# Bear Reports Sighting in Goldilocks Zone



## Ursa major (Nov 8, 2012)

> Astronomers have spotted another candidate for a potentially habitable planet - and it is not too far away.
> 
> The star HD 40307 was known to host three planets, all of them too near to support liquid water.
> 
> ...


 

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20249753.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Nov 8, 2012)

Interesting concept. But I still feel the whole issue is not whether or not a planet that supports liquid water, but the potential branches of evolution. I suspect that what scientists are trying to look for more are colonizing planets rather than other intelligent life...


----------



## Bowler1 (Nov 9, 2012)

I was expecting something else when I saw the title. 

I get excited when I see these reports. I know there all a best guess at most of what the planet might be like, but even still. If they ever find a planet with proven life on, then that really will be exciting. Until then it's guess work and our imaginations. Still, it's all good ideas for WIP's, which is why I read a lot of these stories when they appear on the news.


----------



## Gordian Knot (Nov 10, 2012)

Karn, at seven times our Earth's mass, that is not a viable option for colonization by us. We'd be squished flat by the intense gravity.


----------



## chrispenycate (Nov 12, 2012)

> Karn, at seven times our Earth's mass, that is not a viable option for colonization by us. We'd be squished flat by the intense gravity.



Seven times the mass does not necessarily mean seven times the surface gravity; there are other factors to be taken into account. Saturn, at a hundred times the Earth's mass only has a slightly higher surface gravity (as far as one can talk about 'surface' with a gas giant). And a big planet in the right region could have a habitable moon.

But any true scientist would be more interested in extraterrestrial life, existence, care and feeding of, than any possible colonisation which, with present-day physics, is several centuries down the line, anyway.


----------



## Gordian Knot (Nov 13, 2012)

Ah but Saturn IS a gas planet, not a rock one. No way we could withstand the gravity of a rock planet that big. But the idea about possible habitable moons, that I have to agree with is a fascinating concept.

And if we are not discussing human habitation, then there are all kinds of potential life possible on the planet itself. Any life that developed there would develop strategies to deal with the higher gravity.


----------



## Metryq (Nov 13, 2012)

Gordian Knot said:


> Ah but Saturn IS a gas planet, not a rock one.



I think you're missing Crispenycate's point. Astronomers believe they know the masses of these planets. That does not mean they know the volumes. The HARP data is extremely tenuous. Minor flickerings in spectral shift—_assumed_ to be due to the Doppler effect—appear to be a handful of large masses around a given star. After that, everything is pure speculation.


----------



## Dave (Nov 13, 2012)

There are a tremendous number of assumptions being made here, but since we only have the experience of a single planetary system to examine, I can't see what other basis there could be. As always, the problem is not the speculation of the scientists, but of reporters who do not understand the assumptions made but are then running the conclusions as a forgone absolute fact.


----------



## Gordian Knot (Nov 13, 2012)

Metryq said:


> I think you're missing Crispenycate's point. Astronomers believe they know the masses of these planets. That does not mean they know the volumes. The HARP data is extremely tenuous. Minor flickerings in spectral shift—_assumed_ to be due to the Doppler effect—appear to be a handful of large masses around a given star. After that, everything is pure speculation.



I quite agree with all of this. We are making projections based on very tenuous information. Only time will tell if we are seeing what we think we may be seeing.

What is not tenuous though is physics. If the newly discovered object is a rock planet seven times the size of the earth, the gravity is going to be enormously higher. I don't see how that can be debated. We do have a fair understanding of size, mass and gravity.


----------



## Metryq (Nov 13, 2012)

Gordian Knot said:


> What is not tenuous though is physics.



Meanwhile there are lots of scientists who can still talk about neutron stars, black holes and icy comets with a straight face.



> If the newly discovered object is a rock planet



_IF_. All the data shows is that a mass about seven times that of Earth appears to be in orbit.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Nov 14, 2012)

Gordian Knot said:


> Karn, at seven times our Earth's mass, that is not a viable option for colonization by us. We'd be squished flat by the intense gravity.




