The Goldilocks zone???

Bohrio

maninasia wrote: »

Just defeating ignorance and raising education levels. :cool:

I really enjoy the way you keep going back to the same thing over and over and over... and over...

And keep pointing out things that everyone already lknows and agreed to..

I have the firm impression that you are doing it on purpose, you know, is like a cycle or something like that

1 - you saying, godlickos zone = only place where life can exist,
2 - us saying, no it doesnt mean that,
3 - you saying, there can be life outside the goldilocks zone,
4 - us saying indeed there can be life outside the goldilock zone,
5 - you saying but goldilocks says like can't exits outside the zone,
6 - us saying, no it doesnt
7 - You saying, you said it does
8 - Us saying, show us where we said that
9 - .... A few months later ....
10 - .... you post a link to a website where it is mentioned that there could be liquid water under an ice sheet therefore for life to exits
11 - We reply we know and hope that
12 - You then go back to point 1

Great craic, I will see you again in xmas then

maninasia

I really enjoy the way that I have shown that the 'Goldilocks Zone' is a next to pointless concept because it's parameters are simply too diffuse to nail down and mean different things according to different people. If you excuse the arbitrary requirement for liquid water on the surface and a planet instead of including mooons too it becomes more than half the solar system!

Also 'Goldilocks zone' for who? For a fish, for a bacteria, for a plant, for a fungus? For a desert dweller or ocean dweller or subterranean dweller?

A lot of people on here have changed their tune if you read through the thread.
Attack the message not the messenger. Also what is 'us' versus 'who'. What are you on about? Who is 'us'?

maninasia

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Not really relevant in a thread about liquid water on the surface of a body is it. There's lots of subsurface water around, that's quite a different beast.

?

maninasia

large bodies liquid water have a better chance of existing further out as
moons of gas giants as their surface will have frozen over...I don't know.Just
remember that the habitable zone is not the same as planet habitability,
habitable zone refers to the stellar conditions needed to maintain carbon based
life.

There is a part of my post that you probably didn’t read (likely my
fault as it was a bit long, sorry )

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."

?

maninasia

maninasia wrote: »

I know very well the idea of 'golidlocks zone', I think it is ridiculous as nobody knows how to set the inner and outer parameters of such a zone. As I mentioned already the total amount of water on the planet could act as an insulator resulting in Earth's supposed low variation in temperature aswell as influence from biological life in maintaining a certain temperature range ....but as is well known now life exists in a wide temperature variation on Earth. In addition, planets with a frozen surface could easily spawn life or maintain a huge liquid ocean due to various geological processes....it is not neccessarily related to distance from the sun (within very loose parameters). To a subterranean dweller huge temperature variations in the surface atmosphere may have little or no effect! Finally life could be more common on moons than planets, too many things are unknown still.

Here's another question , what about the influence of active tectonics? Mars doesn't have active tectonics now. Maybe tectonics is the answer? TOO many unknowns.

Here is my earlier explanation regarding liquid water and also the little discussed role of plate tectonics.

maninasia

Plug wrote: »

Most of us know what the Goldilocks zone is, its where its not too far from the host star where water will freeze and not too close that it will boil away.
I mean for instance we can be -10c and Spain maybe 1500 miles away could be 15c. In space 1500 miles is absolutely nothing. For a planet to be in the goldilocks zone how precise most that distance be, seems very?

The very first post in this thread guys.

Bohrio

Manimasia best of

Definition of Habitable Zone
In astronomy and astrobiology, habitable zone (more accurately, circumstellar habitable zone or CHZ) is the scientific term for the region around a star[/] within which it is theoretically possible for a planet with sufficient atmospheric pressure to maintain liquid water on its surface.

Now, remember it refers to liquid water ON THE SURFACE… just to make sure you understand whatit means (ON) and as it seems you are confusing, on with under and in, I thought it might be a good idea to use a video to explain this to you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlcHcuA10Tk

I really don’t think you are reading peoples posts, or maybe you are but you are not quite understanding them. This will help you understand the reason why nobody (but me for the last time) has replied to your posts

The Goldilocks zone, based on one example, Earth, that's not very scientific isn't it. Liquid water can be sustained by many different means, there are even bacteria on earth ….(look up the Oort cloud, tell me what it is made of).

mostly ice and rock btw

maninasia wrote:

…Radioactivity and gravitational forces can create liquid oceans/lakes. Finally who is to say that our type of life is the most prevalent?

(Carbon based life you mean? So far it is, as far as we know), anyway, what does this have to do with the habitable zone? Please see definition of habitable zone above

maninasia wrote:

So that should be stated clearly, as a lot of people take it to mean 'life' in general. Plus we only have a dataset of one to base our theories, theories which may well be totally off it we could look at the subsurface of Mars or Europe

both inside the habitable zone by the way, and so you know Europe has liquid water on its surface... you know we live there dont you?

for example or if we could examine the comets and ice in the oort cloud.

I mean if it was such a 'goldilocks zone' how come Venus and Mars aren't obviously crawling with life, I think the whole idea is way too simplistic.

Talking about life again? See definition of Habitable Zone above please

maninasia wrote:

He's can't even write properly and he hasn't even read what I wrote, he's right about nothing. I've never mentioned anything about a habitual zone, we are talking about the bogus goldilocks zone

Said the pot to the kettle… he’s can’t even… oh well… Easy answer, please see definition of Habitable zone (above)

maninasia wrote:

But Earth life survived snowball earth for millions of years and massive ice ages. A large amount of the biota on Earth is living underground in the rocks (microbial life).There is no strict requirement for habitable zone as stated even for life on Earth. Dodgy theory.

First snowball earth is a theory and in this theory it is believed that earth was ALMOST completely covered by ice, but just for argument sake lets say it was, what does this have to do with the Habitable zone, planet inside the habitable zone is NOT EQUAL to Liquid Water on the surface of that planet! (Please see definition of habitable zone (above))

maninasia wrote:

I know very well the idea of 'golidlocks zone'

From one of your posts

maninasia wrote:

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.

