Embedded Files
A Rock and a Splash of Water
The confirmation of the Big Bang as an astronomical event as well as the Anthropic Principle are fairly recent events. They need to be viewed against a cultural mindset that is strongly biased. Because we know of the vastness of space and that billions of stars are nested within an enormous fleet of galaxies there is a cultural supposition that mankind is not alone. The screen in the movie theater goes black, the music thunders an ominous chord and a star cruiser glides into focus. Our children know the names of Vulcans, Klingons, Wookies, Wraiths, Denebians and a hundred other aliens. Area 51 is a popular website and thousands of people believe in and report alien abductions. TV shows and movies use aliens as heroes, villains, invaders and possibly as the source of life on Earth - The Ancients.
The concept that there were other sentient beings in the universe is not new. Kepler (1571-1630) believed that the moon had inhabitants. Science fiction authors have written elaborate stories about advanced civilizations on the moon. When the airless nature of the moon was verified Mars became the next alien habitat. The noted astronomer Percival Lowell (1855-1916) saw the lines on Mars as canals. He believed an advanced civilization was farming the planet. As our twin in the solar system Mars has been the planet of choice for countless stories and even an invasion. Since it has a thin atmosphere and the gravity is less than Earth the aliens were taller and thinner. The results of various probes and several Mars Rovers have been disappointing. Once proud aliens have been reduced to the possibility of ancient bacteria. The moons of Saturn are now speculated as a remaining possibility for microbial life in the solar system. But no one seriously believes an advanced civilization is lurking in our solar system.
The Drake Equation, was proposed in 1961 and with it the hunt for advanced civilizations moved beyond the solar system and into the vastness of space. It is based on the idea that two factors (i.e., the presence of water and a terrestrial planet) were essential in determining the likelihood of an intelligent species developing in our universe. This proposal led to the speculation by Carl Sagan that there were a million advanced civilizations in our galaxy (The Milky Way). Much of which was based on the concept that where there is water there is life.
In 1974, Dr. Frank Drake and other astronomers used the Arecibo radio telescope to send a message to the Globular Cluster M13. It was supposed that the densely packed cluster of nearly 300,000 stars would be a likely place to find intelligent life. The original Drake Equation is shown below.
N = total number of radio communicating technologically advanced civilizations in the Milky Way at one time.
R* = Total number of stars in the galaxy
Fp = fraction of stars with planetary systems
Ne = number of “Earth-like” planets
Fl = fraction of habitable planets on which life emerges
Fi = fraction of planets in which intelligent beings occur
Fc = fraction of planets on which technologically advanced - communication occurs
L = fraction of the average planetary lifetime during which an advanced civilization lives.
(Privileged Planet, p.338)
The equation may look impressive but as one scientist wrote the Drake Equation is a means of quantifying what we don't know. It consists of assessing the fraction of stars and then planets in the Milky Way, which meet certain requirements.
Before we begin the more narrow assessment of the possibility of Earth-Like planets with technologically advanced species within our galaxy it is useful to assess that possibility within the entire universe. Scientists, like the rest of us, have a limited budget of resources. Their own time and the limited availability of telescope scanning time drove researchers to narrow their searches. Basically researchers began to question which areas of space had the resources necessary to create planets. Globular systems, with a dense population of stars, were the first choice of Dr. Frank Drake. Research, however has shown that Drake and his fellow astronomers mistook quantity as the key variable. They should have looked at the age of the galaxy. Globular systems were formed too early to have the elements needed to form planets. Old galaxies, those that formed at the beginning of time, will not have the material needed to build a terrestrial planet.
Using luminosity, which indicates the presence of metals, it is possible to eliminate 98 percent of the galaxies as possible sites for planetary presence. Remember that astronomers call any element beyond hydrogen and helium a metal (i.e., oxygen, iron, calcium, and silicon) which are needed to build both a terrestrial planet and life. Luminosity testing is a very old procedure that was validated by burning differing elements and measuring the specific light spectrum emitted. By analyzing the light from a specific star it is possible to determine what elements are being burned.
In addition, the proximity of so many stars in a Globular System is a great disadvantage. Stars have strong gravitational fields and any planetoid that began to form would have been torn apart by the gravitational tug-a-war or sterilized by the irradiation of multiple stars. We will not be getting a response from M13. Irregular galaxies can also be eliminated for much the same reason. The gravitational flux of irregular orbits would tear the planets apart or the formation of new stars would irradiate the planets, strip them of their atmosphere and sterilize them. Spiral galaxies such as the Milky Way have the right elements and a stable system. Having found a likely galaxy to search astronomers have begun to narrow the quest for terrestrial planets. The first step is to eliminate what are called Dead Zones. These are areas of a galaxy that are either too deadly or do not have the right resources.
One of the first places to be declared a Dead Zone was the center of the galaxy. Most astronomers attribute the swirling effect at the Galactic center to the vortex effect of a massive black hole. The central area of the galaxy is a violent area which is consuming any matter that comes within its gravitational sphere. The central hub is also the location of the greatest amount of star formation. Which sounds as if it would be a rich resource except young stars emit uncontrolled bursts of X-ray and gamma radiation which is lethal to life. The center of the galaxy, instead of being a prime location for a planet, is a death trap. The Galactic Center glows with the lethal radiation of newly formed stars. Even spiral galaxies with a wealth of resources has only a narrow band called the “Galactic Habitability Zone.” Researchers have defined this as an area safely away from the violent inner area and not in the poverty of the outer bands. Stars in the outer band of the galaxy do not receive the heavy elements (i.e., iron, carbon, oxygen, silicon) needed to build terrestrial planets. Stars in the fringes of a galaxy receive only trace amounts of the material needed to form planets as well as the rare elements essential for life. A planet would never form nor receive the rich influx of metals from supernovas. Therefore, only a narrow band is far enough away from the hot zone not to be fried and yet close enough to receive the bounty of the cosmic ash of supernovas. The Galactic Habitability Zone is shown as a green band.
Our sun and thus our solar system is in a very stable orbit through the galaxy. Not only does the Earth move around the sun but the sun, along with its attendant planets and moons, revolves through the galaxy on a million year orbit. This orbit is not only stable but flat. Meaning that it (i.e., the solar system and Earth) stays carefully poised between two spiral arms of the galaxy in a relatively clear patch of space. If the solar system were to move in a more elliptical orbit, it would move through different parts of space. Earth would be exposed to supernovas, asteroid fields, hard radiation and the possibility of being pulled into the black hole at the galactic center.
