Life found on Mars?!

[KareemK]

Eric Mc said:

XJ Flyer said:

Going by the equation of a planet that has to be just the right distance,from the right type of star,that isn't going to fry life or deep freeze it just to start with.Let alone all the other issues of the right type atmosphere and magnetic shielding to stop the star's emissions blowing its atmosphere away.

They've already found a few planets in these "zones" - and they've only just started looking.

It is probable that a planet just slightly smaller than the earth should be enough for it to have a molten iron core and a magnetic field.

It turns out that "the right type of star" is actually most stars.

There probably does (I've read) have to be plate tectonics and *MIGHT* have to have a proportionately sized moon in orbit (to get tides going to mix up the chemicals) IIRC.

[Eric Mc]

We make those assumptions because the only proven example of a planet that has life (i.e. ours) has those factors in place.

I don't think a lack of a moon (or the opposite for that matter- having multiple moons ) would be a show stopper.

Plate tectonics MAY be an issue as it certainly stirs things up a bit on a planet that possesses such geological processes.

[Vipers]

An interesting link I just watched, makes you think.

https://uk.screen.yahoo.com/space-playlist/209-sec...

[jmorgan]

Vipers said:

An interesting link I just watched, makes you think.

https://uk.screen.yahoo.com/space-playlist/209-sec...

It is interesting but the scale stuff is there on the web in various bits. Waiting for VY Canis Majoris to pop, that will be interesting.

I see Kepler has been given a new lease and spotted another planet.

[HewManHeMan]

Eric Mc said:

Some of these planets are already showing some promise as being possibly habitable. The search has only just begun.

But for the love of God, send Matthew McConaughey to find it. Not Matt Damon.

[Eric Mc]

I don't think sending any Hollywood astronauts would be a very good idea - except maybe the Space Cowboys

[FourWheelDrift]

I keep an eye on this http://exoplanets.org/ also has an smartphone app

[smegmore]

FourWheelDrift said:

I keep an eye on this http://exoplanets.org/ also has an smartphone app

Bookmarked, cheers.

[FourWheelDrift]

FourWheelDrift said:

Maybe they have found Beagle 2.

Aha

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/12/bea...

[Hugo a Gogo]

XJ Flyer said:

Going by the equation of a planet that has to be just the right distance,from the right type of star,that isn't going to fry life or deep freeze it just to start with.Let alone all the other issues of the right type atmosphere and magnetic shielding to stop the star's emissions blowing its atmosphere away.

I'll go with the idea of just one and probably,like the universe,that was more than likely to have been the result of a miracle of creation and a 'creator' not scientific luck.

then why would that creator not create more than one planet with life?

[blinkythefish]

XJ Flyer said:

Going by the equation of a planet that has to be just the right distance,from the right type of star,that isn't going to fry life or deep freeze it just to start with.Let alone all the other issues of the right type atmosphere and magnetic shielding to stop the star's emissions blowing its atmosphere away.

I'll go with the idea of just one and probably,like the universe,that was more than likely to have been the result of a miracle of creation and a 'creator' not scientific luck.

Douglas Adams said:

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

[onyx39]

Dammit... I saw this pop up and thought that they were making a new Tv Series...

[paranoid airbag]

XJ Flyer said:

The flaw in that theory being that,like the lottery,the odds of winning don't improve because there are more lottery games ( solar systems ) because each solar system is a different seperate solar system ( game ) in its own right.In which the odds against a planet being the right goldilocks distance from the host star at least remain the same.

In this case those odds going along the lines of the total distance of the universe in miles v the goldilocks distance window of a planet from a star.

It seems obvious that increasing the number of solar systems ( lottery games ) won't make any difference to that equation in the case of each seperate solar system ( lottery game ) IE the odds against remain the same in the case of each seperate solar system ( game ).

Edited by XJ Flyer on Thursday 18th December 23:54

Erm, no.

The odds of life occurring do go up with the number of planets.

The gambler's fallacy is in thinking that searched systems still have an effect on the result: if you have 1 billion planets and the chance of life on each is, say, 1 in 100 million, you could be confident of finding life before you started searching (by my reckoning >99.9%), but if you have searched 999,999,999 you should no longer be confident, indeed you would at that point be very confident of not finding life (you may also, rationally, begin to suspect your estimate of the probability was wrong).

[XJ Flyer]

Hugo a Gogo said:

XJ Flyer said:

Going by the equation of a planet that has to be just the right distance,from the right type of star,that isn't going to fry life or deep freeze it just to start with.Let alone all the other issues of the right type atmosphere and magnetic shielding to stop the star's emissions blowing its atmosphere away.

I'll go with the idea of just one and probably,like the universe,that was more than likely to have been the result of a miracle of creation and a 'creator' not scientific luck.

then why would that creator not create more than one planet with life?

No point because can't improve on perfection ?.

[Vaud]

XJ Flyer said:

No point because can't improve on perfection ?.

Given PH postings (not yours as whilst I dont agree with much of what you post, you do remain polite and at times, eloquent in argument)... I think we can rule out the perfection scenario.

[jmorgan]

If Earth is perfection and all life on it, then the bar has been set low.

[XJ Flyer]

paranoid airbag said:

XJ Flyer said:

The flaw in that theory being that,like the lottery,the odds of winning don't improve because there are more lottery games ( solar systems ) because each solar system is a different seperate solar system ( game ) in its own right.In which the odds against a planet being the right goldilocks distance from the host star at least remain the same.

In this case those odds going along the lines of the total distance of the universe in miles v the goldilocks distance window of a planet from a star.

It seems obvious that increasing the number of solar systems ( lottery games ) won't make any difference to that equation in the case of each seperate solar system ( lottery game ) IE the odds against remain the same in the case of each seperate solar system ( game ).

Edited by XJ Flyer on Thursday 18th December 23:54

Erm, no.

The odds of life occurring do go up with the number of planets.

The gambler's fallacy is in thinking that searched systems still have an effect on the result: if you have 1 billion planets and the chance of life on each is, say, 1 in 100 million, you could be confident of finding life before you started searching (by my reckoning >99.9%), but if you have searched 999,999,999 you should no longer be confident, indeed you would at that point be very confident of not finding life (you may also, rationally, begin to suspect your estimate of the probability was wrong).

The odds of another Earthlike planet in our solar system certainly wouldn't increase if we added another 999,999,999 planets.

Which just leaves the question does that constant,in the form of the infinite odds against one planet making it in any solar system,outweigh the finite or even infinite number of planets or even solar systems.As I've said I'm going with creation and creator rather than random chance.