You spoke of attempting to find distant life by comparing it what we know. Where do the comparisons stop?
Sigh. Ask NASA. This was their conclusion as well.
Earth has a Moon, so should we only look at planets with one Moon. Earth is in a system with 8 planets, should we only look at similarly sized systems?
To the best of my knowledge, neither of those characteristics influence life on Earth. Mass does, as it effects gravity. None of the criteria are random and sarcastically chosen. Now, for the THIRD time: Astronomy 101: Planets that are much larger than the Earth and prone to be gas giants. No formula of life that we know of can take place there. So we're not looking there. Very small planets are likewise less likely to be inhabited, because they are, firstly, harder to find and therefore out of reach for the moment, and secondly, less likely to hold a tenable atmophere, or have the same gravitational and magnetic forces of Earth.
Since the early 90's, over 400* worlds have been found, but because of the primitive level of our search ability, most of them have been humongous Jupiter-like gas giants. AGAIN, bear with me now: these are unlikely suitable for life as we know it.
Now I know this is hard for you, so we'll review.
NASA should look for life:
a. On Earth-sized planets
b. On gas giants
c. On tiny, under-sized worlds.
{For the sake of this argument, we'll say Earth-sized is anywhere from .5 to 10x Terrestrial masses; the upper limite being that of Super-Earths )
Now, take a minute. Go get a drink, and come back. Ready to resume? I'll walk you through it.
A. The only working model we have for life is that of Earth. Therefore, we might start looking for life on worlds either a bit smaller or several times larger than the Earth. These are Earth-like worlds, and they are the focus of, amongst others, the Kepler mission.
B. We may start looking for life on gas-giants. This is impractical because even if it were possible here, we'd have no idea how to recognize it.
C. We may start looking on tiny, smaller-than-Earth-worlds. This would be tougher still, because smaller worlds are much harder to find than even the elusive Earth-sized worlds. Furthermore, more factors like gravity make these less likely (than Earth-sized worlds) to be able to sustain life.
I'm not "refusing to accept" anything, I even stated in no uncertain terms that I understand the logic of where they are looking.
If you understand, then why are you arguing with me over it? Now who was it who said... let me see here... "That said, planet "size" is rather irrelevant." You said that. Now you say, that you understand the logic of their search. THEY LOGIC OF THE KEPLER SEARCH IS FOR PLANETS SIMILARLY SIZED TO EARTH, thus size is NOT IRRELEVANT. This argument started because you picked a fight with me, spitting "That said, planet "size" is rather irrelevant." And you were wrong. And I corrected you. And now that the fight if over, you're seeking some sort of asylum with Weltall? The long-arm of Goron justice will catch you wherever you flee. He shall afford unto you no protection that I cannot repel.
And I have to agree with Weltall.
Well shit, obviously you agree with Weltall. You're cornered and he's the only alternative.
I think general common sense dictates that with the enormity of the universe, even a microscopic chance has the ability to spawn life at least more than once.
Absolutely! Very true! Which is why they're scanning many worlds even as we speak. BUT that's not what we were arguing about. (See above.) Changing the topic of admission of defeat.
The difference is whether that life is really worth the trouble. Intelligent, spacefaring life is going to much, much harder to identify, but that is something worth pursuing, if found.
And again, this is not what we were arguing about.
NOW LET'S REVIEW THE FIGHT:
I said, they're looking for worlds that are, amongst other criteria, Earth-sized. You countered, rather haughtily:
"That said, planet "size" is rather irrelevant."
Which, as you intended, was meant as a slight on the accuracy of my reporting. I then countered with some technical data of the specifics regarding the Earth. To which you responded, in a flagrantly sarcastic way:
"By your logic, if were only assuming life can exist on a planet exactly like ours, then does there need to be 8 planets in it's system? Does it need to have one Moon?"
Firstly, I never at all asserted that life can only exist on a world 'exactly' like ours. I have never in my life said this; here you put words in my mouth. But anyway, by this, you are snootishly asserting that the size of a planet should have no impact on the likelihood for there being life on it, and you appear to refer to its size as being no less arbitrary than the presence of a moon.
I then went on to repeat my argument.
To which you callously roared, "You spoke of attempting to find distant life by comparing it what we know. Where do the comparisons stop? Earth has a Moon, so should we only look at planets with one Moon. Earth is in a system with 8 planets, should we only look at similarly sized systems?"
Thus, reiterating your argument that size has nothing at all to do with the likelihood of a world bearing life. (And it does.)
NOW, WE HAVE TWO WAYS TO GO FROM HERE:
A.) You admit that size does have a great deal to do with how likely a world is to support life,
or
B.) You continue to dig in.
Changing the topic or invoking the sanctuary protection of Weltall will make no differenece.
Sigh. Ask NASA. This was their conclusion as well.
