Earth is Rare, New Study Suggests (God chose the Earth for Humans?)

[papau]

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/rare_earth_040803.html
Earth is Rare, New Study Suggests
By Robert Roy Britt Senior Science Writer SPACE.com

http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/space/sc_space/storytext/SIG=120hcq158/*http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/rare_earth_1_020715.html <snip> Theorists involved in the new study acknowledge the distinct possibility that there could be many solar systems similar to ours, as others have suggested http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/space/sc_space/storytext/SIG=12dfe6k59/*http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/jupiter_typical_020128.html , and that we haven't seen them because technology has yet to allow their detection. But they raise an interesting counter-argument: All known extrasolar planets are roughly as massive as Jupiter or much more so. In studying about 100 of these, the scientists found most are similar to one another in terms of orbital characteristics, and that Jupiter is the oddball. The results are 98 percent on track by a scientific measure known as the significance level. It follows that perhaps the known extrasolar planets formed in a different manner, one by which rocky, Earth-like planets would not be created. "We have shown that the solar system, as represented by Jupiter, is formally not part of the distribution of observed extrasolar planetary systems," Martin Beer of the UK's University of Leicester told SPACE.com. "From this result we suggest that we may be looking at two different methods of planet formation." <snip>

The leading model of planet formation -- conjured before anyone knew there were planets around other stars -- is called core accretion. A rocky core develops first, then an object either becomes a terrestrial planet (like Mercury, Venus, Earth or Mars) or it attracts huge amounts of gas and grows into something like Jupiter or Saturn. An alternative method http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/space/sc_space/storytext/SIG=12ifnn5ri/*http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/planet_formation_020709-1.html forms a gas giant planet via the gravitational collapse of a knot of material.


Scientists disagree which way the outer planets of our solar system were born. The core accretion model has shortcomings. For one thing, when run on a computer, Neptune and Uranus typically don't show up. Further, observations reveal that Saturn has a solid core but Jupiter does not http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/space/sc_space/storytext/SIG=124ssv6sq/*http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planet_formation_040720.html .


The gravitational collapse model has been invoked to explain some these discrepancies. It is also appealing as a method for making the gargantuan gaseous planets found around other stars. Most are a few to several times the mass of Jupiter and orbit incredibly near to their host stars on wildly non-circular orbits.


In all but a handful http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/space/sc_space/storytext/SIG=12eeie96k/*http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/planet_discovery_020613.html of these setups, rocky inner planets are not possible because they'd be consumed by a giant or gravitationally booted out of the "habitable zone," a comfortable region that can support life, Beer explained. Earth and Mars both orbit stabily in just such a temperate area, thanks to the fact that the outer planets are far away and on nearly circular orbits.


If gravitational collapse formed the known extrasolar planets, then there's no need for rocky cores. "Without these rocky cores, terrestrial planets (that is, Earth-like) do not form," Beer points out.<snip>


A firmer answer to our uniqueness will likely come around the end of this decade from NASA (news - web sites)'s space-based Kepler mission, due to launch in 2007. It is designed to detect Earth-sized planets by searching 100,000 stars for four years, looking for tiny dips in stellar brightness that would indicate an orbiting object.<snip>


Other Headlines at Space.com

Hubble Trouble: One of Four Instruments Stops Working -One of the four main instruments on the Hubble Space Telescope has stopped working and engineers are trying to pin down the problem. The other three instruments continue to operate normally

NASA's Pluto Mission to be Delayed or Cut Back
NASA expects to decide by mid-September between postponing the launch of a nuclear-powered Pluto probe a full year — adding millions of dollars and three years of travel time to the mission — and staying on schedule with a less capable spacecraft

Vewer's Guide: Perseid Meteor Shower Peaks Aug. 11-12 The annual event should be above average this year. Here's what you need to know.

Cassini Hears Puzzling Lightning at Saturn
Like Voyager before it, the Cassini spacecraft has detected lightning at Saturn, but with a twist. The NASA probe recorded the electrical activity on a radio receiver.

The Race is On: Second Private Team Sets Launch Date for Human Spaceflight A second team of rocketeers competing for the $10 million Ansari X Prize, a contest for privately funded suborbital space flight, has officially announced the first launch date for its manned rocket.

