Is The Goldilocks Zone Bigger Than We Think?

I am a firm believer that life thrives throughout our universe, including intelligent life, but I sometimes wonder if our search for it isn't too narrow in it's scope.

It is said that our planet lies in the "Goldilocks" zone of our solar system. The area that is not so close to the sun that it would cook us, yet not so far from it that we would freeze. We lie in the area that's considered to be "Just Right."

Well, there are numerous theories out there that discuss the possible existence of an "Inner Earth" or "Hollow Earth" area which is habitable. From the Admiral Byrd flight log to the numerous books written on the subject today, just google it and you'll see what I mean.

Deep underground dwellings, some which are ancient, are found all over this planet so we know that even humans have chosen to live underground at times. More than likely due to unfavorable conditions on the surface at the time.

In more recent news, it now looks like the European Space Agency may be making an announcement in the near future regarding Phobos and new evidence indicating that it may be hollow. Perhaps even of intelligent design.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I know that one of the reasons that intelligent life is considered to be very rare in the universe is due to the fact that planets which lie in the "Goldilocks" zones of their solar systems are also very rare.

So I guess my real question is, Should we assume that intelligent life can only exist on the surface of planets? Is it possible that, contrary to current belief, most planets may have habitable zones within their interiors?

If most planets lie outside of the "Goldilocks" zone of their solar system then maybe, just maybe, most life resides on the interior of these planets.

Just as life here on earth migrates towards it's most preferable zone, so may life on other planets. I guess what I'm trying to say is that maybe each planet contains it's own "Goldilocks" zone, some on their surfaces and some in their interiors and who's to say that intelligent life couldn't evolve in the interior of a planet?

I only ask this question because I've noticed just how quickly NASA and others eliminate most newly discovered planets as having the potential to bear intelligent life due to the fact that their surfaces wouldn't support it.

Intelligent life may be much closer than we think and it's just because we've limited our search that we've failed to find it. One day we'll probably be looking back and laughing at ourselves, wondering how we could have missed this.

You know what they say, "even an idiot has enough sense to get out of the rain," and I believe that any other intelligent ET life form would as well.

reply to post by Flatfish


Scientist can be so stupid at times, I remember arguing with one about the life outside of Earth, and he told me about that dumbass theory. My argument that stumps them every time is this, Just because we our life our a carbon based life form that needs water and oxygen doesn’t mean other types of life need that as well.

I wouldn't say they are stupid, but rather myopic. They only focus on their area of study and if something doesn't fit in with their hypothesis it tends to be ignored. A definitive HUMAN trend. As most of us do this in our daily lifes.


I have no doubt that life is abundant in all corners of the universe. Look at Earth, we have ecosystems built on volcanic vents on the seafloor 10000' down with no sunlight. Yet millions of lifeforms.

And your right, who'l to say that lifeforms have to be carbon based?

You could have little ice critters on Pluto, or you could have weird floaty critters living in the clouds of Jupiter.

Hell you could have critters living in the vacuum of space feeding off solar radiation or something.

Some creatures could be composed of silicon such as the "Silicoids" in Master of Orion series.

Life can theoretically occur anywhere.

You do not even need water.

Our search IS way too narrow in scope. We need to expand our awareness to encompass all of these possibilities.

And the possibilities are Endless...

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by Flatfish

 

Scientist can be so stupid at times, I remember arguing with one about the life outside of Earth, and he told me about that dumbass theory. My argument that stumps them every time is this, Just because we our life our a carbon based life form that needs water and oxygen doesn’t mean other types of life need that as well.

It has always seemed to me that the vast majority of scientists DO believe that life exists elsewhere in the universe. So that scientist you were talking to is probably more of an aberration than the norm.

In fact, I would be willing to bet a greater percentage of scientists believe in life elsewhere than does the "average" person -- primarily because they understand better than the average person that the universe is an incredibly huge place and life (even on Earth) is incredibly diverse, hearty, and tenacious.

There is a vast number of scientists whose primary mission is the search for ET life, and to speculate on the form that life may take. NASA and other institutions around the world employ many people whose sole job it is to investigate the possibilities of life elsewhere -- even in non-traditional/non-Earth-like places, such as Titan

If you took away all of the scientists -- even only the "mainstream" ones -- very few people would be actively investigating the potential of life elsewhere.



[edit on 6/15/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

I am willing to bet there is an intelligent life form somewhere else in our galaxy that is pondering over what kind of life may be possible on our little blue marble. Their scientist may be arguing the same points and they may even have visited our planet and overlooked us as intelligent enough to bother with.

They may see us much the way we see ants or bees. Industrious enough little critters that can be a nuisance and can have a nasty bite or sting but not worth their time or effort.

reply to post by Flatfish


The OP is a mixture of valid points and seemingly absurd notions.

Yes of course life can originate in places other than the surface of a planet. In fact one of the theories for the origin of life on earth is undersea hydrothermal vents, so we don't even need to leave the planet to find a subsurface example.

When you do leave the Earth, then a place like Jupiter's moon io may be considered:

Jupiter's Volcanic Moon Io Could be Target for Life along with Titan. These would be outside the goldilocks zone but may harbor life. However, could they harbor INTELLIGENT life? there's a great deal of skepticism about that, but some life seems like a possibility.