Given the scenario, yes. You did miss my point here, however. What my point was, was that scientists always seem to be so busy trying to find planets and other celestial bodies with liquid water that they exclude their field of vision to anything else. Just because OUR planet gave life due to liquid water doesn't mean there might not be other life forms out there which have evolved in a totally different matter. What if there's an intelligent species out there to whom H2O would be as deadly a toxin as arsenic is to us? I just mean that astronomers and physicists should consider those types of possibilities.


----------



## Metryq (Nov 14, 2012)

*Class M planets*



Karn Maeshalanadae said:


> What if there's an intelligent species out there to whom H2O would be as deadly a toxin as arsenic is to us?



Quite possible. However, from a practical standpoint, most life may not be detectable from a distance. So "exobiology" becomes a field of study with no subject until we can get out there and get our hands dirty.

Hydrogen and water appear to be very common in the universe. Astronomers have detected stars that seem to be spewing jets of water into space. So while there may be life based on radically different chemistries, it's possible that we'll run into many biospheres with life "similar" to ours. 

I'll show my parochial bias by opining that water is unlikely to be poisonous to other life, while a component of water (not bound up) such as oxygen might be very poisonous. One example is a silicon-based life form; search the Web for treatments on the TREK episode "Devil in the Dark." Face-to-face contact, as depicted in that episode, may not be possible—even for short periods.


----------



## nubins (Nov 14, 2012)

Depends what that mass is, even if it is rocky - do i understand correctly that if it didnt have a molten iron core, its extremely unlikely to be able to support any form of life as we know it?


----------



## Ursa major (Nov 14, 2012)

*Re: Class M planets*



Metryq said:


> Astronomers have detected stars that seem to be spewing jets of water into space.


Steam-powered stars?

Now that's what I call superheating....



​


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Nov 14, 2012)

*Re: Class M planets*



Metryq said:


> Quite possible. However, from a practical standpoint, most life may not be detectable from a distance. So "exobiology" becomes a field of study with no subject until we can get out there and get our hands dirty.
> 
> Hydrogen and water appear to be very common in the universe. Astronomers have detected stars that seem to be spewing jets of water into space. So while there may be life based on radically different chemistries, it's possible that we'll run into many biospheres with life "similar" to ours.
> 
> I'll show my parochial bias by opining that water is unlikely to be poisonous to other life, while a component of water (not bound up) such as oxygen might be very poisonous. One example is a silicon-based life form; search the Web for treatments on the TREK episode "Devil in the Dark." Face-to-face contact, as depicted in that episode, may not be possible—even for short periods.




Well yes. It was just an example, but what my point was, is that I feel scientists are getting a little too excited over planets with atmospheres similar to ours. While there is a good possibility that they could most likely indeed support life, I'm just saying we shouldn't rule out the possibility that it is the ONLY scenario that could support intelligent life.


----------



## Metryq (Nov 15, 2012)

*Let us not forget Percival Lowell's Martians*



> *Nubins wrote:* do i understand correctly that if it didnt have a molten iron core, its extremely unlikely to be able to support any form of life as we know it?



Venus does not have a magnetosphere, but it does have a plasmasphere. So while I'm not claiming that Venus has life, it is shielded from the Solar wind by what I believe is called a Langmuir sheath, or Debye sheath. I have no idea how long such a condition might last. For example, the Moon has no plasmasphere as that body has reached equilibrium with the Solar plasma.



Karn Maeshalanadae said:


> I'm just saying we shouldn't rule out the possibility that it is the ONLY scenario that could support intelligent life.



I think the problem is exactly the opposite—some astronomers are seeing potential abodes of life based on nothing more than the mass of a planet and its proximity to the local star. Most exoplanets are spotted with various methods of recording a star's "wobble" about the system's barycenter. A few exoplanets have been photographed directly, but they are all Jupiter+ masses and/or orbiting far outside the assumed "Goldilocks zone." And while there have been fanciful speculations on creatures living in the clouds of Jupiter, they are still just speculations and tell us nothing about far larger planets many lightyears away.

Let us not forget Percival Lowell's Martians (canals and shifting patterns of assumed vegetation).


----------



## Gordian Knot (Nov 15, 2012)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karn Maeshalanadae 
_I'm just saying we shouldn't rule out the possibility that it is the ONLY scenario that could support intelligent life._

A topic I follow with some interest as the philosophy seems to have changed from a couple decades ago. Back in the '70s era it was generally accepted that life on other planets would be nothing like life on Earth. Different biosphere environments, and radically different life shapes. No central mass with a head and four limbs allowed.