Universities Plan World's Largest Telescope
Weak Version of Most Powerful Explosions Found
Glitches Dog Both Mars Rovers
Brazil's Amazonas Satellite Reaches Space
Amplified Intelligence: Machines as Brain Boosters
Shuttle Backups Likely for First Two Launches
Nuclear Lab Shutdown Puts Pluto Mission In Jeopardy
Earth is Rare, New Study Suggests
Third Spacewalk a Breeze for Space Station Crew
Life on Mars Likely, Scientist Claims
NASA Sends Mercury a MESSENGER
Natural Sunblock: Sun Dims in Strange Ways
Website Lets Users Scout the Red Planet from Home
Suit Claims Bad Bolts Doomed Columbia
Explore the Many Colors of Stars
Crater on Moon Linked to Rock Found on Earth
Next ISS Astronauts Hope for Space Shuttle Visit
NASA Issues Call For Moon, Mars And Beyond Technologies
Rubber Band Invoked to Explain Dark Energy
Space Station Crew Ready for Next Spacewalk
Sun Spikes: Solar Quakes Fuel Hot Tendrils
Howling at the Moon: Space Entrepreneurs See Red Over Mars Favoritism
The Next Great Space Race: SpaceShipOne and Wild Fire to Go For the Gold
Terraforming Mars: Experts Debate How, Why and Whether
China Lofts Second Satellite in Double Star Duo
Space Science Pioneer Van Allen Questions Human Spaceflight
White House Rendezvous With Apollo 11 Crew
Double Whammy: Asteroids Delivered One-Two Punch
Shuttle Discovery Gears Up for Return to Flight
White House Threatens to Veto Budget Bill Over NASA Cuts
Astronaut Class Gets its Water Wings
Partners Agree to ISS Crews of "More than Three;" Details Sketchy
Despite Appeal, House Appropriation Approves NASA Cuts
Shooting Stars: Preview of Summer Meteor Showers
British Role In Aurora Program Uncertain
Satellite Science: Monster Waves Sink Ships
Hawking: Black Holes Mangle Matter, Energy
Hubble Trouble: One of Four Instruments Stops Working
NASA's Pluto Mission to be Delayed or Cut Back
Cassini Hears Puzzling Lightning at Saturn
Universities Plan World's Largest Telescope
Weak Version of Most Powerful Explosions Found
Brazil's Amazonas Satellite Reaches Space
Glitches Dog Both Mars Rovers
Amplified Intelligence: Machines as Brain Boosters
Life on Mars Likely, Scientist Claims
SPACE.com: More News Headlines

[Dookus]

1. I don't see

any of those scientists in the articles saying God chose earth.

I think we simply don't have the ability right now to determine if earth-like planets are rare, common, or something in between. Only recently have we discovered ANY extra-solar planets, and yes, they tend to be large gaseous planets. There's a reason for that - they're much easier to detect, gravitionally and optically.

Given billions of stars in billions of galaxies, I think it's too soon to say we know the answer.

[roguevalley]

2. I suppose mathematically they could extrapolate but I don't believe them.

who is to say how many their are and why do they have to be just like us? There could be many forms of life that are not carbon based. Such is the conceit (and the lack of really good technology yet) to make a conclusion like this.

[papau]

3. large gaseous planets is not the point -Jupiter does not fit the equations

And without a Jupiter you can't have "rock" planets in our temp range.

So there is a possibility that we are - as the article states - very, very, alone.

Granted I added the religious note so as to increase readership - but it is true that one concept - a religious concept - suggests that God made the universe for man - and we are unique

Now there are a lot of "not proven" that needs to be proven before we get to even "rare" - much less "unique -

and a jump of faith to at that point to say it is another Bible "I told you so"

But this is the first info I've seen that opens that discussion even a little bit! Prior to this we all accepted - 100% - many planets meant life all over the universe! Now we accept that idea, but perhaps only at a 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% level!

:-)

[Dookus]

4. I don't know how you can say

we "all" accepted the idea of planets all over the universe. The first extra-solar planet was discovered only recently. We certainly SUSPECTED their existence, though.

Given the VERY few number of star/planet systems we've been able to observe, it really is unlikely we've found a representative sample.

[papau]

5. In stats, the sample you have is by definition your "best estimate"

As to "accepted the idea of planets all over the universe" - that idea existed before we got into gal. all over the universe -

and was rejected mainly for religious reasons. In the 20th century, science - at least in my training - never suggested there was a one and only human outpost - or even allowed for it. Indeed the excuse for not finding other human's or intel life was pre-packaged - if we found none it was because our instr. were not good enough.

This is the first theory that suggest Jupiter is rare or unique (and at a 98% confidence level at this point!!!) - and that without a Jupiter, there can be no life friendly - "human if you will " - planets.

[chascarrillo]

6. When science goes out the window...

Theorists involved in the new study acknowledge the distinct possibility that there could be many solar systems similar to ours, as others have suggested, and that we haven't seen them because technology has yet to allow their detection.

