Under new definition of The Goldilocks Zone, Earth nearly doesn't qualify!

On Jan 31, 9:52*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
Earth and others lose status as Goldilocks worlds - space - 30 January
2013 - New Scientisthttp://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23118-earth-and-others-lose-sta...

"Shockingly, Earth – which used to be smack-bang in the middle of our
sun's habitable zone – is now a scant million kilometres away from the
warm edge, so almost too hot for liquid water. Of course, we know Earth
is robustly life-friendly – the mismatch is probably because neither
definition accounts for clouds, which reflect sunlight away from Earth.

As Earth shows, the Goldilocks zone is no ultimate judge of
habitability, something exoplanet researchers have known for years. As
well as clouds, volcanic activity or the location of other moons or
planets in the solar system, may be important for life to develop on
planets like Earth."

Perhaps humans are never meant to be on planets that are too cold, too
hot, too dry or even too wet. Perhaps the intelligent design which
seeded various planets and moons made that perfectly clear, as to
which species and level of intelligence was going to be allowed to
thrive.

Obviously we humans can not survive as naked Goldilocks on 95% of our
planet as is, and it's getting a whole lot warmer and measurably
stormier by the year.

Why not instead of our having to alter the global environment of the
planet, or wait millions of years for nature to take its course, just
adapt ourselves by using raw intelligence and applied physics?

Do open pit mining operations do anything to making their pits look
and feel pretty?

Do underground mining operations make their excavated tunnels into
tunnels of Eden?

Do submarine crews attempt to drain their oceans so that the
surrounding pressure goes away?

Do astronauts have to keep sucking up any passing particles so that
space remains a vacuum?

Where exactly does it say that heaven isn't too hot or too cold, or
simply too wet or too dry, and having an atmosphere that isn’t
different?

Is there any terrain on any other planet or moon that’s as unusual or
as geometric utility looking, as what this one small area of Venus has
to offer?

Be my guest and apply your very own photographic enlargement software,
as to viewing this one small but rather interesting area of Venus,
using your independent expertise as to enlarge or magnify this
mountainous area of Venus that I’ve focused upon shouldn’t be asking
too much. Most of modern PhotoZoom and other photographic software
variations tend to accomplish this automatically, although some extra
filtering and dynamic range compensations can further improve on the
end result (no direct pixel modifications necessary).

“GuthVenus” 1:1, plus 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...18595926178146
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hi...c115s095_1.gif
https://picasaweb.google.com/1027362...8634/BradGuth#

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth
Venus”,GuthVenus

On 01/02/2013 9:59 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
Perhaps humans are never meant to be on planets that are too cold, too
hot, too dry or even too wet. Perhaps the intelligent design which
seeded various planets and moons made that perfectly clear, as to
which species and level of intelligence was going to be allowed to
thrive.

Obviously we humans can not survive as naked Goldilocks on 95% of our
planet as is, and it's getting a whole lot warmer and measurably
stormier by the year.

It shows that Goldilocks Planets have a lot to do with making themselves
Goldilocks Planets than just their stars.

Yousuf Khan

On Feb 1, 2:35*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 01/02/2013 9:59 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

Perhaps humans are never meant to be on planets that are too cold, too
hot, too dry or even too wet. *Perhaps the intelligent design which
seeded various planets and moons made that perfectly clear, as to
which species and level of intelligence was going to be allowed to
thrive.

Obviously we humans can not survive as naked Goldilocks on 95% of our
planet as is, and it's getting a whole lot warmer and measurably
stormier by the year.

It shows that Goldilocks Planets have a lot to do with making themselves
Goldilocks Planets than just their stars.

* * * * Yousuf Khan

Indeed, having a nice/friendly star is always a good place to start,
but otherwise a sufficient gas giant would also be sufficient,
especially if the tidal forces interacting with its planet sized moons
give the geodynamic modulation to go along with the residual core
heat, by which intelligent Goldilocks should be good to go within
considerable extremes.

Intelligent Goldilocks should be capable of extending their survivable
range by at least 4:1 (.75 to 3 AU), although it seems terrestrial
Goldilocks as we know of can't hardly manage to survive on what most
of Earth has to offer.