So so wrong and so many spelling mistakes too, not that it matters to me but you don’t seem to like it when people make mistakes so I thought I should point that out to you… anyway please see definition of Habitable Zone (above) and compare that to your definition… if you can make anything out of it…

maninasia wrote:

It's habitable zone, not habitual zone

finally you did some research

manimasia wrote:

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) blah blah bla.

So back to square one… Please read definition of Habitable Zone again, remember habitable zone is NOT EQUAL only place where life can exits, habitable zone refers to…. Yes… liquid water ON the surface of a planet.

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 blah blah blah...
…
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.

Again, please read definition of Habitable Zone, remember doesn’t mention anything about life not existing outside this Zone not has anything to do with under surface water.

maninasia wrote:

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. ….Bacteria can exist happily from the surface right down to the sea floor and then far below the sea floor.

Again, please see definition of Habitable zone and how it refers just to the possibility of liquid water ON the surface of a planet. I am not sure what the picture has to do with this…
Some time later you posted another link to another article..

maninasia wrote:

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

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...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…. Then there are moons of planets blah blah blah … Gravitational forces would create heat blah blah blah.

Pffttt… again, please read definition of habitable zone and show everyone where it says that life can only exits in this zone… oh wait, you have been already asked this several times and never answered so I guess this is post should go next

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.

And you know what, I couldn’t agree more, hence why most people have stopped replying to your posts… it is hard to believe you are not just trolling…

Most of your posts are like the above ones where you keep showing examples of undersurface liquid water (which we all know it exits) and how life can exists outside this zone… although everyone already knows that also but you seem to think you are the only one who knows this and that somehow you have opened our eyes… so thanks then!


PS: this is my favourite bit, shows how much research you do prior to posting

maninasia wrote:

Well NASA is looking but it's a slow process and technologically challenging. That said they could have conducted more direct biological tests on Mars if they had really wanted to or taken a risk. They are quite risk averse, especially if you think they haven't done any direct testing for organic molecules on Mars since the Viking program in 1975! The results of the Viking probe are still ambiguous, even according to the scientist that was in charge of that part of the experiment.

Read this article which gives some insight.
http://www.space.com/9504-search-lif...cientists.html

They formed an assumption from a very limited amount of data that was flawed but fit into some primitive scientific theories of the time.

…..

They pumped incredible amounts of cash into the space station and shuttle, each shuttle launch cost approx 450 million USD and each shuttle, four in all, cost a billion USD. That's not a total waste but they could have put together some awesome robotic life seeking probe missions for the cost of each launch. The space station cost anywhere between 35 billion to 100 billion USD!

Surprise!!!! They must have read your posts in regards Mars and Europe[/i]

Hi my name is curiosity!

See you around then… not for a few months I'd imagine, or at least until you find another article about under surface liquid water somewhere on the internet…

maninasia

I'm not sure of your last point, are you agreeing with me? We could have had at least 10-20 curiosity type missions for the cost of the space station alone!

Curiosity is only really designed to detect signs of past life, not of present life. They cannot directly detect DNA or run any type of DNA or protein sequencing, they have no microbial growth chamber etc. The robot could literally be surrounded by microbial life and have no way to directly detect it. It doesn't even have tools designed for digging!


'Although the Mars Science Laboratory rover, Curiosity, does not have a tool specifically for digging, as on the earlier rovers, the mobility system can be used to dig beneath the surface by rotating one corner wheel while keeping the other five wheels immobile. However, whether life has existed on Mars is an open question that this mission, by itself, is not designed to answer. Curiosity does not carry experiments to detect active processes that would signify present-day biological metabolism, nor does it have the ability to image microorganisms or their fossil equivalents.

However, if this mission finds that the field site in Gale Crater has had conditions favorable for habitability and for preserving evidence about life, those findings can shape future missions that would bring samples back to Earth for life-detection tests or for missions that carry advanced life-detection experiments to Mars. In this sense, the Mars Science Laboratory is the prospecting stage in a step-by-step program of exploration, reconnaissance, prospecting and mining evidence for a definitive answer about whether life has existed on Mars. NASA's Astrobiology Program has aided in development of the Mars Science Laboratory science payload and in studies of extreme habitats on Earth that can help in understanding possible habitats on Mars.'


It's a great mission in my opinion, but does not include equipment that could have been designed to directly detect and confirm extant life. That's a strange omission and can only be explained by their focus on geological rather than biological processes. They always state that is was not designed to do this but why not include at least some instrumentation? Surely this is the BIG question that we want answered and which would enable them to raise far more funding?

The mission statement from NASA is confusing
'Mars Science Laboratory is part of a series of expeditions to the Red Planet that help meet the four main science goals of the Mars Exploration Program:

Determine whether life ever arose on Mars (why ever arose on Mars...why not at the same time determine if there is life on Mars..NOW?)
Characterize the climate of Mars
Characterize the geology of Mars
Prepare for human exploration



It is fully possible now to include this equipment to do preliminary testing for living life on Mars, at least for life as we know it here on Earth.

maninasia

Why don't you attack this scientist, got a problem with his ideas?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19545186

More planets could harbour life
The dogma was, for water to exist in its life-giving liquid form, a planet had to be the right distance from its sun - in the habitable zone.

As Sean McMahon, the PhD student from Aberdeen University who is carrying out the work explained: "It's the idea of a range of distances from a star within which the surface of an Earth-like planet is not too hot or too cold for water to be liquid.

"So traditionally people have said that if a planet is in this Goldilocks zone - not too hot and not too cold - then it can have liquid water on its surface and be a habitable planet"

But researchers are starting to think that the Goldilocks theory is far too simple.

Or you could just accept my earlier statement 'It's a dodgy theory lads'.

BOF666

maninasia wrote: »

I'm not sure of your last point, are you agreeing with me? We could have had at least 10-20 curiosity type missions for the cost of the space station alone!

Curiosity is only really designed to detect signs of past life, not of present life. They cannot directly detect DNA or run any type of DNA or protein sequencing, they have no microbial growth chamber etc. The robot could literally be surrounded by microbial life and have no way to directly detect it. It doesn't even have tools designed for digging!