Nowadays a lot of scientists seem to be suggesting quite the opposite. That there is likely plenty of life on planets with liquid water, and that life forms would develop similar to our own. The reasoning seems to be that the solutions to dealing with a physical shape would be similar to what we experienced here, and thus could develop along similar lines as here.

It seems very curious to me that general thinking has changed to the "more like us" rather than "less like us" over the past few decades. The reasoning behind the water requirement having gained ground is logical as we have found so much more of it than anyone would have ever expected.

But the lifeforms themselves? I'm having a harder time accepting that one. I still lean towards life shapes being very different from how life shapes evolved on Earth.

Quote Originally Posted by Metryq
_Meanwhile there are lots of scientists who can still talk about neutron stars, black holes and icy comets with a straight face._

Met, I am reading this as sarcasm. Which is cool, I've been known to fling a bit of sarcasm around in my time. I'm confused about what you are saying though. Are you suggesting that neutron stars, black holes and icy comets should not be considered as essentially fact? Cause I kinda thought they were.


----------



## Abernovo (Nov 15, 2012)

Gord, I don't think the talk about life 'like us' means looking exactly like us. If you have a water-rich planet, with something like nucleic acids as a basis for life, the basic hypothesis is that you need cell-like structures. Without something akin to cell walls, you lack a containment and stuff can disperse. Once you have cells, or something like them, then there are patterns that are likely to occur.

Then you have the intelligence factor. Do you sacrifice your arms or your head in a fall? So, is it likely that evolution will probably favour some protection for brains, or their equivalents? The truth is often odder than we can imagine, but there will likely be patterns that we can identify.

As to neutron stars and black holes, neither have ever been visually observed. They are, as I understand, mathematical models, that best explain the results gathered. Unless someone comes up with something better, I'm fine with them, personally. I'm sure the models will be refined over time.

Metryq's comment perhaps comes about because of 'icy' comets. For years, comets were described as clusters of rock and ice, although nobody had ever collected samples or been able to study them closely. A few years ago, they were able to and found that the particular comet they collided the spacecraft with was much rockier than expected. So if comets aren't necessarily icy, then do other models need tweaking? That question is close to the heart of all good research.

Metryq, forgive me if I misrepresent you. It wasn't my intention, only my interpretation of a current debate going on about the exact properties of some astronomic phenomena.


----------



## Dave (Nov 15, 2012)

You don't need to look to alien life to find life that doesn't look much like a mammal. Just examine closely a spider, or a crab or locust. Those things are seriously weird and not cuddly at all. So, any life we find will undoubtedly be weirder than we can possibly imagine. 

I think we are talking about different things here though. Firstly, instances of parallel evolution may well lead to intelligent beings all having heads, two legs and arms, binocular vision and opposable thumbs, but that is quite different to the Chemistry.

I think it was the view that Water was rare that resulted in the idea that we might find "life, but not as we know it!" Now, they think Water is not that rare, but an actual "Waterworld" like Earth may still be very rare indeed. 

There is no other solvent that acts like Water, it is unique and extremely odd in its properties. There is no other element that creates long chain molecules like Carbon. Silicon does not, it creates clay minerals and rocks. There are more Carbon compounds than any other element, many times more. It is also unique. So, I'm not sure that the ideas of Ammonia/Silicon based life are anything but wishful thinking.

I like reading SF that postulates cold temperature life, rock monsters and atmospheric gas balloons, but realistically the best chances of finding life will be Water/Carbon and DNA. I could see the DNA having alternative base pairs from the existing four though. That would be interesting.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Nov 15, 2012)

*Re: Let us not forget Percival Lowell's Martians*



Metryq said:


> Venus does not have a magnetosphere, but it does have a plasmasphere. So while I'm not claiming that Venus has life, it is shielded from the Solar wind by what I believe is called a Langmuir sheath, or Debye sheath. I have no idea how long such a condition might last. For example, the Moon has no plasmasphere as that body has reached equilibrium with the Solar plasma.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That's another issue-what scientists dub "the Goldilocks zone." Again, it's making too much an assumption. Even putting everything Dave just said aside, I still find it possible that there could well be lifeforms that would actually die of hypothermia even along our equator. I would probably hazard a guess that it would be a bit of a stretch for anything to die of heat stroke in Antarctica, though.