But then we wouldn't have some intelligent design article about how "we must be rare 'cause we can't see anything like us with our crude instruments", now would we?

Sorry, but I'm definitely wishing I had that minute back.

[papau]

7. I agree - this is the first that avoids the "with our crude instruments"

excuse.

But we are a long way from intelligent design being proven - for the very good reason that faith does not need it to be proven, and science does not need to disprove it.

I just love math - and I love when something solid comes out of the math like Jupiter being - perhaps - a one and only!

[chascarrillo]

11. The math says no such thing

The "crude instrument" excuse is not only avoided, but disregarded. However, you have to factor in our still-new techniques for discovering extrasolar planets in order to determine something about the make-up of the universe. Otherwise, the results will be completely biased.

You're reading way too much into the sentence "The results are 98 percent on track by a scientific measure known as the significance level". That's a meaningless statement. There's no explanation, no backing up of the assertion. It's just something thrown out because it sounds cool. Trust me, it means nothing.

[papau]

19. If the math-where I live-doesn't say 98%sig, the article loses credibility

Granted we are moving from wobble http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_wobble_method_010523.html to transit method http://ww.space.com/searchforlife/seti_doyle_worlds_010809.html for spotting a planet (minimum size twice as big as Earth), but I agree we are still in a "crude instrument" discussion.

It is the math that makes the article.

Curious.

I wonder if I can get MIT's Tech Review folks to schedule an article that us old folks will understand! - or least give a bit of detail on how the 98% got into the Space.com article! :-)

[chascarrillo]

21. The answer is in the original article

... however poorly written the article in whole is.

"We have shown that the solar system, as represented by Jupiter, is formally not part of the distribution of observed extrasolar planetary systems."

That's what the 98% refers to - that our solar system is fundamentally different from observed extrasolar planetary systems.

Here's a quote from another article on the study:

However, the team are cautious about jumping to a definite conclusion too soon and warn about the second possible explanation for the apparent disparity between the solar system and the known extrasolar systems. Techniques currently in use are not yet capable of detecting a solar-system look-alike around a distant star, so a selection effect might be distorting the statistics - like a fisherman deciding that all fish are larger than 5 inches because that is the size of the holes in his net.

http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1117&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

[Torgo4]

8. Start With the Conclusion...and reason backwards?

Like:

Good thing we humans didn't evolve on Venus, 'cause the 900 mph winds would make the weather really uncomfortable.

There a book called "Rare Earth" that explains pretty well why earth may be one of the few planets in our universe capable of "complex" life!

[chascarrillo]

10. About Rare Earth...

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_6_25/ai_79794362

Excerpt:

The idea that complex life may have evolved only as a result of a series of exceedingly rare events on Earth, and its corollary--that advanced life may well be rare in the universe--gained new credence and respectability with publication last year of the book Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe. The book, by two University of Washington scientists, Peter D. Ward, a paleontologist, and Donald Brownlee, an astronomer, is an extensive argument for the Rare Earth hypothesis, and it has gained considerable scientific and popular attention.

Now David Darling, an astronomer who is a critic of the Rare Earth hypothesis, has revealed that one of the strongest influences on the authors, a young University of Washington astronomer who they acknowledge in their preface "changed many of our views about planets and habitable zones," has a hidden, Earth-is-unique agenda motivated by strong "intelligent design" religious views.

[Torgo4]

17. Eeeeekkk! I Fell So Used...and defiled!

Actually, if what they theorize is accurate, is doesn't matter what their bias.

Don't forget, no matter what the latest theory RE:configuration of nature or the universe, creationists merely use THAT latest theory as proof of divine design. Even the latest theories of a boundary-less universe with an existence BEFORE the Big Bang is somehow proof of G-d's existence.

Whatta great job (G-d that is)! No matter how cruel, inefficient or downright unjust, humans still praise your kindness, love, justice!!
....Always getting a maximum on your periodic reviews no matter how many innocent children you wasted!!!

[salvorhardin]

9. Maybe god is just really bad at making planets?

eom

[Donkeyboy75]

12. Two major problems with this. One often cited, one not:

1) This has already been stated in this thread, but the reason we don't "see" planets our size outside the solar system is that we don't have the ability to detect them. We only recently discovered a tenth planet in our own solar system. This article is disingenuous because it disregards this.

2) It is incredibly egocentric to think that intelligent life can only evolve under conditions that are similar to that on Earth. I'm not saying it's likely that intelligent life could exist on Jupiter or the gas giants, but looking for only Earth-like planets for intelligent may be wrong.