'Although the Mars Science Laboratory rover, Curiosity, does not have a tool specifically for digging, as on the earlier rovers, the mobility system can be used to dig beneath the surface by rotating one corner wheel while keeping the other five wheels immobile. However, whether life has existed on Mars is an open question that this mission, by itself, is not designed to answer. Curiosity does not carry experiments to detect active processes that would signify present-day biological metabolism, nor does it have the ability to image microorganisms or their fossil equivalents.

However, if this mission finds that the field site in Gale Crater has had conditions favorable for habitability and for preserving evidence about life, those findings can shape future missions that would bring samples back to Earth for life-detection tests or for missions that carry advanced life-detection experiments to Mars. In this sense, the Mars Science Laboratory is the prospecting stage in a step-by-step program of exploration, reconnaissance, prospecting and mining evidence for a definitive answer about whether life has existed on Mars. NASA's Astrobiology Program has aided in development of the Mars Science Laboratory science payload and in studies of extreme habitats on Earth that can help in understanding possible habitats on Mars.'


It's a great mission in my opinion, but does not include equipment that could have been designed to directly detect and confirm extant life. That's a strange omission and can only be explained by their focus on geological rather than biological processes. It is fully possible now to include this equipment to do preliminary testing on Mars, at least for life as we know it here on Earth. It's a 'habitual' mistake I guess.

They should have sent you up with it

maninasia

Now now, don't get personal. If you have something to say let's hear it. So far you have absolutely nothing to say on this subject, maybe you blew in off the street? After Hours will be glad to have you back where you belong.

BOF666

maninasia wrote: »

Now now, don't get personal. If you have something to say let's hear it. So far you have absolutely nothing to say on this subject, maybe you blew in off the street? After Hours will be glad to have you back where you belong.

Well the original question was "For a planet to be in the Goldilocks Zone how precise most that distance be, seems very?"

That's was answered in post #4 (nearly 2 years ago).

I'm not too sure what you point is, it seems like this post...

Bohrio wrote: »

I really enjoy the way you keep going back to the same thing over and over and over... and over...

And keep pointing out things that everyone already lknows and agreed to..

I have the firm impression that you are doing it on purpose, you know, is like a cycle or something like that

1 - you saying, goldilocks zone = only place where life can exist,
2 - us saying, no it doesnt mean that,
3 - you saying, there can be life outside the goldilocks zone,
4 - us saying indeed there can be life outside the goldilock zone,
5 - you saying but goldilocks says like can't exits outside the zone,
6 - us saying, no it doesnt
7 - You saying, you said it does
8 - Us saying, show us where we said that
9 - .... A few months later ....
10 - .... you post a link to a website where it is mentioned that there could be liquid water under an ice sheet therefore for life to exits
11 - We reply we know and hope that
12 - You then go back to point 1

...seems to have summed up what you're doing.

maninasia

No, I asked what is your opinion, but it really seems you don't have any. The thread developed far beyond the first question from the OP to be a debate as to the validity of the concept of the Goldilocks or Habitable Zone as some people prefer to refer to it.

I don't agree with the summation above. My point all along is that the whole concept of the Goldilocks Zone is flawed. It a nebulous wooly concept based on too little data and simplified assumptions. By using such a simplified and obviously flawed concept to 'streamline' or 'target' the search for life, you have as much chance as missing what you were looking for as finding it! Especially if you understand that there are up to 20X the number of moons in a given solar system than planets, and in the solar system only Earth and some moons have been shown to contain liquid water. Yes, in our solar system the best chance for finding EARTH LIKE LIFE along with LIQUID WATER is on MOONS. That's based on the latest information we have.

But the Goldilocks Zone (habitable zone) concept doesn't even include moons! That's a bus sized hole in the whole concept.

So you resort to personal attacks, perhaps your lack of knowledge of the area showing up? You are trolling basically. Man up and give us your thoughts and ideas. Or move on back to After Hours to play with the kids.

BOF666

maninasia wrote: »

No, I asked what is your opinion, but it really seems you don't have any. The thread developed far beyond the first question from the OP to be a debate as to the validity of the concept of the Goldilocks or Habitable Zone as some people prefer to refer to it.

Perhaps lack of knowledge of the area? You are trolling basically. Man up and give us your thoughts and ideas. Or move on back to After Hours to play with the kids.

Fine. The Habitable Zone isn't the only place that life can exist. It's the most likely place that we would find an Earth like planet, suitable for humans to live on.

Carbon based life forms need a certain type of environment to survive, but there's no evidence against life evolving somewhere else, like in a methane sea on one of Jupiters moons for example.

The validity of a habitable zone doesn't seem to be in debate here, the debate seems to be whether or not life can exist outside the habitable zone.

The Habitable Zone makes sense as a concept. As does the concept that life can exist elsewhere in our solar system. The Habitable Zone does not mean a place where there's life, and life does not need to start in the Habitable Zone.

Oh and if you think I'm trolling, report me. Thanks.

maninasia

namloc1980 wrote: »

That doesn't mean you can just exclude moons from the Goldilocks theory. Look at Titan. It has a dense atmosphere with a higher surface pressure than Earth and it has large bodies of liquid methane on it's surface. There's no reason why there couldn't be a Titan like moon around a planet in the habitable zone of a star somewhere with water instead of methane.


Lakes on Titan

And what is is this 'Us' versus 'Maninasia'...seems like I have some company speaking some sense here.

maninasia

BOF666 wrote: »

Fine. The Habitable Zone isn't the only place that life can exist. It's the most likely place that we would find an Earth like planet, suitable for humans to live on.

Carbon based life forms need a certain type of environment to survive, but there's no evidence against life evolving somewhere else, like in a methane sea on one of Jupiters moons for example.

The validity of a habitable zone doesn't seem to be in debate here, the debate seems to be whether or not life can exist outside the habitable zone.