Part of the story Myhrvold told was that since mankind was NOT at the center of the universe we were unloved by God and NOT His special creation. Since Earth was not at the center of the universe both the planet and humanity were insignificant random acts. I'm glad God carefully positioned Earth in a quiet neighborhood.
The Solar Habitability Zone
We have been told that our sun is a mediocre - ho hum star that has nothing special about it. Not True! Over 80 percent of the stars in our galaxy are red dwarfs, only 4 percent are early G-type main sequence like our sun. Making our sun a rare star. Well, won't any star due? Not exactly- Most stars are red dwarfs, which are not good for humanity. The radiation from these dwarf stars is weak. This low light would provide a very poor place for the creation of a habitable planet. Note the .5 radiation from a red dwarf star, at the bottom of the diagram and how close the habitable zone must approach this star. All life needs the energy of the sun to survive. Given the low emission of energy from a dwarf star any planet would have to form extremely close to the sun to receive sufficient heat to keep water liquid. Any planet located close enough to a red dwarf to maintain an ocean would expose all life to deadly consequences. The greatly increased ultraviolet light and particle radiation from stellar flares would cause massive damage to the ozone layer. The increased intensity and quantity of ultraviolet radiation as well as solar winds would ultimately strip away any protective atmosphere. The high level of radiation bathing an unprotected world would rapidly sterilize any planet circling close to a red dwarf.
Additionally, the spectra of a red dwarf star means that very little blue light would reach the surface of an orbiting planet. Photosynthesis does not require blue light but it is less effective in using other spectrum. Marine photosynthetic organisms would have difficulty using red light as an energy source. Water transmits blue-green light far better than red light. Photosynthesis from marine and plant life is the primary means for the oxygenation of Earth's atmosphere. The available red spectrum would thus weaken the ability of the planet to defend its atmosphere. This would reduce the photosynthetic production of oxygen to keep its atmospheric protection.
There is one other problem with red dwarfs. Any planet close enough to use the warmth of the sun to maintain a liquid ocean would probably be gripped in what is called tidal lock. Tidal lock occurs when the planet is locked facing the sun while the other side is wrapped in total darkness. One side of the planet would be continually exposed to the sun and the other would never see the light of the sun. Resulting in one side freezing and the other being baked.
The image above illustrates the Habitable Zone for our Solar System. Mars and Venus are shown as the only other planets that are close to providing a habitable environment for life. On the extreme left of the illustration stars are ranked by size, with the red dwarf at the bottom. Note how the zone of habitability (blue zone) sweeps in close to the small dwarf star and away from more massive suns.
Our sun has settled into the Main Stage sequence, which means it is fusing hydrogen into helium. This process should produce a steady supply of energy for the next 5 billion years. There is also a specific window of opportunity for a star to be useful for life. Early in the formation of a star it erupts in massive displays of hard radiation. Only a star, which has settled into the Main Stage, provides a stable and consistent energy source. An old star would not provide enough energy to sustain life on a planet. Then it would become a swollen red giant which would consume the inner planets before blowing itself up in a final supernova. Within the Milky Way, approximately two-thirds of the solar-mass stars (i.e., our sun’s mass) are either binary or multiple star systems. Given that our sun has been perfect for the development of life perhaps two or more suns would enhance the development of even more life.
Astrobiologist Alan Hale has written extensively on the question of habitability generated by multiple star systems. His work indicates that planets may not even be able to form with the enormous gravitational flux generated by multiple stars . The close proximity would disrupt the accretion of material, as multiple gravitational fields pulled the planetoid apart. Additionally, if a planet were able to form, it would not be able to achieve a stable orbit, as multiple gravitational fields would draw the planet into an erratic orbit. There is a high probability that any planet locked within a multiple star system would arrive at an elliptical orbit such that it would move in and out of the “sun's comfortable zone.” Meaning that the planet would receive sufficient sunlight during a part of its orbit and then would be pulled into a far orbit in which it would received too little light and warmth. As the orbit returned the planet it would pass into a brief comfort zone and then be baked as it was pulled into a close encounter with a sun or multiple stars. In such a system, planets might form but their orbits would be so perturbed by the many gravitational forces that the planet would eventually be ejected from the system or pulled into one of the stars. (Rare Earth , p.25). As an additional factor any planet that formed within a multiple star system would have to content with the stellar life cycle of multiple stars. If one star were providing a comfortable stable source of energy another star might be more massive and be approaching it's end stage more rapidly leading to increased radiation - Red Giant phase. Even in a binary system where both stars were of the same age and mass, they will get brighter as they age. The planet would have to survive increased insolation (the stellar energy a planet receives). A planet that formed in a safe zone would have to migrate outward as the insolation from multiple stars increased.
Multiple star systems magnify the difficulty of a planet attempting to form. The heightened instability of the orbit and radiation from multiple sources would greatly diminish the probability that even microbial life could survive. The sun needs to be in a clear space, away from newly forming stars. This isolation would provide the sun and its attendant planets protection from the gravitational pull of other stars and radiation flux. The gravitational pull of the moon drives high tides. Imagine what destruction could be wrought if tides or other planetary systems were disrupted by the mammoth gravitational flux of another star.
For Earth to be a habitable planet requires the sun - our main source of energy to exhibit crucial characteristics to make life possible. Planetary formation and the maintenance of a stable orbit within the solar system require a single star. A stable source of energy necessitates that the sun must be in the main stage part of its life. The sun itself should maintain a stable procession through the galaxy. Finally, the light should provide a specific spectrum (blue green) as a resource for photosynthesis.
Circumstellar Habitability Zone
The placement of the planet relative to the sun is just as important as it’s placement within the galaxy. There are strict requirements that make a planet livable. Within any solar system, there is a narrow zone that provides the resources necessary to make it viable for life. First, is the requirement to maintain liquid water. All life requires liquid water as a solvent, a medium for trapping heat, supporting photosynthesis and the carbon cycle. Advanced life cannot exist without water! Therefore it is taken as a given that the planet must be within a range that maintains liquid water.
Starting from this basic assessment we need to find the distance from the sun that will maintain water and a stable energy source. This region is called the HZ (i.e., the Habitable Zone). A narrow zone where heating from the central star maintains a water ocean as well as providing an energy source. If Earth were moved closer to the sun it's oceans would boil away. Venus is a prime example of being too close to its heat source. Any water ocean it might have had has long since boiled away and its surface is nearly molten from the sun's heat. At the other extreme, if Earth were moved outward it would loose the sun's warmth. Earth's atmosphere would begin to cool. Ice crystals in the atmosphere would reflect heat , lowering the temperature to the point where ice would cover the planet. Mars is frozen to the depth of several kilometers.