----------



## Metryq (Nov 15, 2012)

Gordian Knot said:


> Are you suggesting that neutron stars, black holes and icy comets should not be considered as essentially fact? Cause I kinda thought they were.



Those ideas won't die easily. Many widely accepted notions in astronomy and physics were merely "suggested" by someone, or put forth as mathematical models, then accepted because they sounded good. (But mathematical models are not evidence.) For example, Eddington suggested that the Sun is a fusion furnace driven by gravity. Observations are making this position increasingly untenable. Icy comets are a by-product of the accretion model, and several comet probes have proven the idea wrong.

If I were to recommend only one book that counters mainstream ideas, it would be Donald Scott's THE ELECTRIC SKY. I've mentioned several others in these forums, but I'm sure anyone interested can find them on their own. The following is a short excerpt from Scott's book:



> The extraordinary thing about pulsars is the almost unbelievably high frequency of their flashes of electromagnetic radiation (both light and radio frequency emissions). When they were first discovered, it was thought that they rotated rapidly – like lighthouses. But when the implied rate of rotation for some pulsars was announced to be about once every second, despite their having masses exceeding that of the Sun, this lighthouse explanation became untenable. It was proposed that only such a super-dense material as ‘neutronium’ could make up a star that could stand those rotation speeds – so they must exist. A neutron star was spinning at the required rate.
> 
> Neutron stars are impossible. One of the well-known basic rules of nuclear chemistry is the so-called ‘band of stability.’ This is the observation that, if we add neutrons to the nucleus of any atom, we need to add an almost proportional number of protons (and their accompanying electrons) to maintain a stable nucleus. In fact, it seems that, when we consider all the known elements (even the heavy man-made elements as well), there is a requirement that, in order to hold a group of neutrons together in a nucleus, an almost equal number of proton-electron pairs are required. The stable nuclei of the lighter elements contain approximately equal numbers of neutrons and protons – a neutron/proton ratio of 1. The heavier nuclei contain a few more neutrons than protons, but the limit seems to be about 1.5 neutrons per proton. Nuclei that differ significantly from this ratio *spontaneously undergo radioactive decay* transformations that tend to bring their compositions closer to this ratio. Groups of neutrons are not stable by themselves.
> 
> We know from laboratory experiments that any lone neutron decays into a proton, an electron and a neutrino in less than 14 minutes; atom-like collections of two or more neutrons will fly apart almost instantaneously. There is no such thing as neutronium. Therefore there can be no such entity as a neutron star. It is a fiction that flies in the face of all we know about elements and their atomic nuclei.



And yes, there are alternative theories that do not strain credibility.

A similar volume by Wallace Thornhill and David Talbot suggests a scenario that throws the "Goldilocks zone" right out the window—to say nothing of upending the H-R diagram. And there's lots of empirical evidence to back it up.

As for the change in attitude towards the possibility of life, let's just say that antiquated ideas requiring incredibly long odds (or an act of god) have not fared well in the light of recent observations.


----------



## nubins (Nov 16, 2012)

Isn't the goldilocks zone just for "higher" life - IE mammals and the like? I think it's widely accepted that the best candidates for finding life in our solar system are moons around Jupiter and Saturn and possibly under the incredibly thick ice sheets of Neptune (I think). Essentially, anywhere there is a source of heat and water.


----------



## Dave (Nov 16, 2012)

It is the zone 'just right' for any "Life as we know it, Jim". Think: story of 'The Three Bears' and their porridge. But yes that is all based on having a temperature where water is a liquid solvent, proteins are not denatured, and all the other reactions that can take place at those temperatures do (something we take completely for granted because we know nothing else.) My point isn't Earth-centric, it is that for Chemical and Physical reasons the Earth is unique in these respects.

