search was only or primarily for life in such an area and since this is actually quite a small part of the search, all you are advocating is dropping something you don't think is important.
Liquid water stable in the long term, on the surface of a body would be an amazing discovery. Of course it is not necessary or essential for life and your comment of "not necessary" shows you haven't taken the slightest bit of notice of anything that has been said in this rather sad discussion.

The likeliehood of even an 'earth-like' planet supporting human life is extremely low. The atmospheric ratio of gases would be different, the strength of gravity would be different, the magnetosphere would be different, the length of night/day/seasons would be different, the biota different, the types of salt and salt concentration in the water would be different. It is going to be one in a million planets that support life as diverse as earth that we could just land on and be 'habitable' for humans or even most other animal or plant species on Earth.

Thanks for the quite unnecessary lesson.
Well, one in a million leaves how many (I'll let you do the maths).
Since the likelyhood of traveling to the stars is pretty remote at the moment, I wouldn't be too worried about any of the above.

Quite simply you are trying to argue that the search for water on the surface of a body isn't necessary because life can exist elsewhere and I am arguing that the search, although not necessary or essential in the search for life, is important scientifically. Also, from an anthropocentric viewpoint, a water based biosphere like what we have here would be quite a discovery.

maninasia

You are the one talking about a planet that could support human life, but I am not as humans are only one tiny part of life on earth, so as you can the definition of earth-like is very very broad. There is value in searching for a planet with liquid water, but there is no need to exclude areas where liquid water bodies would be frozen at the surface, it seems far too arbitrary.

maninasia

Johnmb wrote: »

I honestly can't believe that anyone who knows how to turn on a computer can really be this slow. That just leaves me to assume you are trolling.

I guess you are a 'habitual' misreader of posts too. You should really check your terminology before giving lectures to others!

Cú Giobach

maninasia wrote: »

You are the one talking about a planet that could support human life, but I am not as humans are only one tiny part of life on earth, so as you can the definition of earth-like is very very broad. There is value in searching for a planet with liquid water, but there is no need to exclude areas where liquid water bodies would be frozen at the surface, it seems far too arbitrary.

Who here either mentioned or even hinted at excluding icy bodies from a search?? The only person mentioning excluding anything is you.
This comment shows without any doubt that you have not understood one word that has been said to you over the past 3/4 days.

Earth like, is usually referring to a broad biosphere containing life underground/water on the surface and in the atmosphere, simples.
You seem to be under the delusion that anyone who mentions searching for a body with water on the surface is discounting subsurface water, where you got this idea is anybodys guess but you really should get rid of it.
You are defiantly taking the piss now, so i am going to finish this discussion.

maninasia

Plenty of people stated that because snowball earth wasn't permanent that is why life prospered on Earth but at least continued. Well yeah on land..but in the ocean and the subsurface? Plenty of microbes LIVE in ice and rocks. One thing I agree on this thread has run it's course.

Cú Giobach

maninasia wrote: »

Plenty of people stated that because snowball earth wasn't permanent that is why life prospered on Earth but at least continued. Well yeah on land..but in the ocean and the subsurface? Plenty of microbes LIVE in ice and rocks. One thing I agree on this thread has run it's course.

So what?? What has that got to do with the discussion??

maninasia

Welcome back, that was quick. Microbes are earth life too, we are all descendants of microbes, in fact we are just complex microbes in reality and there are more microbe cells in our body than our own body cells. For billions of years only single celled microbes existed on earth. Earth-like life i.e. microbes, don't need large bodies of liquid water.

Cú Giobach

maninasia wrote: »

Welcome back, that was quick. Microbes are earth life too, we are all descendants of microbes, in fact we are just complex microbes in reality and there are more microbe cells in our body than our own body cells. For billions of years only single celled microbes existed on earth. Earth-like life i.e. microbes, don't need large bodies of liquid water.

And why should this fact preclude a search for a body with liquid water on its surface??

maninasia

Time for this thread to be extinguished with an earth killer!

http://3danimation.e-spaces.com/3d_images/asteroidimpactEarth.jpg

Cú Giobach

<<<< click on the wink.

Johnmb

maninasia wrote: »

I guess you are a 'habitual' misreader of posts too. You should really check your terminology before giving lectures to others!

Typos don't equal a lack of understanding of the terminology, and those ones were out of frustration with having to continually repeat the same thing. I haven't misread any of your posts. Among other things this thread has gone:
You: Life can exist outside the zone, the name is confusing.
Others: The concept doesn't say life can't exist elsewhere, the name is not confusing to most people, especially those who use it.
You: But life can exist elsewhere, and I don't like the name because it is confusing.
No matter how many times you've been told that the concept doesn't say life can't exist elsewhere, you keep insisting that it is wrong because life can exist elsewhere. If that's not being monumentally slow, then it surely must be trolling. What other explanation would you offer?

maninasia

Goldilocks zone...just right for life...pfftt.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928005.200-starless-planets-may-be-habitable-after-all.html

Again though, this article ignores many facts about microbes. Microbes don't only generate energy from solar derived energy but from chemical reactions such as those based on sulphur. They also alter the environment they evolve in , for instance almost all the oxygen in our atmosphere is derived from microbes.
Then there are moons of planets (which outnumber planets by a high factor in our solar system) or planets that would orbit around each other. Gravitational forces would create heat as can be seen on Jupiters moons.

maninasia

Johnmb wrote: »

Typos don't equal a lack of understanding of the terminology, and those ones were out of frustration with having to continually repeat the same thing. I haven't misread any of your posts. Among other things this thread has gone:
You: Life can exist outside the zone, the name is confusing.
Others: The concept doesn't say life can't exist elsewhere, the name is not confusing to most people, especially those who use it.
You: But life can exist elsewhere, and I don't like the name because it is confusing.
No matter how many times you've been told that the concept doesn't say life can't exist elsewhere, you keep insisting that it is wrong because life can exist elsewhere. If that's not being monumentally slow, then it surely must be trolling. What other explanation would you offer?

