Article - Scientist Lists Eleven Star Systems Most Likely to Host Life

Artcle -Scientist Lists Eleven Star Systems Most Likely to Host Life -
By VOA News -(19 Feb.'06)

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-02-19-voa9.cfm


:^) , Jason H.

Artcle -Scientist Lists Eleven Star Systems Most Likely to Host Life -
By VOA News -(19 Feb.'06)

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-02-19-voa9.cfm

Solar-type stars, how very geocentric. Jim, it's life as we know it...

Margaret Turnbull, the author of the list, is a distinguished
scientist. And a vegan/SETI/God-knows-what-else California-type freako-
nutso. Opposed to milk chocolate -- linked to rain forest destruction.
("...remember, only the dark chocolate is vegan!") Advocate for turning
dogs into vegans(!)

"a" == astronomer writes:

Artcle -Scientist Lists Eleven Star Systems Most Likely to Host
Life - By VOA News -(19 Feb.'06)

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-02-19-voa9.cfm

a Solar-type stars, how very geocentric. Jim, it's life as we know
a it...

This certainly is a valid objection.

a Margaret Turnbull, the author of the list, is a distinguished
a scientist. And a vegan/SETI/God-knows-what-else California-type
a freako- nutso. Opposed to milk chocolate -- linked to rain forest
a destruction. ("...remember, only the dark chocolate is vegan!")
a Advocate for turning dogs into vegans(!)

This isn't. Either give some good astronomical or biological reasons
why her work is off base or keep quiet. sheesh

(For the record, I think I've met Maggie once.)

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

"C" == CeeBee writes:

C Joseph Lazio wrote in sci.astro.seti:
This isn't. Either give some good astronomical or biological
reasons why her work is off base or keep quiet. sheesh

C She said, "These are places I'd want to live if God were to put our
C planet around another star."

C "Wanting" is _no_ good astronomical or biological reason.

I can think of good astronomical and biological reasons why I wouldn't
want our planet to be located about 1 AU from an O type star.

C If I were to announce a shortlist of probable stars with habitable
C planets, I wouldn't have the particular scientific urge to get some
C god into the equation.

There's no indication from this statement that she used religious
reasons to select the stars. Indeed, even for a press release, I
think the release was pretty good in trying to explain what the
criteria were in terms of selecting the stars.

Einstein was known to have said that he did not think that "God played
dice with the Universe." Is all of his work suspect?

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

Joseph Lazio a écrit :
"a" == astronomer writes:


Artcle -Scientist Lists Eleven Star Systems Most Likely to Host
Life - By VOA News -(19 Feb.'06)

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-02-19-voa9.cfm


a Solar-type stars, how very geocentric. Jim, it's life as we know
a it...

This certainly is a valid objection.


The problem is life as we do not know it is (more or less by definition)
impossible to define. We can vaguely suspect that other hardware could
be used to build polymers, like for instance Phosphor-Sulfur polymers,
using sulfuric acid as universal solvent, or lower temperature
reactions with ammoniac (NH3) as universal solvent, etc, but we have no
experimental evidence and no chemical basis for any prediction.

We know at least that carbon-nitrogen with water as universal solvent
works somehow, since we are here. So it is natural to search for
similar systems elsewhere first.

At least within our own solar system, we can search for similar
makeups in extraterrestial oceans (Europa) and we could probably find
something if we would care to spend 0.000000000000000000000000000001%
of what we spend in wars, but that's another discussion.

I think that searching for life as we know it is a sound scientifical
approach, at least at the beginning, and we ARE at the beginning.

jacob

"C" == CeeBee writes:

C Joseph Lazio wrote in sci.astro.seti:
I can think of good astronomical and biological reasons why I
wouldn't want our planet to be located about 1 AU from an O type
star.

C Wanting is no good scientific reason, which was the discussion. If
C a planet on 1 AU from a star like our Sun would have five times the
C Earth mass, a poisonous atmosphere, abundant vulcanism and seismic
C instability, and no water at all, I would fail to see why it would
C be a good place to be located. [...]

Right. I wouldn't want to be located on that planet.


[...]
C Such a theory is that _human_ or _Earthlike_ life as _we_ know it
C might occur in a narrow band around a star with particular
C characteristics, possibly shaping the environment for a rocky
C planet if it _is_ there and has the necessary "ingredients" to form
C life as it developed on Earth.

C What she basically chose was: which stars are a bit like our Sun,
C and could harbor a planet carrying life as we know it? Candidates
C not like our Sun having planets not like the Earth carrying life as
C we don't know it might well be vastly more abundant.

Based on what we know now, there are more planets not like Earth than
there are like it and there are more stars not like the Sun than there
are like it. Ergo, if life can form in a broad range of environments,
it is quite possible that life is vastly more abundant than we now
recognize.

To be a bit blunt, so what? What's the next step? Simply saying that
there could be "life as we don't know it," while true, isn't
particularly profound nor helpful in finding that life.