There are plenty of anaerobic bacteria (and other organisms) that do not require oxygen for growth, some that are even harmed by it. Free Oxygen has only been around since there were Blue-Green Algae and is not a prerequisite for life. There are even bacteria that do not require oxygen at any point during their life, and many that exist by oxidizing organic compounds, or even oxidizing molecular hydrogen while reducing sulphate to hydrogen sulphide.

However, any anaerobic "life as we know it" would still require liquid water and organic cell membranes and a method of coding information for replication. For those, you just have to have a temperature that is precisely and exactly the same as that we have on Earth. You therefore have to have a planet that is exactly in the position that the Earth is to the Sun.

I think it is Titan where ice sheets and a heat source give most hope but as I said before it is all wishful thinking. The possibility rises if bacteria were seeded there - the Panspermia idea. If life did not evolve uniquely on Earth but was seeded from elsewhere, then I think any planet within the Goldilocks Zone of another star is a contender for life.

Or, there may be Karn Maeshalanadae's idea of "life, but not as we know it." That is Science Fiction.


----------



## nubins (Nov 16, 2012)

It's not unreasonable to think there could be life in the oceans of the moons fuelled by hydrothermal vents - all the building blocks are there - hydrocarbons, heat, water. Life lives in the hydrothermal vents on Earth that is very different to other organisms that live elsewhere here, so why not? You wouldnt get much more than bacteria and tiny organisms from that kind of existence, but it's still life. Volcanism is rife, so you don't need a star to provide the energy needed.


----------



## Dave (Nov 16, 2012)

No, it isn't unreasonable at all if it were seeded from space by interstellar viruses. It is quite likely that we could take some of those hydrothermal vent bacteria from Earth and transplant them there and they would happily survive. However, I do think it far less likely that they could have independently developed there out of a protein soup. On the other hand, no one can even say for certain that is what happened on Earth. Primitive cells have now been made artifically, and mitochrondria and other organelles are simply small cells within a cell, so I think the evidence is building that the "incredibly long odds (or an act of god)" Metryq mentioned are not required.


----------



## Gordian Knot (Nov 17, 2012)

Metryk wrote: "Many widely accepted notions in astronomy and physics were merely "suggested" by someone, or put forth as mathematical models, then accepted because they sounded good. (But mathematical models are not evidence.)"

I am both shocked and fascinated by this comment. For two reasons. 

First, that so many astronomers and physicists with impeccable reputations have spoken about black holes, neutron stars, etc. as if they were as real as the keyboard I am typing on (we're going to ignore the entire is real, Real debate for the moment). To find out that there is no physical proof for these things stuns me.

The second thing that fascinates me abut M's comment is that it mirrors my own thoughts on theoretical physics, such as string theory, dark matter, etc. It has been a real issue for me that scientists are putting forth solutions which are becoming more or less accepted dogma based totally on the fact that the math says they have to be there.

On some science boards I have tried to suggest that mathematical models are not proof of anything. We cannot explain why the universe is expanding ever faster and faster. Ergo this stuff which we cannot in any way detect must exist. We'll call it Dark Matter and say it makes up 75% of the universe. Problem solved. My thoughts are, Really? Seriously???

What if the math is wrong. What if the person who wrote the computational model goofed. What about garbage in, garbage out? Mostly I have been told I have to learn the math to understand. Which to me is a circular argument!


----------



## Vertigo (Nov 17, 2012)

In fairness they don't say 'problem solved.' Most of the physicists hate dark energy and dark matter precisely because they cannot be explained. Science has always had kludge fixes in  place to make things fit the observations. This is a normal process. Eventually, as our knowledge and our experimental ability improves, we attempt to replace those unknowns with something more concrete. That's not always possible; physics is littered with 'constants' whose value cannot be explained, they just are. For example why is Plank's constant the value it is? And yet if it was even slightly different the universe we know could not exist.

So, Neutron stars, and black holes are simply the best fit explanations for what we can currently observe. We cannot prove their existence until we can travel to them and take a closer look. Then we can learn more. But we can make pretty accurate assumptions about their likely nature.

On the life front. I get a bit annoyed by the argument that we are basing our assumptions about life on just one example. That's complete tosh we have numerous examples of different environments in our solar system: from Earth to Mars, Venus, gas giants, gas giant moons, comets and asteroids. So far we have found only one place where life exists or ever has existed. And that's right here on Earth. Maybe we will yet find evidence of life, past or present, somewhere else in the Solar system but so far all we have is carbon based life requiring liquid water right here on Earth. And to base our assumptions about life elsewhere on anything other than those known facts would be pure speculation.