The Habitable Zone makes sense as a concept. As does the concept that life can exist elsewhere in our solar system. The Habitable Zone does not mean a place where there's life, and life does not need to start in the Habitable Zone.

Oh and if you think I'm trolling, report me. Thanks.

So what is the point of the habitable zone, where does it start or end? That's my point.

I mean you have people saying it needs a body of liquid water (how big or small?), others saying it requires liquid water at the surface (now, in the past, or in the future?), others saying it needs to be within a certain radius of the sun, other saying you can't include moons! You are saying it means a place that humans can live on, I am saying it is a place where in general Earth life can live on.

But think about it, human couldn't have lived on Earth during Snowball Earth or when the atmosphere was different billions of years ago. But plenty of other animals and plants and microbes did. Until algae photosynthesized and produced enough by-product oxygen, oxygen metabolising animals and microbes weren't in the picture either.

Then there are the factors that aren't even mentioned in the concept but could be equally as important such as active plate tectonics.

It's all very abitrary isn't it?

BOF666

maninasia wrote: »

So what is the point of the habitable zone, where does it start or end? That's my point.

It's a zone, within a certain distance to a star (this varies based on the size of the star) where it is likely that a planet similar to Earth will exist.

Similar to Earth in the sense of density, atmosphere, etc. But not necessarily one that has life.

The start/end is estimated in our solar system as this:

slade_x wrote: »

But again, this varies based on the size of the star. It's only an estimate anyway, the universe is a big place, I'm sure there are a few surprises out there for us (if we ever make it to another star) but this is science's best guess as to where we should start looking for a planet we could inhabit.

maninasia

Well according to this picture neither Mars nor Venus is even in the habitable zone. It seems that there is no consensus whatsoever on this issue. If they simply said we are looking for an identical twin of Earth and called it the 'Identical Zone' they might be on to something . But they'd probably miss all the aliens laughing at them on the moon next door.:)

BOF666

maninasia wrote: »

Well according to this picture neither Mars nor Venus is even in the habitable zone. It seems that there is no consensus whatsoever on this issue. If they simply said we are looking for an identical twin of Earth and called it the 'Identical Zone' they might be on to something . But they'd probably miss all the aliens laughing at them on the moon next door.:)

But mars and venus aren't in the Habitable Zone. They're also not similar to Earth in any way.

The Habitable Zone is used when looking at other stars, to try and find similar planets to Earth. They're trying to find the one thats most likely capable of supporting life, they're not trying to be "on to something."

Bohrio

BOF666 wrote: »

...The Habitable Zone is used when looking at other stars, to try and find similar planets to Earth. They're trying to find the one thats most likely capable of supporting life, they're not trying to be "on to something."

lol... you felt for it... now you are trapped!

I believe this is point 2 or 3?

However just to point out estimates for the habitable zone within the Solar System range from 0.725 to 3.0 astronomical units based on various scientific models.

Snowball earth, apart from being a theory, it is theorized that temperatures during that period were approximately as modern day antartica, not -220 degrees celsius like it is in Titan, so cold that what behaves like a gas on Earth becomes liquid! Not that it makes a difference as, remember, habitable zone is NOT EQUAL to liquid water... please read my previous post for a more detailed definition of habitable zone.

You are seeing this as if a planet is inside a habitable zone means that there is liquid water on its surface and life but that's not what the habitable zone says...

hence why I am referring to us and you, because you seem to be the only one not seeing this! While most people here keep telling you that the habitable zone is an area within a solar system where it is most likely you will find liquid water on the surface you keep going on and on about life and under the surface liquid water ib other moons outside the habitable zone etc etc etc... which is not related or doesnt dispute in any form the habitable zone theory

Bohrio

maninasia wrote: »

Well according to this picture neither Mars nor Venus is even in the habitable zone. It seems that there is no consensus whatsoever on this issue. If they simply said we are looking for an identical twin of Earth and called it the 'Identical Zone' they might be on to something . But they'd probably miss all the aliens laughing at them on the moon next door.:)

16 Cygni Bb (discovered in 1996) is a large gas giant with an eccentric orbit, found to spend some of its time inside the habitable zone. However the orbit means it would experience extreme seasonal effects. Despite this, simulations suggest an Earth-like moon would be able to support liquid water at its surface over the course of a year.[42]

Gliese 876 b (discovered in 1998) and Gliese 876 c (discovered in 2001) are both gas giants discovered in the habitable zone around Gliese 876. Although thought not to be watery, both may have habitable moons.[43]

This is an excerpt from the Habitable Zone page on wiki... So it does mention moons...

Oh and you do realise that nobody here has disputed the fact that we all believe that there could be life outside the habitable zone (as the theory clearly states) and that we should be putting more effort into searching for life in other planets and moons... we know that, we have known that for many years now

It just looks like the following happened to you,

Sometime ago (probably over 2 years ago) you came across an article where it was written that there could be a subsurface ocean underneath a thick crust of ice in one of the moons of jupiter, and if so, there is a possibility that this ocean could support life (as we know life can survive under really harsh circumstances), probably microbial life, next thing you did is say, but the habitable zone says that life cannot exist ouside this zone! (which is doesnt actually!!!!! ) So the habitable zone theory is wrong as it is very clear that life exists outside this zone (although we havent found any life yet, hopefully we will soon). and then started posting your comments.

and thats it! we are going over and over this ever since!

maninasia

Bohrio wrote: »

maninasia wrote: »

Well according to this picture neither Mars nor Venus is even in the habitable zone. It seems that there is no consensus whatsoever on this issue. If they simply said we are looking for an identical twin of Earth and called it the 'Identical Zone' they might be on to something . But they'd probably miss all the aliens laughing at them on the moon next door.:)

16 Cygni Bb (discovered in 1996) is a large gas giant with an eccentric orbit, found to spend some of its time inside the habitable zone. However the orbit means it would experience extreme seasonal effects. Despite this, simulations suggest an Earth-like moon would be able to support liquid water at its surface over the course of a year.[42]

Gliese 876 b (discovered in 1998) and Gliese 876 c (discovered in 2001) are both gas giants discovered in the habitable zone around Gliese 876. Although thought not to be watery, both may have habitable moons.[43]

This is an excerpt from the Habitable Zone page on wiki... So it does mention moons...