C All she did is project her geocentric vision on life and the
C universe. It could be right, but it's a choice, not
C science. Because we observe one planet in one particular zone
C around one particular star being successful in harbouring life, it
C doesn't mean that it is the "most likely place" for life to be
C harboured. To be correct: it's the only place we _know_ of that
C harbours any form of life at all.

Actually, I believe it is called a "hypothesis." We think we know how
life arose in one particular instance. Turnbull used what we know (or
think we know) to make a prediction to guide future studies.

If you'd like to develop a prescription on how to find "life as we
don't know it," feel free.

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

"jn" == jacob navia writes:

jn Joseph Lazio a écrit :
"a" == astronomer writes:

Artcle -Scientist Lists Eleven Star Systems Most Likely to Host
Life - By VOA News -(19 Feb.'06)

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-02-19-voa9.cfm

a Solar-type stars, how very geocentric. Jim, it's life as we know
a it...

This certainly is a valid objection.

[...]
jn We know at least that carbon-nitrogen with water as universal
jn solvent works somehow, since we are here. So it is natural to
jn search for similar systems elsewhere first.

Agreed, and we can do this.

jn At least within our own solar system, we can search for similar
jn makeups in extraterrestial oceans (Europa) [...].

Agreed, and in our own solar system, we actually can contemplate
sending a probe to another object. Detecting life remotely is vastly
more difficult. The best concept that anybody's developed thus far is
the notion of trying to get a spectrum of the atmosphere of a
terrestrial planet. Notably that might not have detected the presence
of life on Earth some 2 billion years ago (before the amount of oxygen
in the atmosphere started to increase).

Even this modest step of obtaining the atmospheric spectrum of an
extrasolar terrestrial planet may not happen for another 20 years.


jn I think that searching for life as we know it is a sound
jn scientifical approach, at least at the beginning, and we ARE at
jn the beginning.

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

"C" == CeeBee writes:

C Joseph Lazio wrote in sci.astro.seti:
Based on what we know now, there are more planets not like Earth
than there are like it and there are more stars not like the Sun
than there are like it. Ergo, if life can form in a broad range of
environments, it is quite possible that life is vastly more
abundant than we now recognize.

C You're quite correct. This is what I explained to you when
C discussing her shortlist, which was not based on the idea of life
C forming in a broad range of environments, but in a narrow range of
C environments in limited places.

Well, not quite. Life may be able to originate in a wide range of
environments. Given that it has arisen once in a particular
environment, there's no reason to think that it could not do so again
in a similar environment elsewhere.

The first idea is a bit difficult to test. ("There could be life
wide-eyed enthusiasmanywhere!/wide-eyed enthusiasm") The second
idea is testable: Find a bunch of stars like the Sun, determine if
they are orbited by terrestrial-mass planets, and see if any of those
planets appear to have a remotely detectable signature indicative of life.


To be a bit blunt, so what? What's the next step? Simply saying
that there could be "life as we don't know it," while true, isn't
particularly profound nor helpful in finding that life.

C I'm sorry, I'm missing your point. First you confirm what I claim
C in earlier messages, obviously in the belief that it somehow
C contradicts it, and now you say that basing a search for life on
C invalid assumptions has something to do with "helpfulness".

C I wasn't discussing helpfulness, I was discussing the validity of
C her ideas. That idea of her was a shortlist of stars like our Sun
C because in a certain zone around a certain star type she wanted to
C live "if God had put our planet there".

You haven't shown why her ideas are wrong. You've twigged on one
sentence that mentions God in (what I consider) an otherwise fairly
respectable press release. Your only criticism seems to be that her
criteria are too narrow, yet you also think that life can form in a
wide range of environments. If you think that life can form in a wide
range of environments, and we know that life has formed in a
particular environment, what's wrong for looking for other,
potentially similar environments?

That doesn't rule out the possibility that life couldn't form in other
environments, but, as I've tried to indicate, simply stating this
possibility doesn't really provide a way to test it.


Actually, I believe it is called a "hypothesis." We think we know
how life arose in one particular instance. Turnbull used what we
know (or think we know) to make a prediction to guide future
studies.

C It's a belief that life will "most likely" develop in the vicinity
C of a star with the age and the looks of our own because "these are
C places I'd want to live if God were to put our planet around
C another star.".

C A hypothesis is that there is a _possibility_ to find life in such
C places, because our Sun and Earth are a proven example containing
C life, not that it is the "most likely" place, as you observe
C yourself as well.

O.k., I still don't see the distinction you're trying to make.
Perhaps you'd prefer if the press release had some long-winded,
caveat-laden description of our current knowledge and her
methodology. Unfortunately, then it would probably no longer be a
press release. (In fact, it would probably read like some of the
statements I wrote above.)

For that matter, keep in mind that Turnbull might not have even
written much of the press release. When I've been involved in press
releases, they typically go through a Public Affairs Office and
there's a tension between the scientists who keep trying to add more
explanation and caveats and the public affairs folks who are trying to
keep it short and sweet. In the context of a press release, I think
using simplifying terms like "most likely" and "wants" are acceptable.

[Now, if you wish to wail and gnash your teeth about the poor state of
science education, I'll join you.]

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html