Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mageth · 11-07-2002, 02:44 PM

Why would I be particularly interested in trashing an article that "trashes" panspermia, when I don't agree that panspermia is required to explain life on earth?

Mageth · 11-07-2002, 02:49 PM

As for the "lack of planets" bit, I'd suggest one read <a href="http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/2000/33/pr.html" target="_blank">this page</a> to get a more, umm, balanced and scientific review of the findings.

An excerpt:

Quote:

Hubble researchers caution that the finding must be tempered by the fact that some astronomers always considered the ancient globular cluster an unlikely abode for planets for a variety of reasons. Specifically, the cluster has a deficiency of heavier elements that may be needed for building planets. If this is the case, then planets may have formed later in the universe�s evolution, when stars were richer in heavier elements. Correspondingly, life as we know it may have appeared later rather than sooner in the universe.

Another caveat is that Hubble searched for a specific type of planet called a �hot Jupiter,� which is considered an oddball among some planet experts. The results do not rule out the possibility that 47 Tucanae could contain normal solar systems like ours, which Hubble could not have detected. But even if that�s the case, the "null" result implies there is still something fundamentally different between the way planets are made in our own neighborhood and how they are made in the cluster.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-07-2002, 02:44 PM	#31
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Why would I be particularly interested in trashing an article that "trashes" panspermia, when I don't agree that panspermia is required to explain life on earth?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.