UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 28

Re: Questions for Abductees

From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 11:43:20 -0600 (CST)
Fwd Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 16:54:46 -0500
Subject: Re: Questions for Abductees

>Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 20:03:55 +0100 (MET)
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jean van Gemert <jeanvg@dds.nl>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Questions for Abductees

>>Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 13:38:50 -0600 (CST)
>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net>
>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Questions for Abductees

> [Some snippage...]

>>It appears you might also need a gravity well in the form of a
>>giant gas planet, placed just so in terms of distance and
>>location, the latter acting as a defense shield...

> Am I getting this straight? The argument is that gas
> giants were "placed just so in terms of distance and
> location" because of sheer randomness? If that's the
> idea you (and Davies?) intend to perpetuate, I think
> you might want to iron out a few misunderstandings.


By far the easist answer I can give you, Jean, is to say read
Davis's article, "Cosmic Dancers on History's Stage? The
Permanent Revolution in the Earth Sciences." It's all about the
latest findings and thinking in planetary science.

But to answer your question, randomness doesn't enter into it.
For example, there is thought to be a "comfort zone" in
relationship to our sun. Too far outside the zone, human life as
we know it wouldn't exist because it's too cold, as in Mars; too
far inside the zone, the temperatures would be too high, as in
Mercury. The comfort zone is random in one sense and not in
another. It's random in that it would vary from solar system to
solar system depending on the size, age, etc. of the particular
sun. The zone also changes dramatically over time. When our sun
finally explodes, we'll be too close for comfort.

Now the zone where the rocky planets form may well overlap the
comfort zone, but it's not necessarily synonymous. In this
regard, Earth was lucky, Mars not so lucky, yet both are rocky
planets. So, the Earth was created randomly (as an ultimately
habitable planet) within limits; it could have been a little
farther out or a little closer in. And of course the same is true
for Mars, etc. So, too, I'm sure there is a zone in relation to
the sun in which the gas giants form, and in which each one can
be said to be situated randomly in terms of all the available
possibilities.

What Davis does is to analyze the solar system as we presently
find it in terms of the latest findings, and its history over
time, and suggest that the history of our solar system may well
be unique in terms of its present particulars.

For example, the placement of our moon is not random when it
comes to the forces of gravity: it's placed the only place it
could be placed, in other words. But there is absolutely no
guarantee whatsoever that a moon of the size of ours would
necessarily form in relation to a planet of our size. In that
sense, it is random. All we can say about the Earth-Moon relation
is that's the way it is. Presumably, we could have had had no
moon, two moons (like Mars) or three or four, or maybe two moons
half the size of the present one. There is a whole host of random
possibiities, in other words.

The Earth's axis could be different as well. Davis simply takes
everything we know about the solar system's present state, make
up and the relationship among its many parts and concludes, when
all factors are taken into consideration, they may not be as easy
to replicate around other suns as we think, which would put a
serious crimp in Drake's equation of the number of possible
habitable solar systems.

There is no rule of planetary formation, for example, from which
you can declare that a planet the size of the earth _must_ form
93 million miles from a star the size of ours, along with a moon
of just the right size, so that when it passes between the Earth
and Sun it almost exactly covers the solar disk. All those
factors are "random" in the sense that they have a wide range of
latitude, but highly specific in the case of our solar system.

Davis is saying that it may take all the specifics of our case to
result in intelligent life. An ocean without tides, for example,
might not give rise to the kind of life forms that eventually
adapted to walk on land. What causes our tides? The moon being
the size and place it is. A smaller moon further away might not
generate tides at all. So you could still imaginable a
theoretically habitable Earth, with plenty of water for all, but
nothing really challenging for those early organisms to struggle
against when the tides went out and they were left gasping on the
beach.

You might also theoretically get an Earth the same size and make
up as ours around another sun like ours, but with little or no
axial tilt. Why is the tilt of the axis so important? It creates
seasons. Why are seasons important? Because they seriously
challenged our ancestors to keep warm in the winter. If the Earth
were a terrestrial paradise we might still be shaggy apes
munching down ready-at-hand bananas morning, noon and night, but
not getting around, at least anytime soon, to killing one another
and building sspaceships.

The gas giants have to be "just so," too, in terms of the Earth's
specific location. According to Davis, they may be finely-tuned,
too, just the right size to keep out, say, 99.9% of the incoming
artillery, but also allow .01% in to the inner solar system,
where it bombards the Earth on a largely random basis, wipes out
the dinosaurs, and allows the mammals, including us, to evolve
and take over. Let too much space junk by, however, and even the
mammals might have had a hard time of it.

Planetary catastrophes, in other words, may well be a
"requirement" for any eventual form of intelligent life. All
together, it may take a specific set of finely-tuned,
interlocking relationships (in toto, the history of our specific
solar system), out of all the random possibilities (or histories)
available, to result in intelligent life. This starts to make the
Drake equation (and any ET theory in geneal) look pretty shaky.

If it takes a village to raise a planet, it may take a universe
to raise a habitable planet on which intelligent life ultimately
arises.

But I really feel like I'm doing Davis a disservice by talking
about his article when he deserves to be read in his own words.
You can probably find a copy in your library, as it originally
appeared in the "New Left Review" out of England, #217 or so, I
believe.

Or you can order a copy of The Anomalist 5 from me. Email me for
details.

> According to current research in planetary formation,
> the size and composition of the planets is regulated
> pretty much by distance from the central star. Rocky
> planets like Mars of the Earth will, because of this,
> appear in the inner regions of a star system and any
> gaseous giants will condense in the outer regions. No
> "randonmness" involved here, I'm afraid.

The point is, it's a good thing they form where they do! What if
they formed near the stars and the rocky planets with water all
out around Pluto? Brrrr!

Come to think of it, what's little bitty Pluto doing out there in
Gas Giant Land, anyway? And howcome Saturn has rings and Jupiter
doesn't?

Dennis



Search for other documents from or mentioning: dstacy | jeanvg

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com