Re: cosmology pulls out the rug

On Feb 3, 10:30 pm, Cory Albrecht <coryalbre...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Steven L. wrote, on 2009-02-03 13:20:





Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
Lovely little closing line from a report of a test
of the "dark energy" hypothesis of the current
"standard model" of cosmology:

In this era of precision cosmology we can in
fact begin to test the Copernican principle.

For those who slept through that part of philosophy
class, this implies a *hard science test* of the
idea that in *no* sense is humankind "the center of
the universe".

This in turn to the objective mind debunks the
biblical *god of humankind hypothesis*; what god
would put the apex of hir creation in some out of
the way, "no more important than any other" nook of
the universe?

The "Rare Earth Hypothesis" suggests that our Solar System is unique in
a number of factors vital to support a technological species on a
planet: Our Sun's position in the Galaxy was relatively rich in metals,
but not too much cosmic radiation, and not too much gravitational
perturbation from black holes and other stars. Stars located in the
outskirts of the Galaxy don't have metals. Stars located in regions of
the Galaxy which are dense in stars would have too much cosmic radiation
and too many gravitational perturbations. Our Sun's orbit around the
Galactic center is nearly a perfect circle, preventing it from drifting
into one of these dangerous zones.

*Some* galaxy had to be the first to host an intelligent technological
civilization. The Milky Way was it. And within that galaxy, perhaps only
our Sun and its location made that possible. Or at least, other such
stars are very rare.

This hypothesis is still quite controversial. But at least it is a
plausible scientific argument for why we arose in this particular "nook
of the universe."

The constantly growing number of exoplanets make it a less and less
plausible hypothesis all the time.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, we know that other planets exist. Why should our discovery of
other planets - that we in any case expect to be there - make the
hypothesis less plausible? As I understand it most of the 300 or so
discovered planets is gaseous and in any case not prone to harbouring
life.

Not that I think life in unexpected forms in - to us - hostile
conditions is totally out of the question. I guess we are special but
just how special - one in 300 or one in 3 million?



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Estimates of life in the universe
    ... There are 300 billion stars in an average galaxy and 100 billion ... star in a thousand has planets ... civilizations could exist in our galaxy. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: cosmology pulls out the rug
    ... In this era of precision cosmology we can in ... perturbation from black holes and other stars. ... outskirts of the Galaxy don't have metals. ... discovered planets is gaseous and in any case not prone to harbouring ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Estimates of life in the universe
    ... There are 300 billion stars in an average galaxy and 100 billion ... star in a thousand has planets ... supporting life in the universe. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Estimates of life in the universe
    ... There are 300 billion stars in an average galaxy and 100 billion ... star in a thousand has planets ... supporting life in the universe. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Observing & Predicting Planetary Orbits (Easy Step-By-Step Instructions)
    ... the naked-eye visible planets in sidereal ... that ancients didn't have other means to see the stars. ... Mercury whose orbit you can see is eccentric. ... I think this is what makes modern astronomers angry at ...
    (sci.astro)
Loading