Inhabitable planet without life?

achilles12604 · Post by **achilles12604** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:39 am

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070425/ap_ ... ble_planet

This question is aimed at those who claim life certainly rose on its own, without guidance. Specifically if you feel life MUST have occured because it was the path of least resistance (vs nothing, or lifeless masses), I would like your opinions.

What if we discover an inhabitable plant without any life on it at all? Would this give rise to the theory of a guiding hand assisting life on this planet? What are the implications for the theories of those who reject God's guiding life?

WelshBoy · Post by **WelshBoy** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:49 am

Since there are potentially many billions of 'inhabitable' planets out there, the discovery of one, or even a million, without life, simply very slightly reduces the number of possible worlds with life.

QED · Post by **QED** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:56 am

Given our current lack of knowledge about the process of Abiogenesis, I think the definition of "inhabitable" would have to be brought very close to the specification of Earth and it's relation to the rest of our solar system. This is a reflection of the fact that apparently subtle features, like the presence of a large moon nearby, can serve to stabilize the orbit of a planet and hence create a stable climate.

Something such as our Earth/Moon combination could prove to be a key ingredient for the development of life so finding another planet the exact same size, orbiting a star exactly like our own, at the same distance -- but without a moon -- might not be enough. This might sound overly defensive, but I'm afraid to say it would be the only rational response.

acamp1 · Post by **acamp1** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:22 am

Something such as our Earth/Moon combination could prove to be a key ingredient

I agree. I've often wondered if the moon was our planet's "heart", its cyclical motions keeping the planet's "blood" flowing. And I'm not talking astrology here; I'm talking tides.

I wonder if a similar dynamic exists on Europa, whose tectonic friction appears to be responsible for liquid oceans.

Wasn't there a Star Trek episode... they land on a planet that seems an earthly paradise, but there's nothing alive on it?

Anyway, to answer the OP, if we found a paradisaical, yet completely uninhabited planet, it would get me seriously wondering about the Garden story.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:25 am

I was just reading about the distance of stars and how if they are to close planets can't develope.
I love sci-fi so I like to imagine energy creatures that are lifeforms based on complex organization of energy.
But then I realize isn't that what matter is?

It should be an uninhabital planet capable of suporting life that lacks life.

I need coffee. My cafe makes the best coffee.

Post by **otseng** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:53 am

I would guess it would not have a moon since it only takes 13 days for the planet to orbit the red dwarf.

olivergringold · Post by **olivergringold** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:07 pm

Stable. Climates. Are. Bad. For. Evolution.

We orbit a much larger, brighter-burning star, and have our gravities tugged by the numerous other objects in our solar system. Earth only needs a moon because our presumptions about Earth being perfectly aligned for life are completely wrong. C may not have a moon to stabilize its climate, but it's also closer to its star, and possibly doesn't rotate, meaning that it would experience climactic change at a significantly lower rate than Earth. Since it's incredibly close to its sun, however, it would still receive more than its fair share.

I see no reason why life wouldn't be able to arise on that planet, provided it has enough of the right chemicals. The trick would be finding it, however, as most of it would probably stay underwater, possibly all on one side of the planet. Life as we know it probably isn't life as it's common. If life were to be found on C it would be undying proof that we, far from being intelligently designed, are freaks of nature.

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:31 pm

acamp1 wrote:
Something such as our Earth/Moon combination could prove to be a key ingredient
I agree. I've often wondered if the moon was our planet's "heart", its cyclical motions keeping the planet's "blood" flowing. And I'm not talking astrology here; I'm talking tides.

I wonder if a similar dynamic exists on Europa, whose tectonic friction appears to be responsible for liquid oceans.

Wasn't there a Star Trek episode... they land on a planet that seems an earthly paradise, but there's nothing alive on it?

Anyway, to answer the OP, if we found a paradisaical, yet completely uninhabited planet, it would get me seriously wondering about the Garden story.

One item that the moon does do is stabalize the 'wobble' of the earth. it only has a 'wobble' of 23 degrees. Other planets can have wobbles up to 90 degrees. This would have a termendous impact on the climate.

QED · Post by **QED** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:01 am

olivergringold wrote:Stable. Climates. Are. Bad. For. Evolution.

I understand what you're getting at but I think there would be plenty of other "problems" requiring "ingenious"solutions besides difficult weather. John Barrow describes the role played by the Earth's moon in "Artful Universe".

p.147 wrote:If the Moon did not exist, or were much smaller, then the Earth's obliquity would evolve chaotically over the entire range from 0 to 85 degrees, remaining above 50 degrees for millions of years. This would create a dire climatic situation on Earth: the Poles would receive far less radiation than the Equator. Given that past variations of one or two degrees have been sufficient to trigger ice ages, variations of this magnitude would be catastrophic fro the evolution of life. Fortunately the Moon does exist. Its presence acts as a powerful stabilizing influence, and its gravitational influence allows the Earth's obliquity to do nothing more dramatic than oscillate by about 1.3 degrees about its mean position of 23.3 degrees.

achilles12604 · Post by **achilles12604** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:30 am

The bottom line I am getting so far is that unless a planet had EXACTLY the same specifics as Earth, we should not expect life to have appeared on said planet?

So why do the scientists in the article make such misleading claims?