So based on the experience of our own multitude of evironments right here, the most likely place to find life (complex life at least) is somewhere similiar to Earth. I don't say reject any other possibilities but, based on our current knowledge, that is the most likely.

I also argue parallel evolution is likely. On Earth similar ecological niches are filled with very similarly equipped life. Evolution, spread over tens of million years, is pretty good at producing the best fit for any particular environment and there is nothing to suggest it would find radically different solutions elsewhere. Differences yes, of course, for example on a planet with a much higher oxygen density insect analogies would be able to grow much larger. Whether they would develop intelligence is another argument, but my point is that I see no reason why the same tens of millions of years of evolution in a similar environment (see above) would not produce similar parralell paths.


----------



## Metryq (Nov 18, 2012)

Vertigo said:


> For example why is Plank's constant the value it is? And yet if it was even slightly different the universe we know could not exist.



This is the "act of God" argument, or the Anthropic Principle—circular reasoning. Planck's constant, the beginnings of quantum theory, glosses over the "ultraviolet catastrophe" in blackbody radiation, rather than addressing it. It was the first step back towards Platonism. This disconnect from reality grew steadily worse throughout the 20th century and is why so little progress has been made.



> So, Neutron stars, and black holes are simply the best fit explanations for what we can currently observe.



Hardly. These things are ad hoc explanations, or mathematical phantoms. And both are internally inconsistent. Neutron stars and black holes are two _popular_ explanations for certain phenomena, but they are not the _best_ explanations.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Nov 18, 2012)

Dave said:


> Or, there may be Karn Maeshalanadae's idea of "life, but not as we know it." That is Science Fiction.




Why do I get the feeling that Dave just patted me on the head, gave me a cookie, and told me to go play elsewhere?


----------



## Dave (Nov 18, 2012)

Sorry Karn, all I meant was that other life may well exist, but we cannot look for something if we don't know what it is. You wouldn't walk into an enormous library and say 'I'd like to read a book, but I don't know which one.' 

This hunt for planets in the Goldilock's zone may have it's basis in false assumptions, ad hoc explanations, or mathematical phantoms, but at least we do already know that life exists under these similar conditions on Earth. 

There are other different searches for life that take an alternative angle - SETI - which seeks evidence of life in the universe by looking for some signature of its technology.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Nov 18, 2012)

Dave said:


> Sorry Karn, all I meant was that other life may well exist, but we cannot look for something if we don't know what it is. You wouldn't walk into an enormous library and say 'I'd like to read a book, but I don't know which one.'




I think that's part of my weird mind, because that is exactly what I would do... I always seem to look towards what's possible and never say die, and my brain works better with what's outside reality.


----------



## Vertigo (Nov 18, 2012)

Metryq said:


> This is the "act of God" argument, or the Anthropic Principle—circular reasoning. Planck's constant, the beginnings of quantum theory, glosses over the "ultraviolet catastrophe" in blackbody radiation, rather than addressing it. It was the first step back towards Platonism. This disconnect from reality grew steadily worse throughout the 20th century and is why so little progress has been made.
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly. These things are ad hoc explanations, or mathematical phantoms. And both are internally inconsistent. Neutron stars and black holes are two _popular_ explanations for certain phenomena, but they are not the _best_ explanations.


 
Sorry, Metryq, I would have to disagree on both of your points there.

First to say that so little progress has been made in the 20th Century is simply not right. We have made enormous strides forward throughout the 20th Century by applying just those principles you argue against. And strangely enough they have pretty much all worked in application. For example the time dilation caused by relative velocities is an essential component in achieving accurate satellite navigation (which in reverse provides accurate proof of that time dilation) or another: all solid state electronics have been developed directly on the back of quatum theory.

On your second point I would have to dispute your comment on these things being _popular _but not the _best _explanations. I am not a physicist but I do know that by far the majority of physicists agree about things like neturon stars and black holes (not unsurprisingly things like dark energy and dark matter get considerably less approval). So if that's what you mean by popular then fair enough. But to say they are not the best explanation is to say that you know better than the majority of physicists, and I feel that is a little presumptuous.