Michael Hart calculated whether the HZ was a constant. Stars do not begin their life cycle in a steady burn sequence. Our sun continued to brighten slowly through time until it reached main stage stability. Thus the HZ would move outward. Hart calculated what he called the CHZ (Continuously Habitable Zone). The zone in which Earth would remain habitable throughout its entire existence. “His calculations indicated that at sometime during its history Earth would have experienced glaciation if it had formed 1% farther from the sun and would have experienced runaway greenhouse heating if it had formed 5% closer to the sun.” (Rare Earth , p. 18). Both of these effects were irreversible. According to Hart “once frozen or fried, there could be no turning back.” His analysis also indicated that the CHZ was astonishingly small.
Summary:
The quest to find another planet Earth has to begin with the right kind of galaxy one that has the elements to build a terrestrial planet. Only spiral galaxies have enough "metals" to build terrestrial planets as well as a stable system. Next researchers eliminated all known "dead zones." The violent center of the galaxy with its black hole was eliminated as well as the poverty (no resources) of the outer reaches were eliminated. Within the spiral galaxy researchers established a narrow habitability zone. This was further refined to seek a clear "space" in space that was free of debris, asteroids, or violent eruptions (e.g. gamma ray bursts). The star that was to nourish this planet had to be in main stage to provide stable orbit, consistent light and energy. A single star providing light to nourish photosynthesis and life itself is required. Narrowing the search even further scientists talk about the Goldilocks Zone. A terrestrial planet has to have a stable orbit, in a habitable zone that is not too hot and not too cold within the solar system. These are not optional requirements and they are not unique items. All of these requirements must be met or there will not be a viable planet nor one with the right resources to sustain life.
Is our Solar System unique? News Break
The standard explanation of the development of the solar system begins with a massive dust cloud. A gravity well develops and a new star begins to coalesce. The proto star absorbs massive quantities of material, which generates a swirling effect. Surrounding this inner vortex grains of dust began to accrete as rocky clumps, then boulders and finally planetoids. The asteroid belt is thought to be a failed planet caught between the pull of the sun and the gaseous giant Jupiter. The outer planets had little rocky material to work with and grew as giant gaseous balls. Since we have a limited number of planetary systems to compare, the solar system is “unique” by definition. The default position assumed that our solar system was the template for the rest of the universe.
However as space telescopes have improved and land based telescopes have been joined to amplify the search capability headlines have announced newly discovered exo-planets (planets outside our solar system) and even entire solar systems. In the last decades scientists have discovered over 5,500 planets orbiting distant stars and over 4,000 systems that possess at least one planet. The results from these discoveries have required a radical rethink of the standard nebular theory for the formation of the solar system and "normal" planetary development. First of all, we were taught that the solar system formed in place. Where else would our sun and its attendant planets form ?
Enhanced analysis has allowed scientists to determine the "DNA" of our sun through spectral analysis. This fine tuned assessment indicates the exact elements that compose our sun and has scientists looking elsewhere for its birthplace. M67 has been offered as a stellar nursery. This star cluster’s age is similar to that of our solar system and it has the right distribution of heavy metals (i.e., iron, silicon and oxygen). It is approximately 2,900 light years away from Earth currently. Earlier in its progression through the MWG (Milky Way Galaxy) it was much closer to the core. It was during this period, approximately 4.6 billion years ago, that M67 was closer to the galactic core, when our sun was born. This stellar nursery may have spawned thousands of stars. The galactic core is a turbulent maelstrom in which new stars are created and supernovas spew forth heavy metals in their death throes. Specific elements are created only through the extreme heat of a supernova and have a fleeting existence. While the proto sun and its nebular mass were enriched with resources it could not stay in proximity to the galactic core.
Research has revealed that stars migrate. Or in the case of the sun and its proto planetary system they were ejected from its stellar nursery. This is not a simple process. Multiple supernovas would have been required to expel the sun and its attendant nebular mass. This stellar migration would have required a series of miraculous events. Too much force and the star and all its potential would have been scattered throughout the galaxy. Too little outward thrust and the sun would have fallen back into the black hole at the galaxy’s center and been recycled. Additionally, the sun and its proto system would have to move through relatively barren space. A debris field, an asteroid belt or even the strong gravitational force of other stars would have destabilized the nascent system and destroyed it.
Moving through the MWG our sun and its proto system slowed and then stopped its journey just short of the co-rotational point. Fortunately the sun did not stop at the exact co-rotational point. This galactic position aligns with the rotation of the galaxy’s arms however this exact position generates what is called “mean motion resonance.” A dynamic function that occurs when orbiting bodies are in resonance with each other and the gravitational influence is significantly magnified. If our sun had been propelled far enough to land at the precise co-rotational point the solar system would have been torn apart.
As the arms of the galaxy move so does the solar system. Tucked in its position just short of the co-rotational point the sun and its planets perform a graceful procession around the galactic center. As our solar system moves in conjunction with the spiral arms of the MWG we are “relatively safe” from the possible gravitational disturbances that would be set off if we moved through one of the more densely populated arms of our galaxy.
The research team headed by physicist John Matese indicates how very devastating such a disruption could be. His work has shown that the motion of the z-axis (motion up and down of the sun and its planets relative to the galactic plane) while very small does exert gravitational effects. The period of the solar system’s Z-axis cycle (the time between it’s high and low point relative to the galactic plane) is approximately 33 million years. It is thought that this slight gravitational pull dislodges comets from the Oort cloud that surrounds the solar system and sends them into the inner solar system. The timing of these incursions or bombardments are possibly related to the mass extinctions that have occurred repeatedly on Earth. If the sun's orbit around the galaxy were more elliptical or more erratic (i.e., Z-axis motion) bombardments from the Oort cloud would be more common. There are no small matters in building a habitable planet.
However having arrived at a safe destination surely the process of planetary accretion would follow the standard theorized process. Well not exactly- there have always been questions as to the absence of planets inside the orbit of Mercury or why Mars was so much smaller than Earth. The search for planets and solar systems has revealed unique planetary configurations, solitary planets, stellar nurseries, and radically different solar systems. Gregory Laughlin, professor and chair of astronomy and astrophysics writes “the standard issue planetary system in our galaxy seems to be a set of super-Earths with alarmingly short orbital periods. Our solar system is looking increasingly like an oddball.” (Wandering Jupiter: News:ucsc.edu 2015).
