It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
And there sure is some kind of amazing "fine tuning" going on with our own solar system, since everything being exactly the way it is, is why we are alive today. That's pretty cool, but it will probably make someone angry..
Niku orbits on a plane that is tilted 110 degrees from the plane of the rest of the solar system. One theory is that a large object's gravity is influencing Niku, causing it to orbit at an angle to everything else as well as backward. Various theories, like a hidden Super Earth known as Planet Nine, an unseen dwarf star called Nemesis, or an unknown dwarf planet in the Kuiper Belt are all "problematic" when trying to explain the orbit of Niku, according analyses detailed in the arXiv paper. (It was another group of objects with a highly inclined orbit that first led astronomers to propose the possibility of Planet Nine.)
Ultimately, Chen and his fellow astronomers conclude that the "mechanism causing and maintaining this common plane is still unknown." It seems possible that a collision could have sent Niku spiraling off on its own, or that the TNO was captured from another part of the galaxy when it passed close enough to the sun, but whether either of these could explain the object's behavior is still unclear. The team recommends further study, which, given Bannister's excitement about their discovery, is likely to come soon.
originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
originally posted by: Alien Abduct
originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
There are plenty of relatively mundane explanations that could explain it. For instance, it could be a minor planet that had been travelling through space and was caught by our sun's gravity. There is nothing, at this point, to suggest it's artificial.
Your assertion that "the universe is fine tuned to produce life" is ridiculous, given the complete and total lack of evidence to support such a conclusion. Such an unfounded statement does, however, serve to illustrate your own personal bias quite nicely.
Some notable geniuses would argue against your statement.
The OP makes a fine point and I agree with it. Perhaps you could articulate an argument against that point that amounts to more than just a few sentences?
As I mentioned before, these scientists are basically saying WE wouldn't be here -- "We" being the type of life that can occur in our universe given the physics of our universe
When professor Sandra Faber in your link says this...
...what she is saying is that life as we understand life, and understand how it works within the physical laws of our universe, needs are universe with physical laws that are "just right" for that life.
Faber, a professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz, was referring to the idea that there is something uncannily perfect about our universe. The laws of physics and the values of physical constants seem, as Goldilocks said, “just right.” If even one of a host of physical properties of the universe had been different, stars, planets, and galaxies would never have formed. Life would have been all but impossible.
However, instead of the universe being OUR universe with OUR physical laws, the universe may have instead been created with other weird physical laws -- maybe a form or matter made of something other than protons, neutrons, and electrons...and/or maybe some weird form of energy that doesn't use photons to carry it, and/or some other value for the force of gravity, or different values for that universe's version of the electromagnetic force -- or maybe some other weird force that we don't have in our universe.
In that other weird universe with those weird physical laws, we could not possibly exist. However, it may be possible for some other life to exist that exploits those physical laws of THAT universe (a type of life that could not possibly exist in our universe), and THEY would be the ones saying "the universe (their universe) is fine tuned for life", because THEIR universe would be "just right" for THEM.
So no. the type of life that OUR universe could possible spawn would be the type of life that could thrive in OUR universe, making it only seem that the universe was fine tuned for it. Instead, it is LIFE that is fine tuned for any universe in which it thrives.