There are alternative theories but currently the majority of them are considered by most physicists to have more holes in them than the existing accepted ones. And that, of course, is the essence of the scientific method. No theory has so far proved perfect across the entire spectrum, they never have in the past and possibly they never will. However we take the theoriesnthat best fit and then try to further refine them.

Bear in mind also that they are now pretty certain they have found the higgs bosun and that confirms many more aspects of the current theories.


----------



## chrispenycate (Nov 18, 2012)

The 'nuclear chemistry' argument against neutronium is spurious. There are no nuclei, no electron shells, and so it's stability does not come into question (indeed, if not in a totally ridiculous gravitational field, it can't exist, so neutrons will decay into hadron pairs and presumably degenerate to normal matter). None of which is a proof that neutron stars exist, of course, and a false hypothesis can lead to a true conclusion, but it does suggest the author doesn't know what he's talking about or, worse, does know but writes for people who don't.

But more evidence about the existence or otherwise of neutron stars will come trickling in over time, even if we can't get there to observe them.

Black holes are more complicated. They are not observable, since (as long as the teary of relativity holds) no information can escape an event horizon. So the maximum possible is to observe their effect on surrounding matter, and attempt to analyse the conditions that brought said effects into being; hardly a satisfactory means of research. 

Extraterrestrial life? We need a few examples to compare, and I see no signs of them coming to join us yet. Nor any great hope of us visiting them, for a while (nor even recognising them if they don't conform to our expectations of how life should behave).

If panspermia is an option, yes, liquid water and carbon are the first suspects. If a self-sustaining, multiplying chemical reaction has a good chance of turning up in any system in a few billion years, then carbon, hydrogen and oxygen are still strong contenders; hydrogen is the commonest element in the universe, and both oxygen and carbon are on the principal fusion chain that seems to be operating in the sun, and most likely other stars (can't observe that any too closely, either; mathematical models compared with spectrum lines is about the best we can manage until someone builds a star), so they're both likely to be available in quantity. Iron, at the bottom of the energy curve, pity we can't do anything with helium, I could probably look up the concentration charts for the Earth…
But a different planet, they'll be different. So, if manganese were commoner, would our pro-life incorporate that for it's blood, lithium instead of sodium as salt, what temperature range would these work over. Back when Analog was still Astounding Isaac Asimov wrote one of his science pieces on 'life not as we know it', which I kept for many years until it fell apart, comparing silicon with carbon or boron, chlorine and sulphur with oxgen, and so forth. No conclusions can be drawn except that, here on Earth, life has used whatever it has found as resources, and one can safely predict that life elsewhere…

Well, no, one can't safely predict anything.


----------



## Metryq (Nov 18, 2012)

chrispenycate said:


> The 'nuclear chemistry' argument against neutronium is spurious.



So we're supposed to accept on faith that neutronium and "a totally ridiculous gravitational field" exist just to save the phenomenon of pulsars as rotating "lighthouses" in space? I mentioned a book by Donald Scott; have you read it or anything about the theories he describes before brushing it all aside in favor of the orthodox explanation? Seriously, what is the _compelling_ evidence for neutron stars and black holes—rapid radio pulses or x-rays? Surely nothing else could be responsible...



> mathematical models compared with spectrum lines is about the best we can manage *until someone builds a star*



Funny you should mention that. At least these guys have a theory that is _testable_.


----------



## Galacticdefender (Nov 25, 2012)

Karn Maeshalanadae said:


> I think that's part of my weird mind, because that is exactly what I would do... I always seem to look towards what's possible and never say die, and my brain works better with what's outside reality.


 

Actually, convergent evolution could mean that life on other worlds similar to Earth might bear at least some resemblance. It is not entirely far fetched that life elsewhere could resemble life on Earth. For example, DNA is a good way of "storing information" and may be used in the same way for life on other planets. Though RNA could feasibly be a component of simpler life forms as it likely was early in Earth's history. 

This isn't to say that life in stranger forms doesn't exist. I would think that the type of life would vary considerably from world to world, though on Earthlike planets, I think life would be more similar to what we are used to than many people might expect.


----------