To explain the oddball solar system that is our home astronomers have proposed what is now known as the “Grand Tack” (referenced to a nautical term). In this hypothesis Jupiter migrated inward toward the sun until the formation of Saturn caused it to reverse course and migrate outward (i.e.tack) to its current position. As Jupiter moved inward the gravitational forces of the giant planet would have swept everything before it. Any small planetismals, asteroids or small planets would have been drawn into overlapping orbits that set-off collisions, and then swept most of the debris into the sun. A second generation of inner planets formed from the remaining debris once Jupiter and Saturn had stabilized in their outer orbits. These rocky planets would have had less debris to work with which explains why Mars is so much smaller than Earth. It also accounts for the fact that the inner rocky planets are much younger than the outer planets. Dr. Hugh Ross’ book Improbable Planet offers a strong presentation of these new aspects of our solar system. The following YouTube video is an excellent presentation on Jupiter's role of both protector and monster in the solar system. The first ten minutes explains the Grand Tack Theory as well as the Nice (pronounced Niece) Hypothesis the final 3 minutes are a PBS promo.
Exo planets - Is Earth a Rare Planet ?
The discovery of exoplanets- has become almost a non-event as the number of discoveries continues to grow. The Kepler space telescope’s main function is to search for "habitable” planets near our region of the Milky Way. This has increased the number of planetary candidates and led to some grandiose proclamations. Because there are billions of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy it is proclaimed that there must be billions of habitable planets circling these stars.
Just because there is a vast number of anything doesn’t translate into finding something else. For example, if I take you to the beach you might marvel at the vast amount of white sand. Why there must be millions and millions of grains of sand if not billions. Sand or silica is used to make glass. Therefore according to the millions and millions theory we should be able to walk along the beach and pick up a cut glass goblet every few feet. And why is it that we don’t expect to find glass goblets every few feet on a beach? Because goblets are designed and manufactured by humans. This mythic glass goblet had to be designed, the needed resources stockpiled and finally manufactured. Much of the media frenzy and even some of the scientific speculation goes back to the Drake equation. Many scientists have fallen into the trap of thinking that all they need to find is a rock and a glass of water and they have a habitable planet if not one filled with life. Other scientists are beginning to talk about the Rare Earth hypothesis as the uniqueness of Earth is amplified. As the search for habitable planets has begun to reach out into space and assess what our galaxy has to offer the beautiful blue ball we call home is, in fact, a very rare occurrence.
According to NASA as of October 22, 2024 - 5,785 exoplanets have been found and another 7,241 are planetary candidates. Since we have only our solar system as a template most scientists assumed that as the search for new planets and planetary system extended into the galaxy and its billions of stars that it would be relatively easy to find earth-like planets and other solar systems with 3 or 4 rocky planets and its attendant gas giants. However as the search has intensified what is being discovered amazes scientists. What they are discovering in other parts of the galaxy is very different from a “normal” planetary system or Earth-like planets.
Scientists were mystified to find that many of the extra-solar planets are so-called “Hot Jupiters." Meaning that they were Jupiter-mass planets circling very close to the sun. A giant gaseous planet such as Jupiter could not form, in the normal manner close to the sun. The differential force of gravity between the star and the proto-planet would pull the planet to pieces. The accepted explanation is that these planets formed in the outer region of the system. However their orbits decayed or were disrupted by another planetary object and the planet spiraled inward. The inward spiral of a massive planet would destroy the inner planets. Just as it is proposed in the Grand Tack hypothesis that Jupiter pushed Earth 1, Mars 1, Venus 1 and Mercury 1, into the sun. Only the formation of Saturn as a large counterbalance allowed Jupiter to reverse course or tack back its current orbit.
Osiris is the name given to this artist visualization of a "Hot Jupiter." It's atmosphere is slowly being boiled away by a surface temperature of approximately 1,800 degrees. The image shows Osiris as it blows off its remaining carbon and oxygen and slowly spirals into its sun.
The huge blue gas giant HD189733b is another planet classified as a"Hot Jupiter." Don't let the beautiful blue color fool you into thinking that it has Earth-like qualities. The blue color is the result of the atmosphere raining molten glass. The planet's proximity to its sun generates an average temperature of over 1000 degrees Celsius which generates the super hot glass. Add in a 7,000 KPH wind and the atmosphere is literally raining glass sideways. Internet sites now feature the weird, the ugly and the planets from “hell.” Most circle too close to their star to be anything but a sterilized rock or a gas ball that is slowly being drawn into the sun.
Here is the image of an exoplanet named Gliese 876 D which might be labelled as "Sunrise on Hell." Locked in an extremely tight orbit with a red dwarf star the sky is laced with stellar winds. This planet attracted attention because it was close to the habitable zone. However Gliese 876 D is so extremely close to its sun that it is tidally locked. One side of the planet is locked facing the solar radiance and the other side is frozen. The image to the left depicts the possible landscape on such a planet as the sun lashes it with solar flares and volcanism initiated by the rifting of gravitational tides flex and rupture the planetary crust.
Kepler 10b has the distinction of being the first confirmed rocky planet. It is orbiting a red dwarf and is NOT in the habitable zone as it is 20 times closer to its star than Mercury is to our sun. There is no possibility of water and the rocky surface is in all probability molten.
TrES-4 should not exist. Because of its extremely low density it is called a "puffy" planet. It is two times the size of Jupiter with the density of balsa wood. Its gravity is so weak that it is probably loosing its atmosphere, as evidenced by the comet like trail (left hand side). TrES-4 is named for the Trans-Atlantic Exoplanet Survey which discovered the planet as it transited in front of its home star. The survey team is using a network of small automated telescopes in Arizona, California and the Canary Islands.
CoRoT-7b is classified as a "Super Earth" because it is 5 times the mass of Earth and is 2 times its radius. That ends its "similarity" to Earth. It is tidally locked with its sun and the sunny side reaches temperatures of 4,000 degrees Fahrenheit or 2,200 Celsius. The dark side is frozen at minus 350 Fahrenheit. Given its proximity to the sun some researchers believe this may be the shriveled remains or the ultimate fate of a gas giant- "Hot Jupiter."
GJ 1214b is another Super Earth. It is 2.7 times that of Earth's diameter and weighs 7 times as much. It dwarfs its own sun, a red dwarf. Although all of these images are artist realizations the red color may be reflective of its proximity to the sun. This Super Earth is a boiling 446 Fahrenheit - far too hot for life.
WASP-18b wipes around its sun in less than a day. This speed however is not sufficient to save it. It is already trailing a stream of particles inward to the sun and its ultimate fate. Some researchers believe that the doomed planet is already gone.
