Slashdot Mirror
Planetary System Similar to Sol
sgtwilko writes "The BBC News site has an article about how astronomers have found several new planets including some that have a similar distribution to our own Solar System. They are finding planetary systems that are more and more like the one in which the Earth resides. It's only a matter of time until the Terrestrial Planet Finder program gets going and finds another Earth." There's another story on space.com. Update: 06/13 21:51 GMT by M : Space News and Wired have stories as well, with spiffy graphics and artists' renderings and so on.
The system also has a slightly smaller neighbor which whips around every 14.5 days. My guess is the tidal forces of these two planets would eventually rip anything in between to shreds.
Yes, TPF will be a nice box to have. However, I wouldn't plan on the longevity of HST since it will be located at one of the LaGrange points just outside earth orbit.
Brian
Flamebait
Serious inquiries only.
I'm taking a page from Spock here:
Are we humans so arrogant as to assume that life can only be found on planets that closely resemble our own? Why can't life exist in forms completely unimagined by us on red-hot planets close to suns or enormous gas plants? And if we ever saw that sort of life, would we recognise it even if it was staring us in the face?
Easy...the word is gravity.
Smaller planets like Earth with lower gravity wells allow (currently known) life forms to be able to move easily. The best analogy would be the shuttle. Takes a bunch of fuel to move it. If you don't put much cargo it the ship, you need less fuel to take off. However, if you max it out, you not only need fuel to move the bigger mass, but to move the additional fuel as well. Now apply that to animals, either they would be really tiny or really huge.
Now, if you want to get into the realm of life forms that exist either in a gaseous state or as energy, I'll have to refer you to Mr. Bisson's story in Omni from a while ago.
B
Flamebait
Serious inquiries only.
First off, I would agree whole-heartedly with the previous poster who commented that much depends on whether the life discovered was (is) intelligent, and whether or not it has a soul.
As far as what I think about stories like this... I don't find any conflicts between my faith and these kinds of articles. The Bible makes mention of creatures such as the Nephilim who lived or visited Earth prior to the flood. And any Christian who would take the time to thoroughly study the Bible would be compelled (I think) to conclude that there is much that we don't know or understand about our situation in the grand scheme of things. If you're going to accept that there are angels, seraphim, cherubim, demons, etc... then they, by definition are "extra-terrestial." I do believe in a Creator, and that Jesus Christ was the Creator incarnate. Simple logic would lead one to believe that if He created life here, he could, at His discretion, have created it elsewhere. (One reason I run seti@home, just out of curiosity)
A thorough study of the Bible must entail at least a passing familiarity with the language(s) from which the version you're reading was translated. The gospel of John tells us that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world. (...For God so loved the world...) The Greek word which was translated "world" is "kosmos: the world, the universe."
Like others, I'm saddened to find Christians, or for that matter, anyone, who seems to cling to the belief that they have the final answer to any question. From the Pope on down, none of us can pretend to even begin to comprehend the magnificence of God. Therefore, when I see articles like the one we're discussing, it thrills me to see that we've uncovered one more small piece of the mystery of God's creation.
One final note, I've had bad experiences with fundamentalists just like others have. Any group of people will have their lowest common denominators. Scientists can be just as dogmatic about their theories as many zealots are about their theology. Read / study the Bible for yourself, and draw your conclusions.
Hope I haven't been too tangential.
A general rule here is that, in the abscence of a good causal model predicting why there would be more examples, you need at least two examples of something before you can conclude that it is likely that there are more than the one example you currently have. That's how you establish it as a possible reproducible pattern, rather than a one-off fluke. We currently only have one example of life appearing in the universe: here. So we really can't say too much yet about the odds of it appearing elsewhere.