[deleted]
Could the Earth be an evaporated gas giant planet?
51–60 of 106 posts
Re: Could the Earth be an evaporated gas giant planet?
#52NO. If solar wind caused a gas layer to evaporate, Earth shouldn't have the atmosphere it does. This planet should be like those surrounding it. Those same solar winds/radiation would have made sure of that. The issue I have with this is the same issue I have with evolution. If conditions were not created to favor life why are we the only planet with any known life & which is perfectly suited to a variety of life? Do…
> This planet should be like those surrounding it.
I don't know. The theory of development of planet systems is too young for my taste, so it could take it wrong. I believe that Earth was born between Venus and Mars, as current theories claim, but I wouldn't bet my hand that science will not claim something else in the next 20 years.
> Those same solar winds/radiation would have made sure of that.
They are not the same for Venus, Earth and Mars. They are stretched and weakened as they go away from Sun.
> Do you really think that's a coincidence?
No, anthropic principle is good enough for me. I mean it not the perfect explanation, but much better than creation, because if I assumed creation, than I'd need to build a big complex theories about creators having no evidence at all. If we got some evidence, if that evidence allowed us to reason about "how creation was done", "which forces was involved", and so on, than I'd like to throw away anthropic principle and to start speculate about creators and daydream of stealing their power. Like some ancient bloke who stole fire.
Re: Could the Earth be an evaporated gas giant planet?
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Earth atmosphere is 0.04% CO2. Why does Earth have such little CO2? Is maybe used by life on early Earth?
Yes. Earth used to have a lot more CO2. Then photosynthesis in the oceans created an oxygen crisis.
And Global Cooling, as both methane and CO2 (both potent greenhouse gasses) were reduced out of the atmosphere.
The resulting glaciation extended across the entire planet, was kilometers deep, and lasted 100s of millions of years.
All because blue-green algae.
Re: Could the Earth be an evaporated gas giant planet?
#54The fact that this paper appeared in April 2019 in a journal called "Acta Prima Aprilia" should give you a clue to how seriously to take it.
Re: Could the Earth be an evaporated gas giant planet?
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that this paper appeared in April 2019 in a journal called "Acta Prima Aprilia" should give you a clue to how seriously to take it.
The fact that the paper uses “CalTech” was the big clue for me. Also check out the references at the end. Some big clues there too.
Some really raging clues there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcHy8xEt2QI
Re: Could the Earth be an evaporated gas giant planet?
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the relatability to the audience that mandates they have human faces. ... because humans can only interpret the facial expressions and emotions of other human faces. Star Trek was never meant to be Sci-fi so much as soap opera in space.
Counter-example: https://orville.fandom.com/wiki/Yaphit
I don't really think that's a counter-example, the face and body animations are all very human-like.
Re: Could the Earth be an evaporated gas giant planet?
#57I'm gonna go out on a limb and say no.
Re: Could the Earth be an evaporated gas giant planet?
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this the distinction between the Strong Anthropic Principle and the Weak Anthropic Principle? WAP: we're going to see selection bias in our universe because the preconditions for life must have been satisfied for us to exist within it. SAP: all universes must satisfy the preconditions for life because cogito ergo sum -- the definition of existence requires life to perceive it. I've probably sold SAP short becau…
> SAP: all universes must satisfy the preconditions for life because cogito ergo sum -- the definition of existence requires life to perceive it. Rather than cogito ergo sum , I think esse est percipi is the more appropriate phrase to use here.
I had to look that one up:
esse est percipi: to be is to be perceived
Re: Could the Earth be an evaporated gas giant planet?
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the relatability to the audience that mandates they have human faces. ... because humans can only interpret the facial expressions and emotions of other human faces. Star Trek was never meant to be Sci-fi so much as soap opera in space.
Farscape did pretty well with having relatable characters played by puppets.
I'd agree, but the faces of all the regular characters were very human-esque. Even Pilot's face was puppetted to react vaguely human.
Re: Could the Earth be an evaporated gas giant planet?
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you may be mixing up the causation. How probable our universe is, we'll never know (until we can see other universes). We do know that in this universe, life exists. Thus our universe has to be "fine-tuned" for us to exist because we do. As for the universe "favor"ing life, that doesn't really make sense either. I think it's safe to say the universe favors stars, gas giants, black holes but it's pretty hard t…
Isn't this the distinction between the Strong Anthropic Principle and the Weak Anthropic Principle? WAP: we're going to see selection bias in our universe because the preconditions for life must have been satisfied for us to exist within it. SAP: all universes must satisfy the preconditions for life because cogito ergo sum -- the definition of existence requires life to perceive it. I've probably sold SAP short becau…
Yeah, for the most part.
The Weak Anthropic Principle from my understanding is simply that intelligent observers are possible. There's no implied likelihood or selection bias. Simply it's possible in our universe.
I'd agree with this framing.
As for the SAP, I personally find it somewhat meaningless. If that's how you define existence, then you're correct by definition.
If you believe a whole universe's existence requires perception to say it exists, I find that somewhat ridiculous. The universe came first and then came life.
Do things just pop into existence as we perceive them? And as we perceive more, does more stuff just pop into existence like all of the recently discovered lifeless exoplanets? Did those not exist until we spotted them?
I strongly believe trees fall in the forest and make sounds whether or not someone is there to hear. If you define a sound as having to be heard, then you're only correct through your own definition.