HAT-P-11b is a steamy water world. This planet helped to generate a new classification that of "Super Neptune." It is 4.7 times the size of Earth and 25 times its mass. It is also very close to its sun and orbits it in 4.88 days. Such proximity bakes the planet with an average 1100 degrees Fahrenheit. After it's discovery French scientists detected a weak radio signal. Now before you think ET is trying to contact us a more striking answer was found. The scientists were able to detect 53 immensely strong lightning strikes per hour in a square kilometer. The most enormous recorded storm on Earth would generate only 1% of the power and strength of the storm on HAT-P11b. Our mission to seek out and discover strange new worlds has just begun.
According to the recent discoveries by the Kepler space telescope Super-Earths and Mini-Neptunes are the most numerous exo-planets.
By definition a Super-Earth is any exo-planet between 2 and 10 times the mass of Earth and a scaled-up radius. A mini-Neptune (sometimes known as a gas dwarf or transitional planet) is a planet of up to 10 Earth masses (M⊕), less massive than Uranus and Neptune, which have about 14.5 M⊕ and 17 M⊕, respectively. Super-Jupiter, also known as Super-Jovian planet or methuselian planet, is a classification of planet with a mass ranging from 2 to 13 Jupiter masses or 635.6 to 4131.8 Earth masses.
When astronomers originally set parameters for assigning names and descriptions for exo-planets they used our solar system as the reference. We assumed other planetary systems would have "evolved" in like manner. It was thought that the formation of planets and planetary systems would follow the nebular process. Resulting in a galaxy filled with solar systems composed of 3- 4 inner rocky planets with outer gaseous planets serenely rotating at extended orbits. What has been discovered are Hot Jupiters, Hot Neptunes, dwarf planets, planetary-mass brown dwarfs, rogue planets, and puffy exo-planets. Astronomers have been inventing names and descriptive labels for the plethora of planets and systems that did not fit the pattern of our solar system.
Faced with such diverse planetary possibilities scientists thought to narrow the search for planets which would be most Earth-like - i.e., habitable. Astronomers looked at the planet's radius and how much energy the planet received from its star. In essence scientists were trying to determine if the planet would retain water and could be described as a habitable planet (i.e., in the habitable zone). It might be more accurate to describe them as residing in the water zone. Although many of the Earth-like candidates discovered by the Kepler telescope are close to Earth in physical size they may be more like Venus or Mini-Neptunes, especially if they have a thick hydrogen/helium atmosphere.
A very important cautionary warning is now being offered for projecting Earth-like qualities on to exo-planets. A recent article published in Nature is entitled "How habitable zones and super-Earths lead us astray." By naming exo-planets Super-Earths (e.g.,CoRoT-7b, GJ 1214b) or describing them as in the habitable zone are we making wrong assumptions? When we attach the name Earth to exo-planets we tend to visualize blue skies and sandy beaches. As a Super-Earth our expectations are projected on a larger scale. A few voices are even speculating that since these Super-Earths have more resources they will have "evolved" more species, or more varied aliens.
The image of TRAPPIST-1e is very appealing. It appears to be a blue ball floating in space with white fluffy clouds. This very Earth-Like appearing planet is an artist's impression. Underneath the image in Wikipedia is the following disclaimer. "The actual appearance of the exoplanet is currently unknown." None of the images of exo-planets are real. They are all artists' impressions of imagined possibilities.
In our eagerness to find Earth-Like planets we have forgotten that Venus is every bit as good a model of a terrestrial - rocky planet as Earth. It would be appropriate to call an exo-planet a Super-Venus. Venus and Earth are approximately the same size. They have a similar mass and the basic composition of the planets are similar. Both planets are in the habitable zone. Therefore we could have chosen Venus as the label for a 2-mass exo-planet. However the visual image and information that is called to mind would be radically different. The images of Venus and Earth are real and verifiable.
Venus is also known as Earth's Evil Twin. Venus's average temperature is 461 C (861 F), which is high enough to melt lead. The atmospheric pressure is 90 times that of Earth and Venus' atmosphere is composed of 96.5 % carbon dioxide. Its clouds are not the white fluffy ones of Earth but rather sulfuric acid which continually bathe Venus in acid rain.
The Kepler mission delivered massive amounts of data concerning a planet's radius and orbital path however it was impossible to determine whether the planet was a rocky world or a gassy planet. Measured from light years away Venus and Earth would present the same planetary profile. Both are in the "water zone", with similar size and planetary composition yet Venus, as we know, is NOT a habitable world.
Astronomers clearly needed more information to make more discerning evaluations. Using additional observations scientist were able to use the pull of the parent star to obtain the mass of hundreds of these planets. Then scientists were able to graph the planets in a classification scheme as either rocky, Neptune-like, Jupiter-like or stellar-like (see graph below). The most dramatic finding was that the transition from a rocky world to a gaseous one occurs at a little over twice Earth’s mass. If a planet is more than twice Earth’s mass and receives the same amount of energy from its star the planet will be able to hold a massive hydrogen/helium envelope. Similar to Venus, the planet will exert enormous atmospheric pressure hundreds or even thousands of times that of Earth. Which would shatter the hope that Super-Earth as well as Mini-Neptunes would in any way resemble a hospitable – habitable Earth.
Which does not eliminate the possibility of larger rocky Earths, Super-Rocky- Earths. If you had a Neptune like world that was too close to its sun the intense radiation would boil off not only the hydrogen and helium but the majority of the atmosphere. Leaving a dense rocky world similar to Mercury except that it would be larger and more massive than Earth. The name "Chthonian" has already been proposed for planets in which the gaseous hydrogen/helium has been stripped away leaving a rocky core. COROT-7b is an exo-planet that is thought to fulfill this description.
If the planet is far enough away from its sun to have Earth like temperatures the planet will be buried under a thick Venus like atmosphere. Or if it's too close in to the sun the thick atmosphere will have burned off leaving a roasted rock.
Speculation based on a very limited data set often leads to wrong assumptions. As the next section reveals there are multiple layers required to prepare a welcoming planetary environment for even microbial habitation.
Multiple Layers Build a Habitable Planet
Are there aspects of our solar system that contribute to the Earth as a habitable planet? As a starting point Earth should not exist - at least as a bright blue marble in space. Early Earth was formless, void and wrapped in a vapor cloud. Think of Venus. It is shrouded in a dense cloud cover and since it is closer to the sun the heat buildup (greenhouse effect) generates a surface temperature of 800 degrees which could melt metals. Earth should have met a similar fate.
The Earth did not form with a moon. However, that fact is a recent discovery. Since there has never been a time when humanity did not see the moon as our faithful companion, it was assumed that the two were formed at the same time. One of the more important scientific reasons for sending astronauts to the moon was to bring back rock samples. At the time, it was thought that the moon had coalesced out of the same dust cloud as the Earth and since it has no volcanic activity it would hold a record of the earliest history of the solar system. When the samples were returned there was great anticipation that the moon rocks would act as a “Rosetta Stone” for the solar system. Unfortunately, the rocks revealed that the moon had a violent high-temperature history and it would take years to unravel that mystery.