Oh and you do realise that nobody here has disputed the fact that we all believe that there could be life outside the habitable zone (as the theory clearly states) and that we should be putting more effort into searching for life in other planets and moons... we know that, we have known that for many years now

It just looks like the following happened to you,

Sometime ago (probably over 2 years ago) you came across an article where it was written that there could be a subsurface ocean underneath a thick crust of ice in one of the moons of jupiter, and if so, there is a possibility that this ocean could support life (as we know life can survive under really harsh circumstances), probably microbial life, next thing you did is say, but the habitable zone says that life cannot exist ouside this zone! (which is doesnt actually!!!!! ) So the habitable zone theory is wrong as it is very clear that life exists outside this zone (although we havent found any life yet, hopefully we will soon). and then started posting your comments.

and thats it! we are going over and over this ever since!

And you keep relating your accusations and change your tune (plenty of posters said moons were not included in this concept) next you will be saying there is no need for liquid surface water to be considered a 'habitable zone', where will we all be then .

Since this thread was started the Wiki page definition for habitable zone has been updated to finally include moons, which vindicates my assertion that the concept is constantly shifting and not a solid theory and depends more on peoples own prejudices than scientific reasoning.

Also? How come Mars isn't in the habitable zone in that picture? I can tell you why, because someday made some arbitrary decisions not to include it. The fact is nobody knows exactly why Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect, Earth didn't, and Mars has no currently existing ocean.
The requirement for liquid surface water is a joke.

BOF666

I give up...

Bohrio

maninasia wrote: »

And you keep relating your accusations and change your tune (plenty of posters said moons where not included in this concept) next you will be saying there is no need for liquid surface water to be considered a 'habitable zone', where will we all be then .

Thats because you are confusing planet habitability with circumstellar habitable zone. When moons were brought into this conversation a year ago, people were saying that there under certain circumstances, there could be liquid water on the surface of a moon (and life) outside the habitable zone (which still doesnt matter as the habitable zone theory doesnt exclude life outside this zone)

The location of planets and natural satellites (moons) within its parent star's habitable zone (and a near circular orbit) is but one of many criteria for planetary habitability and it is theoretically possible for habitable planets to exist outside the habitable zone

Earth did go through a similar process to Venus while it was forming. You see, you are still going back to if a planet is inside the habitable zone it MUST have liquid water on the surface blah blah blah...

Nevertheless, I read this sometime ago

Owing to its extremely hostile conditions, a surface colony on Venus is out of the question with current technology. However, the atmospheric pressure and temperature approximately fifty kilometres above the surface are similar to those at the Earth's surface and Earth air (nitrogen and oxygen) would be a lifting gas in the Venusian atmosphere of mostly carbon dioxide. This has led to proposals for extensive "floating cities" in the Venusian atmosphere. Aerostats (lighter-than-air balloons) could be used for initial exploration and ultimately for permanent settlements. Among the many engineering challenges are the dangerous amounts of sulfuric acid at these heights.

But this will mean going of topic.

Anyway I am gonna stop now as I know are gonna reply saying exactly the same thing about life outside the habitable zone etc..

maninasia

Bohrio wrote: »

Thats because you are confusing planet habitability with circumstellar habitable zone. When moons were brought into this conversation a year ago, people were saying that there under certain circumstances, there could be liquid water on the surface of a moon (and life) outside the habitable zone (which still doesnt matter as the habitable zone theory doesnt exclude life outside this zone)

The location of planets and natural satellites (moons) within its parent star's habitable zone (and a near circular orbit) is but one of many criteria for planetary habitability and it is theoretically possible for habitable planets to exist outside the habitable zone

Earth did go through a similar process to Venus while it was forming. You see, you are still going back to if a planet is inside the habitable zone it MUST have liquid water on the surface blah blah blah...

Nevertheless, I read this sometime ago

Owing to its extremely hostile conditions, a surface colony on Venus is out of the question with current technology. However, the atmospheric pressure and temperature approximately fifty kilometres above the surface are similar to those at the Earth's surface and Earth air (nitrogen and oxygen) would be a lifting gas in the Venusian atmosphere of mostly carbon dioxide. This has led to proposals for extensive "floating cities" in the Venusian atmosphere. Aerostats (lighter-than-air balloons) could be used for initial exploration and ultimately for permanent settlements. Among the many engineering challenges are the dangerous amounts of sulfuric acid at these heights.

But this will mean going of topic.

Anyway I am gonna stop now as I know are gonna reply saying exactly the same thing about life outside the habitable zone etc..

I know we are all getting tired of this debate now, but I never stated the below.

Earth did go through a similar process to Venus while it was forming. You see, you are still going back to if a planet is inside the habitable zone it MUST have liquid water on the surface blah blah blah

What I was pointing out was both that the picture appended above does not include Mars or Venus in the habitable zone (which goes to show there seems to be a massive amount of divergence in what exactly this concept means) and the fact that Mars and Venus are in the habitable zone but do not have liquid water as compared to some of the moons in our solar system. Which makes a joke of the whole habitable zone concept if the key point is that large bodies of liquid water are sustained! Only one of the 3 rocky planets supposedly within the 'habitable zone' or 'Goldilocks zone' has sustained bodies of liquid water, therefore other important processes are likely to come into play as I have stated already (gravity/plate tectonics/chemistry/greenhouse feedback effects and biological feedback effects)

From the example of our own solar system the 'habitable zone' is not some type of simplistic idea of limited radial band from the Sun, rather the habitable zone is likely to be distributed widely throughout the solar system (our solar system has 168 moons, 20X the number of planets, at least three of which have proven to have liquid water, 3 moons and only 1 planet) according to local conditions. There are only 3 confirmed other locations in our solar system that have large bodies of liquid water, so surely the concept of habitable/goldilocks zone should be weighted to them and their location around the gas giants.

Personally I believe that microbial life and other types of life exist far beyond these narrow parameters above.