So I thought the Goldilocks zone was more than just whether life was possible, but also, whether INTELLIGENT life was possible. And the range of suitable environments for intelligent life as we know it is narrower than the range suitable for single celled organisms including extremophiles.

But of course there could be intelligent life not like life as we know it, we just don't have any experience with or knowledge about that yet.

I liked your OP until I got to the part about Hoagland and the European Space agency making an announcement about a hollow Phobos, that almost spoiled an otherwise good topic. I don't know why you believe anything Hoagland says. But otherwise, I think you make a valid point that life can exist is a wider range of habitats than just the Earth's surface.

Regarding cave dwellers on Earth, I suspect they had to venture out of the cave to get food.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]

The most probable place for life to exist in the universe is on a planet that orbits within the plasma coma of a brown dwarf.

Inside such a coma, a constant diffuse red light would illuminate the entire surface of the planet on all sides equally with no day or night cycle.

The spectrum of light produced by brown dwarfs is perfect for plant growth.

Further, a planet orbiting within such a coma would receive an ocean of water raining down on it.

Warmth, water, and perfect growing spectrum with mixed organic media is the stuff of life.

It is rational to conclude that most life in the universe probably exists within the comas of brown dwarf stars.

There are several reasons why this is unfortunate for us in detecting life:

1. Because the planet is inside the coma and brown dwarfs are incredibly dim, they are notoriously difficult to detect and finding any planets within them is next to impossible since they are shrouded in the coma.

2. Because the plasma coma is radio reflective, all radio transmissions that may be taking place on such a planet would be blocked from radiating out into space where we could pick them up.

3. Because the inhabitants of such a planet would not be able to see the stars, it is unlikely they would think anything more exists beyond their planet and its sun, which also means they wouldn't bother to send out space probes looking for anything further, and even if they did, the probes would not be able to send back any information since the plasma would block it.



By extension of these facts we can say that most life bearing planets are undetectable water worlds.

It is most likely that other intelligent forms of life are waterborne creatures.


[edit on 15-6-2010 by mnemeth1]

It is interesting to note that while one may find highly intelligent waterborne creatures on other planets, the nature of mans own revolution in science had its base in private agriculture, which necessarily requires dry land.

Creatures can not move forward in evolutionary terms unless differentiation of labor occurs. Where one member harvests grain, another hunts, another makes huts, etc.. etc.. all working within a system of private ownership of resources and trade.

Without such voluntary differentiations, each member is forced to do all necessary survival tasks on their own, which precludes them from creating a developed industrial society.

Logic leads one to conclude that such differentiation would be difficult for a creature society that is waterborne.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


O.K., maybe I didn't explain my position clearly enough. Who's to say that all planets are not truly hollow as described in the various hollow/inner Earth theories? At first, I never really gave them much thought, I read them and went on about my business. That may be changing, let me explain.

Not to change the subject but you ask about why I would believe anything Hoagland said. Well the first time I every heard of Hoagland was about 15 yrs. ago when his NASA briefing on the Mars Cedonia site was made public on one of the cable channels. In it he made some assertions regarding the significance of tetrahedral geometry and how it relates to energy zones on planets. He called it "Hyperdimensional Physics" and he explained how they affected all of the planets and all matter. (Information he claimed to have derived from geometry discovered at the Cedonia site on Mars.)

Later, here on ATS, I was reading a thread that had a link to a lecture given by Nassim Haramein at the Rogue Valley Metaphysical Library. The lecture was 8 hrs. long and worth every minute.

In it Nassim Haramein discussed his own road to discovery of the geometric nature of the quantum realm and all matter within it. (He has won numerous physics awards and his theories have, so far, enjoyed very favorable peer reviews.) When he explained the significance of the tetrahedron in his theories, memories of the Hoagland briefing from 15 yrs. ago came racing back.

Never really gave Hoagland much credence until that moment. After that, I look at his work in a little different light, and I'm not near as quick to dismiss it without further thought and study.

When it comes to Phobos, I have to pose the following questions. First, wouldn't it be easier to mine or hollow out and asteroid or moon, propel it and utilize it as a space ship than to build one in space? I mean, look how much effort it took to build ISS and it would be even easier if the asteroids or moons are hollow to begin with. Second, Haven't we already experimented with pushing asteroids to redirect them away from us? See the connection?

So, what if planets are indeed hollow and have habitable interiors suitable for "Intelligent Life?" My question was, Could this be? And are we looking in the right places?

reply to post by mnemeth1


So the inhabitants in this plasma coma would be water dwelling or amphibious so their skin might be like a salamanda or dolphin. Greyish maybe...... And their eyes might be large due to low light conditions.....?

I dont know why some people thing that the goldilock idea is stupid, is not that cientist are blind, they now they can be another kind of life, but what we need is planets who can harbor life like us, so that is why the goldilocks is important, because there are things that can live in volcans, we cant!

Originally posted by muzzleflash
You could have little ice critters on Pluto, or you could have weird floaty critters living in the clouds of Jupiter.

Hell you could have critters living in the vacuum of space feeding off solar radiation or something.

Some creatures could be composed of silicon such as the "Silicoids" in Master of Orion series.

Life can theoretically occur anywhere.

You do not even need water.

Our search IS way too narrow in scope. We need to expand our awareness to encompass all of these possibilities.

And the possibilities are Endless...

+1,
for sure.
niice one mate

[edit on 17-6-2010 by Ahmose]