It wasn't until the early 1980's that a more detailed picture began to emerge. At a conference in Hawaii in 1984, three basic theories on the lunar origin were current. One, it formed in place; two, it formed elsewhere and was captured, or three, it was somehow ejected from Earth. The formation of the moon was not fully understood until Cameron and Canup (1998) modeled an impact origin of the moon. A large planetoid (half the diameter of Earth and more massive than Mars) struck Earth and was absorbed into the planet. The impact origin of the moon solves several mysteries about the physical properties of both Earth and the moon. The great violence of the impact would explain why the moon was depleted of volatile elements (i.e., nitrogen, carbon and water). One of the biggest surprises of the Apollo missions was that lunar samples contained no detectable water. The massive collision vaporized most of the elements on impact and those remaining in the gas stage would have been lost to space before the moon began to form.
The collision theory also helps to explain the fact that the Earth has a molten core and the moon has no significant core. The collision model suggests that metallic cores had formed in both Earth and the planetoid. In the impact, both of the cores ended up in the center of Earth and the debris ejected into orbit was mainly the atmosphere and the mantle of both bodies.
This same scenario helps to explain the formation of a hot core on Earth as well as the absence of one on the moon. The early theory of the formation of planets and moons imagined that accretion occurred through the collision of small bodies. Which is why the moon was thought to have formed cold. A body that grows by accretion of small objects does not bury its heat in its interior. Even though the bodies collide at high velocity the energy of the impact is largely radiated back into space. For an impact to eject enough material to form the moon the impactor had to be enormous, a Mars-size object. (Rare Earth, p. 232)
Research by George Wetherill describes how Earth absorbed this mighty blow. The impact not only ejected material into space to form the moon it also fused the two cores and injected a massive amount of radioactive material and heat into the core of Earth. This heat impact led to the forging of Earth's core during the accretion phase, before the Earth was fully formed. Computer modeling by A. Cameron indicates that the Earth was about half of its final mass when the Great Impactor struck. During the collision the two briefly fused and then inertial effects ripped them apart. The fragments separated for several hours and then fell back together with a small amount being ejected as debris. This ring around Earth gradually formed the Moon through accretion . When it finally formed the Moon was only 15,000 miles from Earth (consider that today the separation is 240,000 miles). With the Moon, so close the Earth would have been spinning in a fantastic 5-hour day. The heat resulting from the impact melted the surface of Earth. This large-scale heating formed a magma ocean covering the planet. This period of massive fluidity is thought to have contributed to the formation of plate tectonics.
To produce such a massive moon the Great Impactor had to be of the right size, it had to impact at the right point on Earth and the impact had to occur at the right time. If the impact had resulted in a retrograde orbit (i.e., counter-clockwise) the newly formed moon's orbit would have decayed and re-impacted Earth. Some believe this may have happened to Venus which resulted in the planet's slow rotation and lack of a moon.
If the Great Impactor had occurred later in Earth's history it's higher mass and gravity would not have allowed enough debris to be ejected to form a large moon. If the impact had been earlier in Earth's history, the planet would not have had enough gravity to retain a substantial part of the debris and a very small moon would have formed. A smaller moon would have done little to stabilize Earth obliquity and spin axis. If there had been no Giant Impactor - no moon would have formed and the Earth would have retained a different set of elements in differing portions. It would have retained higher levels of water, carbon and nitrogen leading to a greenhouse effect similar to Venus.
A large moon in a stable orbit significantly enhances the possibility of a habitable planet. As Dr. Hugh Ross said, if you want to see one of God’s miracles look at the moon. A moon is a very rare occurrence for the inner planets. Of the many moons in the Solar System nearly all are orbiting the giant planets of the outer solar system. The only other moons around a terrestrial planet are the two tiny moons around Mars (Phobos and Deimos). At only 10 kilometers they are tiny in comparison to the moon's 2,000-mile diameter. Phobos and Deimos are more likely captured asteroids.
Lunar Power
So how can a dead, airless hunk of debris help Earth? The moon affects life on Earth in three pivotal areas. The moon stabilizes the tilt of the Earth's spin axis, provides lunar tides and slows the Earth's rotation rate. Obliquity, sounds like something from a geometry class and it is. It measures a planet's tilt on its spin axis relative to the plane of its orbit. The moon helps to stabilize the Earth obliquity at 23 degrees. Without this stabilizing force the Earth would wobble around the sun as it responded to the gravitational tug-a-war between our sun and Jupiter. Obliquity influences the seasons and the amount of heating on portions of a planet. If the moon were smaller or further away it would not be able to exert a stabilizing influence. If the Earth were closer to the sun or if Jupiter were larger even a large moon would not be able to maintain a stable obliquity for our planet. Without the precise placement of Earth's orbit, a large moon and a balance point between the sun and Jupiter's gravitational pull Earth might vary as much as 90 degrees on its axis. As an example, Mars has approximately the same spin rate as Earth but without the benefit of a large moon it exhibits changes in its tilt axis as much as 45 degrees.
Since the spin axis determines the relative amount of sunlight projected on the various portions of the planet the obliquity significantly effects weather. The planet Mercury is a spectacular example of the connection between obliquity and temperature. As the closest planet to the sun most of its surface is extremely hot. However the spin axis is nearly perpendicular to the plane of its orbit. The poles of Mercury are covered in ice. Uranus has a 90 degree tilt such that one pole is exposed to sunlight for half a year (orbit) while the other side is frozen in the darkness of deep space.
Without the stabilizing effect of the moon, the Earth would wobble through swings as much as 45 degrees. Solar energy would be directed to the poles and starve the equatorial regions. January in the Northern Hemisphere would be hot and bring full sunlight on the polar icecaps. This heating would lead to the meltdown of massive stores of water and submerge low-lying areas of the planet. Think of coastal Dallas or the Mediterranean Ocean consuming Italy and Northern Africa. If Earth were tilted more than 54 degrees then the polar regions would receive more sunlight and the equatorial oceans might freeze. Earth would not have a stable process of seasons, and agriculture would become difficult and habitability of the planet would be massively impacted as the planet moved in an erratic sequence. We love to complain about the weather but the obliquity of the Earth (i.e., 23 degrees) appears to be perfect. Earth's planetary stability provides an ecosystem in which the polar ice caps store water and large oceans maintain liquid water to store and recycle heat. Weather cycles maintain large areas of Earth in temperate zones that are suited for growing crops.