Bohrio

maninasia wrote: »

From the example of our own solar system the 'habitable zone' is not some type of simplistic idea of limited radial band from the Sun, rather the habitable zone is likely to be distributed widely throughout the solar system (our solar system has 168 moons, 20X the number of planets, at least three of which have proven to have liquid water, 3 moons and only 1 planet) according to local conditions. There are only 3 confirmed other locations in our solar system that have large bodies of liquid water, so surely the concept of habitable/goldilocks zone should be weighted to them and their location around the gas giants.

Personally I believe that microbial life and other types of life exist far beyond these narrow parameters above.

So what you want is for the concept of habitable zone to include moons and every single object around a planet and of course planets, and also the oort cloud etc... so basically everything should be called habitable zone? wow

And you are still confusing liquid water on the surface with under the surface... sesame street failed me here...

Please so us where the habitable zone theory says life cannot exist beyond this zone, and even liquid water ON the surface.

You are confusing things and quite frankly I know you are doing it on purpose so, so long man!

maninasia

What I'm trying to do is to tease apart the logic behind the definition of the 'habitable zone'. When I look at it I don't see anything beyond some arbitrarily chosen parameters, which can shift according to an individual's perception and the current 'acceptance level' in the field.

The requirement for liquid water at the surface is one of those poorly chosen and unnecessarily restrictive parameters.

Now we can see moons coming very much into play in terms of the ability to sustain Earth like life, whereas before the focus would have been much more on nearby rocky planets.

It's been interesting to have this debate to look at the theories from different angles. The usage of terms such as 'habitable zone' and 'goldilocks zone' actually confuse the general public.

BOF666

maninasia wrote: »

What I'm trying to do is to tease apart the logic behind the definition of the 'habitable zone'. When I look at it I don't see anything beyond some arbitrarily chosen parameters, which can shift according to an individual's perception and the current 'acceptance level' in the field.

The requirement for liquid water at the surface is one of those poorly chosen and unnecessarily restrictive parameters.

Now we can see moons coming very much into play in terms of the ability to sustain Earth like life, whereas before the focus would have been much more on nearby rocky planets.

It's been interesting to have this debate to look at the theories from different angles. The usage of terms such as 'habitable zone' and 'goldilocks zone' actually confuse the general public.

It's a zone that the planet Earth could live in. That's as simple as it can be put. If the Earth moved to a different star, it's the area around that star that the Earth would do best in.

There's no requirements (like water on the surface or sustaining life) and moons, planets, aliens, etc. don't come into it. It's literally just an area of space around a star. That's all a habitable zone is. A big area around a star.

The only person that seems to be getting confused by the terms "habitable zone" is you, I really hope this has helped you.

maninasia

I'd suggest you read the thread BOF, the habitable zone has many different meanings and it's meaning has been changing aswell, seems moons are fine right now .

I was trying to be nice to you earlier even if you were going on about 'carbon based life forms' (you watch star trek too?) and reposting pictures from the first page (good research that) that didn't even support your case and completely contradicted your new found mate Bohrio...arrgghh!

Capt'n Midnight

what about Gaia ?

The principle that if life is anywhere on a planet it probably has evolved to be nearly everywhere.

Yes here on earth life is associated with liquid water

Bohrio

maninasia wrote: »

The requirement for liquid water at the surface is one of those poorly chosen and unnecessarily restrictive parameters.

Restrictve for what? There is no restriction! Please clarify this

and also, I am still waiting for you to point out where the habitable zone theory says it is not possible for liquid water to exist either under the surface or on the surface of a planet/moon outside this "area", and also, where it says that life cannot exists (either microbial or any type) outside this area.

How come you never answer any questons?

This is your definition of Habitable Zone

manimasia wrote:

...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

Definition of Habitable Zone

In astronomy and astrobiology, habitable zone (more accurately, circumstellar habitable zone or CHZ) is the scientific term for the region around a star within which it is theoretically possible for a planet with sufficient atmospheric pressure to maintain liquid water on its surface.

No mention about microbies, bacterias, etc...

Do you see the difference?

You keep thinking that the habitable zone is the only place where life and liquid water can exists... when, as you have been told SEVERAL times it isnt, it is just an area in space, thats all... but you just wont listen, I seriously dont get it

Lets use an analogy

So lets pretend I am a scientist and I start taking measures on the southern hemisphere, I soon realize that the further south I go the colder it gets. This makes sense to me because I few years ago I did the same study on the north pole and discover that the further north I go the colder it gets (lets just pretend this is 100% true). So I am safe to assume that it is very likely it will be the same in the southern hemisphere. But I dont want to go all the way to the south pole so what I do is keep measuring until I reach certain temperature. But instead of going further south I draw a circumference and call the area inside that circumference Antartica Zone (which is aka Antartica), this Antartica Zone is nothing more than an Area within our globe, same as Europe, Greenland, etc...

So, lets us use the Antartica Zone as an analogy to the Habitable Zone and lets use sub cero temperatures as an analogy to the liquid water on the surface.

So lets say I postulate a theory where I say that in the Antartica Zone it is theoretically possible for temperatures to go below 0 degress.

Then, in adition to this I could start thinking, well, I know that water freezes under sub cero temperatures forming ice, I have also notice that this happened in the north pole, so, therefore, there is a posibility that there is also ice in this Antartica zone (this could be the analogy of life and liquid water).

In conclusion all I am saying is that, based on what I have seen in the north pole, I have the feeling that The Antartica Zone is cold.

What I am not saying:

- Sub cero temperatures will only happen in the Antartica zone nor
- Ice can only exist inside the Antartica Zone

So this is the Habitable Zone in this example




Your view: that is incorrect, temperatures can also drop below 0 in other places such as europe, Africa, America, Asia among others, and also that ice can be found on many other places such as your fridge and ice cold beer... and then you say that we should change the definition of Antartica to include Also the north pole, alps, himalayas, andes and any other part in the world that contain ice and temperatures below 0.

So for you, this is how antartica should look like



If you dont get it you have to be trolling...