Earth has a Moon, so should we only look at planets with one Moon. Earth is in a system with 8 planets, should we only look at similarly sized systems?
To the best of my knowledge, neither of those characteristics influence life on Earth. Mass does, as it effects gravity. None of the criteria are random and sarcastically chosen. Now, for the THIRD time: Astronomy 101: Planets that are much larger than the Earth and prone to be gas giants. No formula of life that we know of can take place there. So we're not looking there. Very small planets are likewise less likely to be inhabited, because they are, firstly, harder to find and therefore out of reach for the moment, and secondly, less likely to hold a tenable atmophere, or have the same gravitational and magnetic forces of Earth.
Since the early 90's, over 400* worlds have been found, but because of the primitive level of our search ability, most of them have been humongous Jupiter-like gas giants. AGAIN, bear with me now: these are unlikely suitable for life as we know it.
Now I know this is hard for you, so we'll review.
NASA should look for life:
a. On Earth-sized planets
b. On gas giants
c. On tiny, under-sized worlds.
{For the sake of this argument, we'll say Earth-sized is anywhere from .5 to 10x Terrestrial masses; the upper limite being that of Super-Earths )
Now, take a minute. Go get a drink, and come back. Ready to resume? I'll walk you through it.
A. The only working model we have for life is that of Earth. Therefore, we might start looking for life on worlds either a bit smaller or several times larger than the Earth. These are Earth-like worlds, and they are the focus of, amongst others, the Kepler mission.
B. We may start looking for life on gas-giants. This is impractical because even if it were possible here, we'd have no idea how to recognize it.
C. We may start looking on tiny, smaller-than-Earth-worlds. This would be tougher still, because smaller worlds are much harder to find than even the elusive Earth-sized worlds. Furthermore, more factors like gravity make these less likely (than Earth-sized worlds) to be able to sustain life.
I'm not "refusing to accept" anything, I even stated in no uncertain terms that I understand the logic of where they are looking.
If you understand, then why are you arguing with me over it? Now who was it who said... let me see here... "That said, planet "size" is rather irrelevant." You said that. Now you say, that you understand the logic of their search. THEY LOGIC OF THE KEPLER SEARCH IS FOR PLANETS SIMILARLY SIZED TO EARTH, thus size is NOT IRRELEVANT. This argument started because you picked a fight with me, spitting "That said, planet "size" is rather irrelevant." And you were wrong. And I corrected you. And now that the fight if over, you're seeking some sort of asylum with Weltall? The long-arm of Goron justice will catch you wherever you flee. He shall afford unto you no protection that I cannot repel.
And I have to agree with Weltall.
Well shit, obviously you agree with Weltall. You're cornered and he's the only alternative.
I think general common sense dictates that with the enormity of the universe, even a microscopic chance has the ability to spawn life at least more than once.
Absolutely! Very true! Which is why they're scanning many worlds even as we speak. BUT that's not what we were arguing about. (See above.) Changing the topic of admission of defeat.
The difference is whether that life is really worth the trouble. Intelligent, spacefaring life is going to much, much harder to identify, but that is something worth pursuing, if found.
And again, this is not what we were arguing about.
NOW LET'S REVIEW THE FIGHT:
I said, they're looking for worlds that are, amongst other criteria, Earth-sized. You countered, rather haughtily:
"That said, planet "size" is rather irrelevant."
Which, as you intended, was meant as a slight on the accuracy of my reporting. I then countered with some technical data of the specifics regarding the Earth. To which you responded, in a flagrantly sarcastic way:
"By your logic, if were only assuming life can exist on a planet exactly like ours, then does there need to be 8 planets in it's system? Does it need to have one Moon?"
Firstly, I never at all asserted that life can only exist on a world 'exactly' like ours. I have never in my life said this; here you put words in my mouth. But anyway, by this, you are snootishly asserting that the size of a planet should have no impact on the likelihood for there being life on it, and you appear to refer to its size as being no less arbitrary than the presence of a moon.
I then went on to repeat my argument.
To which you callously roared, "You spoke of attempting to find distant life by comparing it what we know. Where do the comparisons stop? Earth has a Moon, so should we only look at planets with one Moon. Earth is in a system with 8 planets, should we only look at similarly sized systems?"
Thus, reiterating your argument that size has nothing at all to do with the likelihood of a world bearing life. (And it does.)
NOW, WE HAVE TWO WAYS TO GO FROM HERE:
A.) You admit that size does have a great deal to do with how likely a world is to support life,
or
B.) You continue to dig in.
Changing the topic or invoking the sanctuary protection of Weltall will make no differenece.
H.R.M. DARVNIVS MAXIMVS EX TENEBRIS EXIT REX DEVSQVE GORONORVMQVE TENDORVM ROMANORVM ET GRÆCORVM OMNIS SEMPER EST