A second benefit of a large moon is tides. There is actually a combined effect of the moon and the sun. Their combined gravitational pull produces a bulge in the ocean. When their combined pull is on the same side a high tide occurs and when they are in opposition a low tide is experienced. These tides are responsible for washing and replenishing the coastal areas. These tidal bulges lead ahead as the moon orbits Earth. This offset produces a torque causing the Earth's spin rate to decrease very slowly. (Rare Earth p. 227). This action has slowed the Earth from a 5-hour day to our “normal” 24-hour cycle.
The Great Impactor also delivered a final load of radioactive elements. Much of this material sank into the core, which initiated a magnetic dynamo that generates our magnetic field. Our magnetic field is essential to shield Earth by deflecting solar winds that would strip the atmosphere. The added mass increased the gravity, aided in holding the atmosphere and cleansed the earlier atmosphere of excess CO2. Additionally, without a protective magnetic field Earth would be vulnerable to ultraviolet light, solar flares and radiation that would sterilize the planet.
Planetary Habitat
It is essential to Earth's habitability that the right proportion of elements, particularly atmospheric gases are maintained. What is called the “rock cycle” helps keep the Earth's temperature within healthy limits. The cycle maintains habitable surface temperatures over a moderate range of solar heating effects. Carbon dioxide is a trace gas that constitutes about 350 parts per million of the atmosphere. It is however a “greenhouse gas.” Greenhouse gases (i.e., water vapor, carbon dioxide and ozone (O3)) trap or absorb infrared radiation. They slow or retain escaping radiant heat that is being transferred outward from Earth and back into space. If the planet warms, increased weathering removes CO2 from the atmosphere. The loss of CO2 (a greenhouse gas) leads to a cooler temperature. When the Earth is too cool, weathering and carbon dioxide removal slows and the retention of more CO2 elevates the temperature toward the 40 degree Celsius mean. It is a remarkable negative-feedback system that helps buffer Earth against solar inconsistency, weather variables and even to a limited extent humanity's excesses.
At a deeper level Plate Tectonics act as a part of Earth's global thermostat. Although most people only think of Plate Tectonics as creating earthquakes and tsunami the shifting of oceanic and landmass plates recycles chemicals that help keep the volume of carbon dioxide in check. Scientists are beginning to build a planetary view of a highly complex system in which the Earth recycles elements. A combination of the rock cycle and Plate Tectonics have combined to balance the sun's changing output, volcanic gases, the rise of the continental plates plus the increased oxygenation of the atmosphere.
To exist as a habitable planet Earth needs “greenhouse gases” to maintain a warm comfort zone for humans. Greenhouse gases are continually being broken down and lost to the atmosphere. If this supply is not replenished Earth would grow colder as our atmospheric blanket is lost. This gradually cooling would continue until water began freezing at which point the process would accelerate. If large portions of the planet were blanketed in ice and/or snow the reflectivity of the planet is increased. More of the sun's heat would be reflected back into space which accelerates the cooling process. One of the sources of greenhouse gases is the volcanic production of carbon dioxide. Even volcanoes, which we think of as being dormant, are continually venting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The production of greenhouse gases, volcanic eruptions and plate tectonics are joined in a complex cycle. One of the most important functions of Plate Tectonics is the recycling of minerals and chemical compounds that are locked within the planet's crustal plates.
Volcanic eruptions pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The increased CO2 retards escaping radiant energy and maintains a warm habitable planet. Eventually the CO2 is washed out of the atmosphere and when combined with calcium forms limestone. Limestone formations function to lock up excess carbon dioxide and help moderate Earth's temperature. If left unchecked the buildup of excess CO2 could lead to runaway heating, such as Venus. Remember that Venus’ cloud cover has magnified the “greenhouse effect” to elevate the surface temperature to approximately 800 degrees.
Marine animals build their shells from carbonates washed into the oceans. Eventually these shells are deposited on the ocean floor and compacted into limestone. The sea floor or oceanic plate is driven down into the mantle via subduction. Plate tectonics use the flow of materials to build up the continental landmasses and help maintain a livable temperature. As the limestone, which contains both calcium and carbon dioxide, is heated calcium is brought to the surface in the magma and carbon dioxide is belched from the volcanoes as gases and steam. The carbon cycle keeps vast amounts of the carbon locked up. It also recycles the oceans. Water from all the oceans is cleansed of salt and then re-infused back into the deep oceans enriched with the iron and minerals that feed and nurture the ecosystem. The process begins again.
Without the recycling process of plate tectonics limestone would stay buried. The planet might be more stable but it would remove the calcium from the planetary system. Without calcium to help in removing the CO2 in the atmosphere there would be a runaway greenhouse effect. Only recently has Plate Tectonics been understood as significantly impacting the continued livability of the planet Earth. Earth has a very high percentage of water which makes it livable and temperate. The presence of such a high percentage of water could overwhelm, the landmasses and create a water world. Despite what you may have seen in the movies “Water World” would not be filled with large bodied creatures such as you and me. Photosynthetic bacteria live off sunlight alone, but large-scale metazoans need the infusion of other nutrients from land/ sea exchange.
Plate Tectonics create the continents on Earth and maintain that balance. We see volcanoes and think that their eruptions created the continents. Planetary land formation is a continuous and dynamic process. All continental landmasses are actually low-density rocks embedded in denser basalt. The low-density continents are built mostly of granite and limestone. Although it is difficult to think of rocks moving, the continental plates are thin sheets that ride atop a globe of denser rocks. Earth has a radioactive interior, which constantly generates intense heat as the radioactive isotopes decay. As this heat rises to the surface, it generates enormous convection cells of hot, liquid rock in the mantle. Much like boiling water the viscous upper mantle rises, moves parallel to the surface and then having dissipated its heat it retreats into the depths to begin the cycle again.
Summary:
Where we start a conversation very much determines where we end the conversation. In his book Six Numbers the Deep Forces of the Universe Martin Rees presents powerful information concerning the foundation of the universe. The basic physics that shaped our universe were embedded in the first nanosecond of creation. The deep forces along with other parameters were each fine-tuned billions of years ago. The creation of the universe was NOT some experiment in which a bomb blew up and parts flew all over space.
The Urban Myth of rocks rolling around in a timeless void for eons before a big blue planet happened to form out of bits and pieces is wrong. Because the universe is expanding at a specific rate we can and do exist. Because the cosmic glue that holds the molecules together is a specific number and not one decimal larger or smaller we are breathing oxygen and iron is pumping through our veins. Our universe, our solar system, our sun, this planet and especially humanity could not exist if even one of the basic numbers of galactic physics were the tiniest bit different. The precision necessary to create this universe is AWESOME. It is worth repeating, if one of the deep forces of the universe were a different number or changed by even a fraction, even if all the other characteristics remained the same, we would not exist.
