
In “Aliens don’t need a moon like ours” (New Scientist, 13 November 2011), David Shiga informs us,
It seems planets don’t need a big satellite like Earth’s in order to support life, increasing the number on which life could exist.
We know of only one such planet and it does have a moon …
But a study now suggests moonless planets have been dismissed unfairly. “There could be a lot more habitable worlds out there,” says Jack Lissauer of NASA’s Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California, who led the research.
Large moons are not required for a stable tilt and climate, agrees Darren Williams of Pennsylvania State University in Erie. In some circumstances, he adds, large moons can even be detrimental, depending on the arrangement of planets in a given system. “Every system is going to be different.”
It’s probably rude to point this out, but just now, only one system is genuinely different when it comes to harbouring life. And it does have a moon.
You’d think it would make more sense to look for what we know works.
Well obviously the hypothetical ‘moonless’ planet would lose the moon’s ‘Observability Correlation’,,,
As well, the earth would lose necessary ‘tidal effects’,,, In fact I suspect the authors may have inadvertently overlooked the following considerations for interdependence,,,
A few more notes:
Rotation, rotation, rotation- the impactor that created the earth-moon system is said to have kick-started our rotation.
How would moon-less terrestrial planets get their rotation? No rotation no magnetic field, and no need to worry about any wobble.
Also are they talking about microbes or metazoans?
As well as ‘Rotation, rotation, rotation’, ‘orbit, orbit, orbit, is found to be extremely finely-tuned. i.e. our solar system is not nearly as haphazardly arranged as materialists/atheists would think prior to investigation:
As well, the generally accepted theory of moon formation by a gigantic impact is not nearly as well established as most people believe:
Seeing the extremely hypothetical nature of the moon/impact formation theory, and the complete lack of any rigorous evidence substantiating it, I guess I can be guilty of the “God did it!” explanation in this instance:
music:
OT: Darwin on Trial 20th Anniversary: Darwinian Evolution’s “Wrecking Ball” – podcast
http://intelligentdesign.podom.....0_49-08_00