The Goldilocks zone???

namloc1980

Bohrio wrote: »

Titans temperature is on average -220 degrees. Despite the fact that the pressure is higher than earth is way too cold. This is the reason why that gas is in a liquid state. This is what the habitable zone is all about. Planets outside this habitable zone are way too cold to sustain liquid water on their surface. There are many things that have to come into play before they can sustain liquid water. What the habitable zone is saying is that, the most likely place to find it is in this area. Remember it refers to Earth like planets, none of the moons and planets out there are earth like, habitable zone is used when searching for earth like planets on neighbouring solar systems.

When I said moons do not follow this principle the same way planets do it doesnt mean that if a moon is inside the habitable zone it wouldnt be a candidate for life, I meant that a moon outside the habitable zone is not the same as a planet outside the habitable zone but if a moon and a planet are inside this zone then both should be suitable for life. Is just that the two examples you put were probably not the most appropiate, thats all.

I believe life can be found outside this zone, I think everyone here does, and I think it might be possible to find liquid water outside the habitable zone, but for this to happen it must be due to a combination of many extraordinary things. But to find an Earth like planet outside the habitable zone... I dont think so tbh

I never said anything about Earth-like planets outside Goldilocks zone so you are mis-representing my point. You made a claim that:

Bohrio wrote: »

...the habitalbe zone as far as I know only refers to planets, not moons.

Clearly the zone can and should refer to moons just as much as planets. If a moon is orbiting it's planet and that planet is inside the habitable zone then that moon is also inside the habitable zone.

You then said that those moons are affected by their planet. Of course they are but it doesn't mean they can just be disregarded out of hand.

As for a combination of extraordinary things required to allow liquid water outside the habitable zone, in our own solar system:

Europa: A vast ocean under a layer of ice,
Ganymede: Also has a liquid water ocean under it's surface,
Callisto: There is also strong evidence that Callisto also has a subsurface liquid water ocean,
Enceladus: Geysers of water/ice from a subsurface liquid water ocean,
Triton: Neptune's moon Triton has active surface water geysers for which there is strong evidence that they are fed by a subsurface water ocean.

Bohrio

namloc1980 wrote: »

I never said anything about Earth-like planets outside Goldilocks zone so you are mis-representing my point. You made a claim that:



Clearly the zone can and should refer to moons just as much as planets. If a moon is orbiting it's planet and that planet is inside the habitable zone then that moon is also inside the habitable zone.

You then said that those moons are affected by their planet. Of course they are but it doesn't mean they can just be disregarded out of hand.

As for a combination of extraordinary things required to allow liquid water outside the habitable zone, in our own solar system:

Europa: A vast ocean under a layer of ice,
Ganymede: Also has a liquid water ocean under it's surface,
Callisto: There is also strong evidence that Callisto also has a subsurface liquid water ocean,
Enceladus: Geysers of water/ice from a subsurface liquid water ocean,
Triton: Neptune's moon Triton has active surface water geysers for which there is strong evidence that they are fed by a subsurface water ocean.

Actually I think you misinterpreted my words.

I never said that a moon inside the habitable zone will not be suitable for liquid water on their surface.

I said that a moon outside the habitable zone is not consider the same as a planet outside the habitable zone.


My words were in response to the claim that liquid water could be found on a moon outside the habitable zone. Then I said that the habitable zone theory does not contemplate moons outside the habitable zone as they could be affected by their planets. Never said that a moon inside the habitable zone could not hold liquid water on its surface.

Then you gave Europa as an example, and then I said that Europas low pressure would make it hard to keep it water, same as mars.

then you gave Titan, again, there is no water in titan, so I dont see how liquid water would be possible.

Now you are giving more examples and as I said before, if a planet or its moon is inside the habitable zone and meets the conditions for liquid water to exist then I dont see why this wouldnt happen doesnt matter if its a moon or a planet or a planetoid/dwarf planet.


I actually repeated this several times after your first post... and I will say it again just to make it clear. A moon inside the habitable zone could hold liquid water on its surface. A planet inside the hatitable zone can hold water on its surface.

A planet outside the habitable zone, so far, cannot hold liquid water on its surface.

A moon outside the habitable zone, so far, cannot hold liquid water on its surface (so far).

So, until now, the only planet with liquid water on its surface that we know off is Earth...

Our moon also has ice on its surface, but no atmosphere. What I wanted to clear out is that only because a planet/moon is inside the habitable zone and has water on its surface doesnt mean necessarily it will be liquid... thats all.

Capt'n Midnight

liquid water is a great solvent and has lots of other properties like floating when it freezes. liquid methane implies a low energy system, life needs an energy source that it can use to break chemical bonds. Liquid ammonia might be an alternative if you can figure out how to have stable macro molecules.

Life probably started with RNA , DNA and proteins were later on..

namloc1980

Bohrio wrote: »

Actually I think you misinterpreted my words.

I never said that a moon inside the habitable zone will not be suitable for liquid water on their surface.

