Slashdot Mirror
Swedish Scientist Suggests That There Is Only One Earth (blastingnews.com)
MarkWhittington writes: The conventional wisdom has been among scientists is that a myriad of Earth-like planets exist in the universe, some of which have to be the abode of life, even intelligent life. However, Astrophysicist Erik Zackrisson from Uppsala University in Sweden has run a computer simulation of the universe, incorporating what we know about exoplanets thanks to the Kepler Space Telescope, the laws of physics, and the state of the early universe. The computer simulation came up with exactly one Earth, which is to say the one we live on. Every other planet in the universe does not have the conditions necessary to sustain life. Indeed, strictly speaking, Earth itself should not exist, according to the computer model, according to the story in Discover Magazine.
The Fermi paradox is easily solved by noticing that the universe is very big, and very empty, and that the limits of technology do not allow sufficiently easy travel.
What do you mean? It's totally feasible that there are no other life-containing planets. Mathematics say nothing by themselves... something can happen with a 1e-GooglePlex probability, or not happen with the inverse.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails.
Also, considering how life thrives even in hostile environments here on Earth, it's simply a mathematical impossibility that there are no other planets in the universe capable of supporting some kind of life.
That life has adapted to hostile environments doesn't mean that life originated in those same hostile environments. It could be that the conditions for creating life are very specific to a particular set of conditions or perhaps they are as flexible as you suggest.
Personally I find it inconceivably unlikely that the conditions necessary for life to begin would be limited to just a primordial Earth. Usually one instance in the natural world means that you will be able to find other instances when you look further.
But I think we do need more data since as far as I know we have very limited information about what specific conditions are necessary for biological processes to begin on a lifeless world in the first place and also very limited information about what the conditions of planets outside the solar system are and have been over their histories.
Given the limits of what we know it seems reasonable to just assume there are other planets with life based on the example of Earth and accept that we need a lot more data to narrow down the likely probability.
The "half colorblind world" is not an apt analogy for faith in God.
A defining feature of faith is the untestability of its object. The inability to convincingly communicate it is not. Nor is the unawareness of a provably extant characteristic.
In half colorblind world, you could perform any number of tests to show that color-sighted people can distinguish patterns or shapes of equal luminosity but different hue.
Likewise, colorblind scientists would be able to investigate both the visible spectrum and the effect various wavelengths had on the weird cone structures that only existed in the eyes of color-sighted people.
That analogy might work better for antivaxxers or climate deniers. "We know this is something you can't poke with a stick, but you'll have to take it on 'faith' that the overwhelming conclusion from hundreds of studies is that some people can discern different parts of the visible spectrum."
Nothing posted to