DubOnHoliday

http://news.discovery.com/space/habitable-exoplanet-gliese-163c-life-120920.html

maninasia

I'm not trolling, I I appreciate you took the time to lay out the case above. I just really REALLY don't like the terminology. Habitable zone is very misleading, and I think you can see that too. In fact it could be the most misleading name for something that I have yet to come across. We can see how so so many journalists get it wrong when they state glib facts as per the below, quoted from the article above. Most of the general public reading the quote below will make an assumption that outside of this distance liquid water will not exist and that areas outside of the zone are not habitable. In fact the mistake is repeated again in the linked article to the term 'habitable zone' and it is an unforgivable mistake to make for a writer who is writing in a so-called scientific publication.

The newfound world, a "super Earth" called Gliese 163c, lies at the edge of its star's habitable zone -- that just-right range of distances where liquid water could exist.

Yes the circumstellar habitable zone is something that is clearer than the usual lazy habitable zone terminology, but even then this is not very clear..'circumstellar habitable zone for life that absolutely requires large bodies of liquid water'. Of course it may not habitable at all due to the influence of a whole host of other factors, not least the influence of plate tectonics (Mars had active plate tectonics, then it shut down).


So what they should say is it is the 'circumstellar zone of possible maintenance of large liquid water bodies'. Let's just leave out the habitable completely!


The REAL habitable zone of course in a solar system, following the latest scientific theory and data, would be distributed widely through the solar system, with SOME concentration in the circumstellar liquid water zone and SOME concentration on moons around gas giants along with unknowns. The problem is the unknowns are pretty damn big still.

Let's have a look at this great map I found that shows the distribution of water in the Solar System.



Therefore, to use a similar analogy to the one you have just used, if I was to take your map of the globe and had come to Earth to look for life, as an example I would mark out in red the areas to concentrate on, including the equator (perhaps similar to the CHZ above), the oceans, and of course areas that are emitting large amounts of heat and light like cities.

Bohrio

maninasia wrote: »

circumstellar habitable zone for life that absolutely requires large bodies of liquid water'.

I am not sure if that is a citation but if those are your own words please tell me where you read that, oh wait, dont bother, if you havent replied to any questions other people has asked you why would you reply to mine so....I am sorry but I have to stop replying to your posts. I can't believe you are still talking about life and water.

You would expect people not familiar with astronomiy or the theory itself to get confused with the term habitable zone (as it includes the word habitable people might incorrectly think it means is the place where people can live in, when, in reality, this is not what it means, although, as a side note, so far is the only place "habitable" to us in our solar system but that's not the point)

Let's just call the habitable zone the universe from now on and leave it like this. I dont know anymore whether you are getting what it is or if it is just that you dont like tha name, if the name is the problem just call it Bob, the Bob zone... Not sure why you are still talking about the habitable zone as if it is some sort of barrier where outside it, life and water (of any state) cannot exist.

lets just agree to... well I dont even know to what!

I just find it hard to believe that after all this time (couple of years I believe) you still dont get what the habitable zone theory is all about... and you still go on about water in other planets, etc... sorry

Slán!

maninasia

Slan leat.

maninasia

He's back! And with another tidbit of very interesting news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20501574

The discovery of microbes thriving in the salty, sub-zero conditions of an Antarctic lake could raise the prospects for life on the Solar System's icy moons. Researchers found a diverse community of bugs living in the lake's dark environment, at temperatures of -13C.
Furthermore, they say the lake's life forms have been sealed off from the outside world for some 2,800 years.
Details of the work have been outlined in the journal PNAS.
Lake Vida, the largest of several unique lakes found in the McMurdo Dry Valleys, contains no oxygen, is acidic, mostly frozen and possesses the highest nitrous oxide levels of any natural water body on Earth.
A briny liquid that is approximately six times saltier than seawater percolates throughout the icy environment.

The abundance of different chemical compounds present in the lake led the researchers to conclude that chemical reactions were taking place between the brine and the underlying iron-rich sediments, producing the nitrous oxide and molecular hydrogen.

The hydrogen, in part, may provide the energy needed to support the brine's diverse microbial life. In addition, the slow rate of metabolism of these microbes prevents the energy reserves from being quickly depleted.

"It's plausible that a life-supporting energy source exists solely from the chemical reaction between anoxic salt water and the rock," said co-author Dr Christian Fritsen, also from the DRI.

If this is indeed the case, said Dr Murray, it provides "an entirely new framework for thinking of how life can be supported in cryo-ecosystems on Earth and in other icy worlds of the Universe".

Jupiter's icy moon Europa represents one such target.

Dr Ellis-Evans commented: "If you go to somewhere like Europa, this sort of finding is really of interest. You can apply this more or less directly.

maninasia

Another moon, Dione, pops up with possible subsurface ocean.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/whycassini/cassini20130529.html

Scientists are still trying to figure out why Enceladus became so active while Dione just seems to have sputtered along. Perhaps the tidal forces were stronger on Enceladus, or maybe the larger fraction of rock in the core of Enceladus provided more radioactive heating from heavy elements. In any case, liquid subsurface oceans seem to be common on these once-boring icy satellites, fueling the hope that other icy worlds soon to be explored – like the dwarf planets Ceres and Pluto – could have oceans underneath their crusts. NASA's Dawn and New Horizons missions reach those dwarf planets in 2015.

maninasia

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25379-squirting-moons-face-off-in-race-to-find-alien-life.html#.U0VH6fmSzg8

Although the article is interesting, it again jumps to conclusions by just mentioning two candidates in the solar system for life beyond Earth. There are many other candidate moons and planets as well..although these are current front runners for life that would be SIMILAR to Earth.

For instance Titan has vast hydrocarbon lakes and complex organic molecules. Why would microbes not like to chew up some of that hydrocarbon?
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25360516

maninasia

NASA have been listening, the 'New Goldilocks Zone'.

As I said earlier in the thread about the 'Old Goldilocks Zone'

It's a dodgy theory lads

:pac:

More detailed seminar....