[Torgo4]

18. The Issue is Complex Life!

Microbes can exist on meteors in space.
But physics of this universe makes human-like existence impossible in the vast majority of the universe.
I garauntee there are NO humanoids on Jupiter, or any of the other planets!
And please, no comments about silicon-based life from trekkies!

Gotta deal with the cosmic hand we're dealt.

[Donkeyboy75]

20. No, I'm not going to say anything about silicon-based life.

After all, that's just a substitute for carbon...and if respiration took place, we be exhaling glass.

But I think it's arrogant for humans to think the only form of intelligent life will be in human-like form. There could be possibilities we can't even imagine.

[Dogmudgeon]

13. "Let God = X ..."

If you use the word "God" for "Hidden Variable", you're on solid ground. Unfortunately for theology, eventually that variable becomes known, measured, quantified, and studied by future generations of scientists.

Robert Jastrow was notorious for saying things along the lines of, "We've reached the limit -- all that's left is God". And then a year later, finding a new limit.

He was still a great astronomer.

--bkl

[enki23]

14. two eyes is the "perfect number"

we have the perfect number of eyes. therefore there is a god.
QED

[Torgo4]

16. But...Your 'Perfect' Number of Eyes...

Both of them have a blind spot!

And your perfectly created appendix, whose only function is to burst and kill you.

And your tailbone...which is oddly named since G-d never gave man a tail...

[enki23]

23. but the blind spot is the best of all possible blind spots

.

[Boomer]

15. My, aren't we "special"....

Human hubris rides again. Only humans uses tools... not. Only humans can talk... not. Only humans are capable of conceptual thought... not.

I guess since we've run out of ways to make ourselves truly unique among animals, we're now trying to make our planet unique in the universe. Based on our past record of overweening self-pride, I'd say this is just another fit of vanity.

Why is it so difficult to admit that we're not the Lords of the Universe? As species go, we're an upstart verminous wannabe that is quickly destroying itself due to uncontrolled reproduction in an enclosed area known as Earth. We're due for a very painful "correction" any decade now, so chances are we'll never be more than a flash in the evolutionary pan. The fact that there are so few species that rely on advanced conceptual thought should have warned us that it's not a very reliable evolutionary tactic.

Regardless of who's in charge of this particular cosmic dimension, I have a hard time believing that our planet is any more or less astounding than any other process. Given so much repetition in the universe, I'm sure our pattern is repeating itself elsewhere.

[cprise]

22. Looks more like a rash of misreporting

...by science-reporters to me:

1) They often inject insinuations like this into their articles to make them more sensational

2) We can't detect small planets yet (Duh)

3) We've only just gained the ability to detect large planets. It's not likely we'll find Jupiters at this stage because Jupiter has a large, regular orbit with a period of nearly 12 years!. Therefore its not especially bright or variable, and produces little wobble in its host star and the wobble that does exist may take 12 years or more to notice.

[Solon]

24. What I don't get is this...

First off, many of the planets we have discovered are SUPER MASSIVE and have great effects on the stars they orbit. Come to think of it, many of these could be technically classed as Brown Dwarf stars. There is some debate that Jupiter should be classed as such, though even it is not nearly as massive as the extra solar planets. Also is the assumption that because they are so close to their stars that terrestrial planets in the "Goldilock's zone" cannot form is a conclusion that is made before even a suitable sample can be made.

Another possibility is that some of these Super Giants could have moons around them that can harbor complex, possibly sentient, life. Some of them are within the "Goldilock's Zone" of the stars they orbit, therefore the possibility of complex life on any moons orbiting them that are Earth sized increases as well. Of course this is all conjecture and wishful thinking, but not outside the realm of possibility. I think that we should simply study these systems and others to see whether any of them could theoretically harbor life.

There is the other possibility, that many of the stars we see at night have systems that are similar to ours. With terrestrial planets close to the sun, and Gas Giants in the outer system. Think about how many stars are within our field of detection, and how many have confirmed planets. The fact that the ones we found are Super Massive Gas Giants with close orbits around their stars only means that they are MUCH easier, though still difficult, to detect because of the effects they have on the stars they orbit.

BTW: I found a cool program that allows you to explore the stars and planets of over 100,000 stars around the solar system, not to mention all 9 planets of Sol and their moons and asteroids, comets, and spacecraft. Its called Celestia and uses the most accurate information from NASA and other space agencies about all of these objects in space. Link: http://www.shatters.net/celestia/

Also, this program can have addons applied to it to update current information and increase the amound of celestial bodies present in it. For example, the program comes with a database of 100,000 nearest stars to our sun, however there is an addon to increase this database to around 2.1 million stars.