you never say why?
-
I would suggest a careful read of my answers to the following questions:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;…
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;…
(answer 9)
To save me having to repeat it all.
In general, I don't object to the POSSIBILITY that the biochemistry that defines life may have originated independently of that on Earth. However there is no requirement that life MUST have originated elsewhere, no matter how many stars there are.
Kepler is telling us that there is most unlikely to be any other planets in this galaxy that can sustain life, due to the vast majority of systems displaying instability even with the known planets in them. This is without even considering the stability of planets themselves within these systems.
If indeed we are the only planet with life in this galaxy that makes us ALONE by definition.
http://www.astro.washington.edu/users/ro…
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/22/12342.…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_o…
!Apologies for the commercials but a good site anyway!
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11…
So what about life in other galaxies? Suppose there is a microbe in M31? What do we make of this possibility? Even if it does exist and we never detect it, that makes us ALONE.
But the optimists talk about the future of propulsion. A future that may take us to M31, or the inhabitants of M31 to us. Lets consider the future. Assuming that the scientific progress of the last century will continue is a hard assumption to justify. See this:
http://www.johnhorgan.org/the_end_of_sci…
The universe is based on simple laws, and we now understand those laws from quarks to quasars. We are NOT in the position of Lord kelvin a century ago, when there was so much science to discover. Now, there really is little fundamental science for us left to discover.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Kelvin…
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;…
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;…
(answer 9)
To save me having to repeat it all.
In general, I don't object to the POSSIBILITY that the biochemistry that defines life may have originated independently of that on Earth. However there is no requirement that life MUST have originated elsewhere, no matter how many stars there are.
Kepler is telling us that there is most unlikely to be any other planets in this galaxy that can sustain life, due to the vast majority of systems displaying instability even with the known planets in them. This is without even considering the stability of planets themselves within these systems.
If indeed we are the only planet with life in this galaxy that makes us ALONE by definition.
http://www.astro.washington.edu/users/ro…
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/22/12342.…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_o…
!Apologies for the commercials but a good site anyway!
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11…
So what about life in other galaxies? Suppose there is a microbe in M31? What do we make of this possibility? Even if it does exist and we never detect it, that makes us ALONE.
But the optimists talk about the future of propulsion. A future that may take us to M31, or the inhabitants of M31 to us. Lets consider the future. Assuming that the scientific progress of the last century will continue is a hard assumption to justify. See this:
http://www.johnhorgan.org/the_end_of_sci…
The universe is based on simple laws, and we now understand those laws from quarks to quasars. We are NOT in the position of Lord kelvin a century ago, when there was so much science to discover. Now, there really is little fundamental science for us left to discover.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Kelvin…
12
keywords: are,we,why,me,tell,Quadriilion,alone,then,Quadriilion tell me why we are alone then