I said that a moon outside the habitable zone is not consider the same as a planet outside the habitable zone.


My words were in response to the claim that liquid water could be found on a moon outside the habitable zone. Then I said that the habitable zone theory does not contemplate moons outside the habitable zone as they could be affected by their planets. Never said that a moon inside the habitable zone could not hold liquid water on its surface.

Then you gave Europa as an example, and then I said that Europas low pressure would make it hard to keep it water, same as mars.

then you gave Titan, again, there is no water in titan, so I dont see how liquid water would be possible.

Now you are giving more examples and as I said before, if a planet or its moon is inside the habitable zone and meets the conditions for liquid water to exist then I dont see why this wouldnt happen doesnt matter if its a moon or a planet or a planetoid/dwarf planet.


I actually repeated this several times after your first post... and I will say it again just to make it clear. A moon inside the habitable zone could hold liquid water on its surface. A planet inside the hatitable zone can hold water on its surface.

A planet outside the habitable zone, so far, cannot hold liquid water on its surface.

A moon outside the habitable zone, so far, cannot hold liquid water on its surface (so far).

So, until now, the only planet with liquid water on its surface that we know off is Earth...

Our moon also has ice on its surface, but no atmosphere. What I wanted to clear out is that only because a planet/moon is inside the habitable zone and has water on its surface doesnt mean necessarily it will be liquid... thats all.

Once again you are mis-representing my points. I never said Titan had or could have liquid water. Why are you insisting on mis-quoting me and blatantly making stuff up?

maninasia

namloc1980 wrote: »

Bohrio wrote: »

Actually I think you misinterpreted my words.

I never said that a moon inside the habitable zone will not be suitable for liquid water on their surface.

I said that a moon outside the habitable zone is not consider the same as a planet outside the habitable zone.


My words were in response to the claim that liquid water could be found on a moon outside the habitable zone. Then I said that the habitable zone theory does not contemplate moons outside the habitable zone as they could be affected by their planets. Never said that a moon inside the habitable zone could not hold liquid water on its surface.

Then you gave Europa as an example, and then I said that Europas low pressure would make it hard to keep it water, same as mars.

then you gave Titan, again, there is no water in titan, so I dont see how liquid water would be possible.

Now you are giving more examples and as I said before, if a planet or its moon is inside the habitable zone and meets the conditions for liquid water to exist then I dont see why this wouldnt happen doesnt matter if its a moon or a planet or a planetoid/dwarf planet.


I actually repeated this several times after your first post... and I will say it again just to make it clear. A moon inside the habitable zone could hold liquid water on its surface. A planet inside the hatitable zone can hold water on its surface.

A planet outside the habitable zone, so far, cannot hold liquid water on its surface.

A moon outside the habitable zone, so far, cannot hold liquid water on its surface (so far).

So, until now, the only planet with liquid water on its surface that we know off is Earth...

Our moon also has ice on its surface, but no atmosphere. What I wanted to clear out is that only because a planet/moon is inside the habitable zone and has water on its surface doesnt mean necessarily it will be liquid... thats all.

Once again you are mis-representing my points. I never said Titan had or could have liquid water. Why are you insisting on mis-quoting me and blatantly making stuff up?

Some amount of twisting and turning logic there Bohrio. Now trying to make moons off limits, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.


Anybody with an ounce of common sense looking at our own solar system can tell that the real habitable zone includes moons with liquid water, LARGE BODIES of liquid water are key, not water at the surface which is just an arbitrary constraint which is starting to sound very embarrassing. Moons outnumber planets by a huge factor and due to the influence of gravitation forces seems to be very active geologically and also very diverse chemically, great incubators for various forms of life.

Cú Giobach

maninasia wrote: »

LARGE BODIES of liquid water are key, not water at the surface which is just an arbitrary constraint which is starting to sound very embarrassing.

Just for the laugh, show us where someone (either here or elsewhere) states that liquid water on the surface of a body is necessary for life, and consequently embarrassing themselves. I challenge you.

Bohrio

namloc1980 wrote: »

Once again you are mis-representing my points. I never said Titan had or could have liquid water. Why are you insisting on mis-quoting me and blatantly making stuff up?

Not at all.. sorry about that.

maninasia

Many other moons in our own solar system probably have liquid water, look it up, I have given the list above already.

NEWS FLASH- some of the smarter scientists finally abandoning the ridiculous requirement for liquid water at the surface and hey presto realized the goldilocks zone is really a lot bigger than previously thought.

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

BOF666

maninasia wrote: »

Many other moons in our own solar system probably have liquid water, look it up, I have given the list above already.

NEWS FLASH- some of the smarter scientists finally abandoning the ridiculous requirement for liquid water at the surface and hey presto realized the goldilocks zone is really a lot bigger than previously thought.

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

Wow, you really are a big fan of this thread...

maninasia

Just defeating ignorance and raising education levels. :cool:

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