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/events/lectures_archive.php?month=6

Capt'n Midnight

The Goldilocks zone is for water

for ammonia , hycrocarbons , Ammonium hydrosulfide

or Iron Carbonyl

it could be different

Bohrio

Manimasia, could you please write down your definition of the goldilocks zone (or habitable zone) please... I am just curious

obriendj

I was just thinking about the Goldilocks zone today. but putting a different spin* on it.

As discussed in the new goldilocks zone video, there could be life out there. but I believe that for mammals / primate / intelligent life to exist the planet must be in the original Goldilocks zone. The mean temperature of the planet must be similar to ours.

However I was thinking, if there was a planet like that out there but with a small difference.

Is our planet spinning at the perfect speed to allow a day to be 24 hours. Do you think a shorter or longer day would have an effect on the life of a planet.

Is the axis tilt of 23 degrees just right to get the perfect seasons? Would life on a planet suffer if the angle of tilt was greater / less? Greater would imply harsher winters and hotter summers. while less tilt would imply no seasons with constant temperature.

I would guess that life forms such as bacteria and insects would still exist and still evolve but i am not sure if mammals or reptiles would would have developed as well as we have here.

Or do you think regardless of these factors, once the planet is in the goldilocks zone, it probably will have large land dwelling mammals.

*excuse the pun

Capt'n Midnight

obriendj wrote: »

Is our planet spinning at the perfect speed to allow a day to be 24 hours. Do you think a shorter or longer day would have an effect on the life of a planet.

Heat can be transferred via a planets atmosphere. Even if a planet is in a locked orbit with one side facing the sun and the other in total darkness atmospheric convection cells will average out the temperature somewhat.

Long ago our planet rotated every 6 hours. Insane tides. Also the moon was a lot closer so more solar eclipses and no lunar ones.

One way we know this is from "growth rings" on stramatolites

Bohrio

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Heat can be transferred via a planets atmosphere. Even if a planet is in a locked orbit with one side facing the sun and the other in total darkness atmospheric convection cells will average out the temperature somewhat.

Long ago our planet rotated every 6 hours. Insane tides. Also the moon was a lot closer so more solar eclipses and no lunar ones.

One way we know this is from "growth rings" on stramatolites

I think that the main problem is that, for complex life to evolve conditions have to be just right.

I am confident we will find life outside our planet soon enough, jupiter and saturn moons being perfect candidates, however, finding complex organisms in our solar will be very unlikely.

Earth have just the right conditions for life "as we know it". Meaning that the reason why our planet is titled 23 degrees is because we have the moon (among other things), without it, life on earth would be much more difficult.

However, this makes reference to, as I said, life "as we know it", there could be other types of complex life out there that could thrive under different conditions and we just cannot comprehend.

But most of these scientist are not hoping to find any type of complex life underneath an ice crust, they will settle for microbes or unicellular creatures.

Look at the blood waterfalls in antartica, microbes trapped for millions of years without oxygen, light, etc. They just live under a 400 meters tick ice crust, so, if they survived under this conditions why wouldnt they survive under a several km ice crust in Europa?

I think life is much more abundant in space than we think, however, humanlike complex lifeforms will be very very rare, and IMO probably non existent in our solar system.

But this has nothing to do with the goldilocks zone theory though

obriendj

Bohrio wrote: »

I think that the main problem is that, for complex life to evolve conditions have to be just right.

I am confident we will find life outside our planet soon enough, jupiter and saturn moons being perfect candidates, however, finding complex organisms in our solar will be very unlikely.

Earth have just the right conditions for life "as we know it". Meaning that the reason why our planet is titled 23 degrees is because we have the moon (among other things), without it, life on earth would be much more difficult.

However, this makes reference to, as I said, life "as we know it", there could be other types of complex life out there that could thrive under different conditions and we just cannot comprehend.

But most of these scientist are not hoping to find any type of complex life underneath an ice crust, they will settle for microbes or unicellular creatures.

Look at the blood waterfalls in antartica, microbes trapped for millions of years without oxygen, light, etc. They just live under a 400 meters tick ice crust, so, if they survived under this conditions why wouldnt they survive under a several km ice crust in Europa?

I think life is much more abundant in space than we think, however, humanlike complex lifeforms will be very very rare, and IMO probably non existent in our solar system.

But this has nothing to do with the goldilocks zone theory though

I would agree with that and while it would be great to discover life in the ice of Europa, its highly unlikely that any complex life will ever be found.

maninasia

Jeezus lads, pick up Darwin's origin of species and have a read.

There's a few things in the ocean swimming around, ye can get started on fish for a start.

And yes, our ancestors were fish.

I mean we've only known this for a 150 years or so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution#mediaviewer/File:Age-of-Man-wiki.jpg

Zubeneschamali

Simple cells appeared on Earth within a billion years of its formation, but it was another two billion years before they evolved nuclei. Another billion years, and there were bacteria.

So after 3-4 billion years of life on Earth, the most complex lifeforms were bacteria. Everything more complex evolved in the 1 billion years since. Why?

We don't know. But it is clear that multicellular life is a big leap, or it could have appeared billions of years earlier.

Maybe that leap is really fantastically unlikely and single cell life is relatively common, but more complex forms are vanishingly rare.

maninasia

Or maybe it's not, our sample of one so far isn't a whole lot to go on. BTW, microbial life could have evolved from multi-cellular life. Get your head around that one (evolution isn't a uni-directional arrow, it doesn't have a purpose). Also the definition of complex life might be a bit hard to pin down.

Also, comets are now proven to hold organic molecules, no reason why life wasn't seeded around the galaxy or transported from place to place.

mickmackey1

There's a huge difference between organic molecules and life, and no evidence whatsoever that comets played any role.

Zubeneschamali

maninasia wrote: »

no reason why life wasn't seeded around the galaxy or transported from place to place.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised. For life to evolve from nothing to single cells inside a billion years, and then, in the next billion years, do nothing, and then another billion years later evolve the nucleus, and another billion before they evolve into anything multicelllular.

That first step looks suspiciously fast.