31–40 of 107 posts
I would think that a gassy planet close to a star would have to have a really big solid or liquid core of heavy elements.
"We have to figure out why our solar system turned out different from all the others." Not entirely—we have to understand statistics and the anthropic principle, which states "observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it." (Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle ). In other words, our situation appears "perfect" because it was one of the many r…
sorry, but i don't understand what's the logic here? it's not special, but it's only very special in sustaining/producing life? isn't that more than enough to call it special? :-)
The evidence in solar systems so far does NOT fit the theory involving a frost line, and giants like Jupiter are unexpectedly observed tightly orbiting suns. Whether our solar system is normal is conjecture, but our model for how solar systems are(were?) formed is obviously flawed. Pretty interesting find, imho.
Here's a "lightbulb" for you: A large gas giant near a star is created in the same fashion as a binary star system (a formation that is quite common) with the simple difference that the planet did not get enough material to actually become a star.
"We have to figure out why our solar system turned out different from all the others." Not entirely—we have to understand statistics and the anthropic principle, which states "observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it." (Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle ). In other words, our situation appears "perfect" because it was one of the many r…
The point was that a few years ago we had a solid, broadly-agreed-upon scientific theory of planetary formation. And it was wrong. That's interesting for scientific reasons, not philosophical ones.
It's true that this could still turn out to be mostly observational bias, but I feel like everyone is missing the monkey wandering across the corridor. The anthropic principle, that is. Isn't it possible that, while gas planets clustered closely around the star is the normal shape of solar systems, such a configuration is not amenable to complex life?
I had no idea that: "Or maybe it got ejected — astronomers are finding emigrant planets, lonely orbs that wander the universe with no star, just drifting. Maybe one of those used to live here." There are planets not orbiting stars? I searched Google for "emigrant planets" and the npr article is the number 1 result for that. I think he invented the term. What are these called if I wanted to find more information about…
It probably wouldn't be intelligent life, but maybe there are microbial lifeforms somewhere in the universe which call a rogue planet their home. That's awesome to think about, although it is extremely likely that such a planet will never be discovered. It's just really hard to track down a rogue planet, even a large one.
"We have to figure out why our solar system turned out different from all the others." Not entirely—we have to understand statistics and the anthropic principle, which states "observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it." (Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle ). In other words, our situation appears "perfect" because it was one of the many r…
Unlike a cash lottery for which we intend there to be a winner, winners of a cosmic lottery do not "necessarily" exist--a winner like us is not guaranteed, I mean.
"We have to figure out why our solar system turned out different from all the others." Not entirely—we have to understand statistics and the anthropic principle, which states "observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it." (Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle ). In other words, our situation appears "perfect" because it was one of the many r…
> But by no means is our solar system special in any light: it's only special in that its particular conditions produced lifeforms able to observe it. sorry, but i don't understand what's the logic here? it's not special, but it's only very special in sustaining/producing life? isn't that more than enough to call it special? :-)
Our existence (whether likely or not) does not constitute evidence that our existence was guaranteed or predetermined. Low-probability events happen sometimes, their actually having happened once does not make them high-probability.