ok. i wanted to ask you guys something about science. they say that Earth is to be the only habitatable planet in the universe. Do you agree or disagree? why or why not?
2006-11-20 11:54:40 · 14 answers · asked by michelle =] 1 in Social Science ➔ Anthropology
My boyfriend works for the FBI and says not only is there other life in the universe, but they are here and our government, including him, works with them. If what he says is the truth, and I have no reason not to believe him, they must have lived elsewhere before they moved here. He's very serious and has no reason to make up lies, we've been together over three years now and I would know if he was making it up.
2006-11-23 18:22:51 · answer #1 · answered by adkspoiledbrat 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Anyone who can say that with any degree of certainty is either very misinformed or divine. I myself would guess very misinformed. Remember this: there are about 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone. Out of this number the majority are of the same or similar type as our own sun. The problem is these stars are so far away that we have really no way to tell which ones have planets and which don't. The current thinking based on the planets we have found is that they occur commonly around stars and as we devise better methods of searching I feel that we are only a few years away from finding planets similar to Earth. I even read of a neutron star having a planetary system around it. Life is probably common in the universe, but intelligent reflective self aware life may be quite rare. Who knows?
2006-11-20 22:01:27 · answer #2 · answered by ron k 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah some has said this earlier but I'd be concerned if a scientist straight out said Earth is the only habitable planet in all the infiniteness of space. They hopefully said that Earth is the only planet /they know of/ that can support life. Exploration in space is very limited right now, as in the thought of someone making it to the edge of our own solar system is a laughable idea. Much less the huge, huge, unimaginably huge rest of *everything* in which one can search for life on planets.
I personally think not only there are other planets that can support some form of life, but there are a lot of them, because if you take all of those criteria for a sustainable planet and take it into it the sheer numbers of . . .all that be. . .you actually get a respectable probability. But of course that's just me and equally of course there is no proof. And if you add in an intelligent universe mover then there's a whole other level of complications.
2006-11-21 05:24:02 · answer #3 · answered by E 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As what we learn, yes, Earth is the only habitable planet in the universe.
But personally, I disagree, because all sorts of possibilities can happen. There might be another planet, one that is exactly like Earth, functioning at the same era as us, and there might be another batch of astrologists habiting that another planet, and probably asking the same questions as we ask.
Those are just considerations, you can consider them, but you need not take them seriously.
And anyway, another habitable planet will not affect us. If they discover one, they cannot do anything, because it's too far away and the journey will probably be dangerous.(It may take a thousand years to reach the other habitable planet,in which it's impossible for human's limitation, unless you turn the space shuttle into a home, and allow generations to breed in there. you need also to know how to supply enough fuel for the space shuttle. and even when you get to the another 'habitable planet', you need to think of ways of how to get back to earth.
So considering all these, just listen to your teacher, and believe that Earth is the only habitable planet in the universe. Believe me at your own risk; I'm not a scientist nor a prophet or whatsoever. I'm just a curious student, like you are.
2006-11-20 20:21:42 · answer #4 · answered by Curio_us 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I basically agree, but I would rather say that it is "very likely" the only habitable planet in the universe. The reason is that there are 12 conditions (that I have identified) that must exist simultaneously to initiate and support "life". I'm not going to tell you what they all are until I have copyrighted the paper in which I lay them out. BUT, to whet your curiosity I will tell you two. (1) The surface of the planet must be kept within fairly narrow bounds of temperature. Too hot (over 212*F) and water will never condense - too cold 32*F and you have a perpetual snow ball. This is only a range of 180*F, so the host sun must be kicking out energy of a certain level, or it must be a certain distance from the planet to achieve these limits. (2) Gravity must be also within certain limits - too little and water will likewise remain vaporized - too much and... well, whatever. Email me if your curiosity gets the better of you. Hope this helps. (Final question to get your imagination fired up: What would the oceans be like if there was no moon to create tides?)
2006-11-20 20:19:03 · answer #5 · answered by Pete 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Disagree. Who said that? Most scientists say that it would be highly unlikely that this is the only habitable planet in the universe. It's a big place, and it's pure hubris to believe that we're so special. The probability is that there is more life out there, not that we're the only ones.
Now, we may never be able to reach those other planets. We can't even detect them right now. We've only recently been able to detect the really big planets, but those aren't the sort that can hold life. But the planets that can support life are out there.
2006-11-21 21:55:12 · answer #6 · answered by random6x7 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, and anyone who says yes is an idiot.
The fact that no other habitable planet has been identified is immaterial. There are countless numbers of planets out there circling countless numbers of stars. We've identified only a handful of planets outside our own system, to think we're the only life sustaining planet out there is supreme arrogance.
Besides, what we identify as necessary to support life may not be true in all cases. We understand so little about the origins of life we could be overlooking it within our our solar system, although I doubt that.
2006-11-21 16:51:12 · answer #7 · answered by blakenyp 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The theory that Earth is the only inhabited planet in the
universe, should never be stated as fact.
Whether there are other lifeforms on other planets or if there is only
form of life throughout the universe, is also just a theory and
should not be taken as fact just because some one with a degree
says that's the way it is.
A theory is just a theory and should be kept that way until there
is absolute proof.
2006-11-20 21:28:14 · answer #8 · answered by hunterentertainment 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There are a multitude of planets in our universe, tens of millions, maybe more!
Why would Earth be the only planet in the universe to harbor life? Mind you, life does not mean, intelligent life! Simply, LIFE!
For countless ages people have seen flying craft under intelligent control! Even in The Bible, UFO's have been reported!
Modern day cameras have captured images of unknown objects in the sky moving about under intelligent control!
It would seem absurd to even think that we (Earthlings) are alone in the Universe!
As a genuine 700 year old Sasquatch, I (IMHO) believe that we are not alone in the Universe! There is much more out there!
Time will tell!
The Ol' Sasquatch Ã
2006-11-20 20:28:18 · answer #9 · answered by Ol' Sasquatch 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Statistical speaking; very unlikely that earth is the only planet with life. But we have no empirical support for that hypothesis, so we will see. I do not know any scientist who makes such absolutist statements to the effect that there could be no life any where else in the universe.
2006-11-20 21:24:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