But you attacked me about some equally facile thing, seems you don't like to get it thrown back at you. If it was a typo you wouldn't have repeated the error in multiple posts.

Have a read back through this thread..there is no 'definition' of goldilocks zone because it is too loose to be defineable and is used by many different commentators to mean many different things. I also bet it will seem a pretty silly concept a few decades from now.

Bohrio

maninasia wrote: »

Goldilocks zone...just right for life...pfftt.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928005.200-starless-planets-may-be-habitable-after-all.html

Again though, this article ignores many facts about microbes. Microbes don't only generate energy from solar derived energy but from chemical reactions such as those based on sulphur. They also alter the environment they evolve in , for instance almost all the oxygen in our atmosphere is derived from microbes.
Then there are moons of planets (which outnumber planets by a high factor in our solar system) or planets that would orbit around each other. Gravitational forces would create heat as can be seen on Jupiters moons.

Are you for real? I mean, you are joking aren't you?

Cú Giobach

maninasia wrote: »

Goldilocks zone...just right for life...pfftt.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928005.200-starless-planets-may-be-habitable-after-all.html

Again though, this article ignores many facts about microbes. Microbes don't only generate energy from solar derived energy but from chemical reactions such as those based on sulphur. They also alter the environment they evolve in , for instance almost all the oxygen in our atmosphere is derived from microbes.
Then there are moons of planets (which outnumber planets by a high factor in our solar system) or planets that would orbit around each other. Gravitational forces would create heat as can be seen on Jupiters moons.

Bohrio

maninasia wrote: »

But you attacked me about some equally facile thing, seems you don't like to get it thrown back at you. If it was a typo you wouldn't have repeated the error in multiple posts.

Have a read back through this thread..there is no 'definition' of goldilocks zone because it is too loose to be defineable and is used by many different commentators to mean many different things. I also bet it will seem a pretty silly concept a few decades from now.

I will give you my opinion.

For some strange reason you seem to think that life can only exist inside the Goldilocks zone (Habitable zone).

The definition on Habitable zone is pretty clear, otherwise google it and look at the results.Tthe sixth result sums it up:

The definition of the "Goldilocks zone" or "Habitable Zone" from Wikipedia [See Link] is "a region of space where stellar conditions are favorable for life as it is found on Earth".

The term is derived from the fairy story of Goldilocks and the three bears, where she tries the beds, chairs and porridge and finds only one "Just right".
Other species will have their "own" "Goldilocks zone" but it will not be called the "Goldilocks Zone.

Some people interpret this as meaning "the only zone (conditions) where life can be found" but this is too limiting. Life forms based on silicon, other chemical reactions etc. may have entirely different Goldilocks Zones

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_Goldilocks_Zone#ixzz1EhsM1YJz

If you go to wikipedia itself (and yes I know that just because it is in wikipedia doesn’t mean is correct) you will get a better idea:

” In astronomy, the habitable zone (HZ) is the distance from a star where an Earth-like planet can maintain liquid water on its surface[1] and Earth-like life. The habitable zone is the intersection of two regions that must both be favorable to life; one within a planetary system, and the other within a galaxy. Planets and moons in these regions are the likeliest candidates to be habitable and thus capable of bearing extraterrestrial life similar to our own. The concept generally does not include moons, because there is insufficient evidence and theory to speculate what moons might be habitable on account of their proximity to a planet.

The habitable zone is not to be confused with the planetary habitability.

While planetary habitability deals solely with the planetary conditions required to maintain carbon-based life, the habitable zone deals with the stellar conditions required to maintain carbon-based life, and these two factors are not meant to be interchanged.

Life is most likely to form within the circumstellar habitable zone (CHZ) within a solar system, and the galactic habitable zone (GHZ) of the larger galaxy (though research on the latter point remains in its infancy). The HZ may also be referred to as the "life zone", "Comfort Zone", "Green Belt" or "Goldilocks Zone"[2].”

Back in the 60-70s people could not understand why other planets could not sustain life, why venus was hot as hell and Mars a cold and dry rock so they came up with the term Goldilocks zone. Nowadays is different (already explained). In fact, scientists believe that both Mars and Venus were very different planets a few million years ago, some even believe that Mars had liquid water on its surface. Nobody is saying that life cannot exist outside this area, and much less liquid water (obviously).

I believe that the term habitable zone applies to an area in space where life, as we know it, can exist but it doesnt exclude others.

I also believe that life can exists outside the habitable zone, maybe in our solar system maybe not, but definitively out there.

Johnmb

maninasia wrote: »

But you attacked me about some equally facile thing, seems you don't like to get it thrown back at you. If it was a typo you wouldn't have repeated the error in multiple posts.

Have a read back through this thread..there is no 'definition' of goldilocks zone because it is too loose to be defineable and is used by many different commentators to mean many different things. I also bet it will seem a pretty silly concept a few decades from now.

Trolling it is so, cheers for clarifying.