The odds that even one of these numbers would be what it is, is one in billions, to have all of them precisely tuned is to multiple impossible. Since Rees' book other authors have continued to extend the list of fine tuned elements, what is now called - Anthropic numbers. Very precise numbers are embedded in the foundation of the universe. Many scientists particularly physicists, astrophysicists, cosmologists and astronomers are awed by the precision of what many are calling the God factor.
What began in the 1960's as two factors (water and a terrestrial planet) in the Drake Equation grew to 23 by the end of the 1970's, and 30 by the end of the 1980's. The early 21st Century raised the number to 128 parameters that must be fine-tuned for humanity to exist. For those interested in these parameters Dr. Hugh Ross lists 66 of these fine-tuned requirements in his book The Creator and the Cosmos. He also provides a brief explanation of how a different number would have altered the universe (pages 188-193). Many of these parameters have been measured very precisely and the following lists the probability of attaining a few of the necessary parameters for life.
Probability for Life:
Galaxy size .1
Galaxy type .1
Star location relative to galactic center .2
Star age .4
Star mass .001
Star color (photosynthetic light) .01
Axis tilt of planet .3
Planetary orbit eccentricity .3
Number of moons .2
Mass and distance of moon .1
Magnetic field .01
Tidal force from sun and moon .1
Oceans-to-continents ratio .2
Asteroid and comet collision rate .1
Atmospheric transparency .01
Oxygen quantity in atmosphere .01
Iron quantity in the oceans .1
Atmospheric ozone quantity .01
Tectonic activity .05
Viscosity of lithosphere .2
(The Creator and the Cosmos p.195-198)
These variables are not theoretical constructs. These parameters have been actively researched. Data indicate that their absence or even a slight variation would make the solar system, our sun, and/or Earth uninhabitable- humanity would not exist. The probability that all 128 parameters would be present in one planet has been estimated at 10 166. That's 1 with 166 zeros after it. The maximum possible number of planets in the universe is 1022. Therefore Earth and humanity are a mathematical impossibility. We should not exist. There is less than one chance in 10144. You are SPECIAL.
The universe was created with very specific presets that were designed for humanity. Without the Deep Forces of physics being precisely chosen and set there would be no universe, such as we know it. A special creation event with a very specific plan prepared a universe with a specific galaxy, initiated a solar system a specified distance from the galactic center then enriched a planet with all the resources we take for granted.
The sun is a unique star carefully positioned in the Galactic Habitability Zone. It's orbit through the galaxy is stable. It is in the main stage sequence and provides a stable source of energy. The sun is of the right mass - neither a red dwarf (i.e., low energy source) nor a massive red giant that would have long ago gone nova and taken the planets with it. The sun provides the right type of light (i.e., blue-green spectrum) that is most efficiently used by plants and marine species for photosynthesis.
The solar system is a rare configuration. As an infant sun sputtered into maturity a proto-Earth received the right elements. A massive plasmid struck proto-Earth at the precise angle, with the right force and essential elements to generate a moon. This moon was large enough to stabilize the Earth's tilt, slow the rate of rotation, stimulate the ebb and flow of the Earth's oceans plus act as a shield to further bombardment from asteroids (e.g., note the moon’s crater marked surface). Additionally, this Giant Impactor wielded the two cores (Earth and the plasmid) together to create a magnetic dynamo inside Earth that generated a magnetic field around Earth. The magnetic field deflects the solar winds and much of the power of solar flares. The absence of the magnetic field would open the Earth to being stripped of its protective ozone layer and eventually its entire atmosphere.
This massive collision released so much energy and heat that the crust of Earth was molten- Many believe that event generated plate tectonics. Which is ultimately responsible for the creation of land masses, continents and for maintaining land formations. Without the constant process of plate tectonics the Earth’s large oceans would win the battle of erosion and consume the landmasses. Plate tectonics have contributed significantly to maintaining Earth's habitable temperature through the CO2 cycle.
The Earth required precise groundwork to prepare it for the arrival of life. Christians see the mighty hand of God in the precision of an awesome universe and a beautiful blue oasis, precisely prepared for Mankind. Others deny God's hand and claim we are just lucky. Rees has espoused a view called multiverse in which all the other possible universes exist. He believes in a universe of hyper expansion where no stars ever formed. As well as a very brief universe in which gravity was stronger and the Big Bang was followed by the Big Crunch. Theorizing about multi-verses does not solve the original question. It only makes God more powerful because someone – A Creator outside natural randomness had to initiate or create all the billions of universes of Rees' - multiverse.
We do not live in a universe that was randomly created. Nor do we live in an infinite universe. God created the heavens and the Earth at a specific point in time. His ways are not our ways. He works on a scale far above and beyond our finite minds. He also works with exceeding care. As we have stretched our minds to seek the far corners of the universe; everywhere we look, we can see God's fingerprints if we are willing to look. Only God could create such a vast universe from the seed of one creation event. Only God could imbue us - His children - with the curiosity and the skill to begin to uncover how He built this universe. Since we are made in God's image we are able to discover clues. The Bible says to look to nature as the works of nature speak of God's Glory.
Christians should live by another equation - the Adam Equation. It should help us to evaluate the probability of intelligent live appearing on a perfectly prepared planet.
Fadam = Fu X Fa X Fp X Fl X Fc X Fi
Fadam is the probability that intelligent beings are here by chance
Fu is the probability that the universe began without God
Fa is the probability that the right laws of nature could result without God
Fp is the probability of obtaining a suitable planet without God
Fl is the probability that life arises from non-living material without God
Fc is the probability that complex life develops without God
Fi is the probability that intelligent, advanced life develops without God. (Understanding Creation, p. 292)
RECOMMENDED RESOURCES:
The Creator and the Cosmos, Hugh Ross, Nav Press, Colorado Springs, 2001.
A very readable explanation of current astronomical discoveries and the fine-tuning of the Universe. Dr. Ross uses a style of writing that uses examples to bring abstract concepts into concrete daily experience.
The Privileged Planet, Guillermo Gonzales and Jay W. Richards, Regnery Publishing, Washington D.C., 2004.
Particularly strong sections on the Copernican Principle. I found it easier to read the second half of the book first which is the historical section and then dive into the technical section, which the authors - as scientists put first.
Rare Earth, Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee, Copernicus Publishing, New York, 2000.
Extremely readable and thorough introduction to Habitable Zones in the Galaxy and the Solar System. It does an excellent job of taking on many of the urban myths that fill casual conversations.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse