Starship Asterisk*

inertnet wrote:They might think that they're unique too.

This histogram depicts the estimated fraction of stars that have close orbiting planets of various sizes. The number of Sun-like stars with Earth-like planets in Earth-like orbits is surely much less,....

ddale51 wrote:Earth is a "Goldilocks" planet. Everything is just right. Just right air. Just right sun. Just right gas giant neighbors. Just right size moon. Just right rotation rate, axial tilt, composition, weather patterns. Just right, well, everything needed to support advanced life. There are nearly countless factors that had to be just right for creatures like us to exist on this planet. Earth is truly a miracle. Who knows? it's conceivable it may be unique in all the cosmos. I believe it was created to be humanity's home. You may disagree of course; but you also have to concede that this beautiful blue marble is a wonder indeed.

Cal wrote:
I'm a huge fan of APOD, but I must say this is one of the most disappointing "pictures". This graph is poorly designed for actual scientific study. As others have pointed out, the Y axis is mislabeled, and the values on each bar don't match the text. I also noticed that the graph is physically distorted: the horizontal lines aren't actually horizontal, but converge toward the right, so the scale on the right side of the graph is not the same as the left.

I recommend that anyone who wants to draw a conclusion from this graph should not; instead, look up the original data and study it carefully.

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/pao/ wrote:

The [Harvard/Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics] Public Affairs Office (PAO)
issues press (media) releases and other materials pertaining to CfA's research and projects.

geckzilla wrote:
And yet we also know it was not always just right for human habitation as we currently know it. Humans, along with all modern animals, evolved into and with their own niches, which have also changed dramatically over time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteria wrote:

[b][color=#0000FF]Stromatolites provide some of the most ancient records of life on Earth by fossil remains which date back more than 3.5 billion years ago.[/color][/b]

---

<<The ancestors of modern bacteria were single-celled microorganisms that were the first forms of life to appear on Earth, about 4 billion years ago. For about 3 billion years, all organisms were microscopic, and bacteria and archaea were the dominant forms of life. Although bacterial fossils exist, such as stromatolites, their lack of distinctive morphology prevents them from being used to examine the history of bacterial evolution. However, gene sequences can be used to reconstruct the bacterial phylogeny, and these studies indicate that bacteria diverged first from the archaeal/eukaryotic lineage.

Bacteria constitute a large domain of prokaryotic microorganisms. Typically a few micrometres in length, bacteria have a wide range of shapes, ranging from spheres to rods and spirals. Bacteria are present in most habitats on the planet, growing in soil, acidic hot springs, radioactive waste, water, and deep in the Earth's crust, as well as in organic matter and the live bodies of plants and animals, providing outstanding examples of mutualism in the digestive tracts of humans, termites and cockroaches. There are approximately ten times as many bacterial cells in the human flora as there are human cells in the body, with large numbers of bacteria on the skin and as gut flora.

There are typically 40 million bacterial cells in a gram of soil and a million bacterial cells in a millilitre of fresh water; in all, there are approximately five nonillion (5×10³⁰)* bacteria on Earth, forming a biomass that exceeds that of all plants and animals. Bacteria are vital in recycling nutrients, with many steps in nutrient cycles depending on these organisms, such as the fixation of nitrogen from the atmosphere and putrefaction. In the biological communities surrounding hydrothermal vents and cold seeps, bacteria provide the nutrients needed to sustain life by converting dissolved compounds such as hydrogen sulphide and methane.>>

* Note: Sagan's number is the number of stars in the observable universe presently estimated to be ~70 sextillion (7×10²²).

ddale51 wrote:Earth is a "Goldilocks" planet. ...

In planetary astronomy and astrobiology, the Rare Earth hypothesis argues that the emergence of complex multicellular life (metazoa) on Earth (and, as follows, intelligence) required an improbable combination of astrophysical and geological events and circumstances. The hypothesis argues that complex extraterrestrial life requires an Earth-like planet with similar circumstance and that few if any such planets exist.

The principle of mediocrity concludes that the Earth is a typical rocky planet in a typical planetary system, located in a non-exceptional region of a common barred-spiral galaxy. Hence it is probable that the universe teems with complex life.

George K wrote:

George K wrote:You say, "The number of Sun-like stars with Earth-like planets in Earth-like orbits is surely much less..." but I don't see the logic in that statement. What is counted in this APOD are close-in orbits, which is a restricted set; "Earth-like orbits" (presumably in the "habitable zone") is a different restricted set. How do we know that the number in the first set is fewer than the number in the second? In the solar system at least, there is a lot less space in the first area than the second.

Sorry, I meat to say, How do we know the number in the first set is greater than the number in the second? The second set, planets with Earth-like orbits, are harder to detect with current techniques, so we count fewer of them, but that doesn't mean there are intrinsically fewer of these planets. It's the usual selection-effect issue.

ddale51 wrote:Earth is a "Goldilocks" planet. Everything is just right. Just right air. Just right sun. Just right gas giant neighbors. Just right size moon. Just right rotation rate, axial tilt, composition, weather patterns. Just right, well, everything needed to support advanced life. There are nearly countless factors that had to be just right for creatures like us to exist on this planet. Earth is truly a miracle. Who knows? it's conceivable it may be unique in all the cosmos. I believe it was created to be humanity's home. You may disagree of course; but you also have to concede that this beautiful blue marble is a wonder indeed.

BDanielMayfield wrote:

Stefan48 wrote:With the talk about other planets and their relative size to earth, my question is - (speaking of size only) on how large of a planet can a human live comfortably? Can we live comfortably, or maybe with minor adjustment needed, live on a planet twice as big as earth? On a planet twice the size of earth, would I weight twice as much, or might I weight 1.5 times as much? Or what would I weigh?

That’s a good question, for while these planets are far too hot, many others have been and will continue to be discovered that have orbits in the “habitable zone” of the stars they orbit. Ignoring cases of rapid rotation, the force that something would feel on the surface of a planet depends on only two factors; the planet’s mass and its radius. The more massive a planet is, the greater the G force would be, but this is somewhat counter-acted by the size of a planet, because this force drops with increasing distance. Therefore you cannot accurately say that we would be twice as heavy on a world that was twice the radius of Earth, nor can this be said if the world is twice the mass of Earth. Both planetary mass and size must be known for surface gravity to be calculated. I don’t remember the exact formula, I’m sure someone will post it soon if they haven’t already done so.

neufer wrote:

GoddardOffTheGround wrote:
In short, looking for a DOUBLE planetary Earth-Moon system, which has made the Earth be what the Earth is, may, unfortunately, be incredibly rare, but also might be one of the critical requirements for life to evolve and flourish.

Some people believe that there is another such "planetary" system:

[b][color=#0000FF][size=135]Artist's concept of Charon seen from the surface of Pluto.[/size][/color][/b]

---

George K wrote:You say, "The number of Sun-like stars with Earth-like planets in Earth-like orbits is surely much less..." but I don't see the logic in that statement. What is counted in this APOD are close-in orbits, which is a restricted set; "Earth-like orbits" (presumably in the "habitable zone") is a different restricted set. How do we know that the number in the first set is fewer than the number in the second? In the solar system at least, there is a lot less space in the first area than the second.

GoddardOffTheGround wrote:... it's the disproportionate Moon -- a satellite nearly 1/4 the size of the primary planet -- which has never been observed in any other system, ...

drollere wrote:i'm interested to see how the new population distributions affect the drake equation (or its equivalent).

neufer wrote:

GoddardOffTheGround wrote:
In short, looking for a DOUBLE planetary Earth-Moon system, which has made the Earth be what the Earth is, may, unfortunately, be incredibly rare, but also might be one of the critical requirements for life to evolve and flourish.

Some people believe that there is another such "planetary" system:

[b][color=#0000FF][size=135]Artist's concept of Charon seen from the surface of Pluto.[/size][/color][/b]

---

GoddardOffTheGround wrote:
In short, looking for a DOUBLE planetary Earth-Moon system, which has made the Earth be what the Earth is, may, unfortunately, be incredibly rare, but also might be one of the critical requirements for life to evolve and flourish.

inertnet wrote:
I'm wondering how life would have developed if the Earth had more mass.

I guess that fish as we know them would all sink to the bottom.
... I guess swimming would be out of the question for us.

inertnet wrote:
Would plants grow as high as ours?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoia_sempervirens wrote:
<<Sequoia sempervirens includes the tallest trees on Earth. The current tallest tree is Hyperion, measuring at 379.3 feet (115.6 m). A tree claimed to be 424.08 ft (129.26 m) was felled in November 1886 by the Elk River Mill and Lumber Co. at the south fork of Elk River in Humboldt County. The theoretical maximum potential height of coast redwoods is limited to between 122 and 130 m (400 and 427 ft), due to gravity and the friction between water and the conduits through which it flows.>>

inertnet wrote:
Would land creatures be built more massively, or lighter than we are?
Would huge dinosaurs have been possible? Or birds?

inertnet wrote:
If the average planet mass is higher than ours,
I guess that beings from other planets would on average be stronger than us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krypton_%28planet%29 wrote:
<<Krypton was shown to have been a planet similar to Earth, older by eons and possessed of all the beneficial progress that implied. All Kryptonians possessed a level of heightened physical abilities, including super-strength and super-speed.>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon wrote:
<<Lake Wobegon, Minnesota: "the little town that time forgot, and the decades cannot improve," and "where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average." The Lake Wobegon effect, a natural human tendency to overestimate one's capabilities, is named after the town.>>