New Study Shows Solar System Is Uncommon

This seems to conflict with recent observed evidence. I can't recall the article, but the article cites that recent planetary discoveries external to our own system suggest that planetary solar systems are not the exception.

As more real observations are recorded we will have solid data to see if the simulations by the "North American Team" stand up with observed data.

Let's see...somebody check my thinking here.

There are roughly 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 visible stars in the universe. Some say more, some say less. Let's stick with that figure because I just happen to know it's exactly right, down to the last star. I don't sleep well so I stay up counting, ok?

Anyway, of those let's say that only 1% are very similar to our sun. It's actually closer to 5%, but I want to go with 1%. Because I want to - that's why. Don't question your elders. So that would make for 700,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars that look just like our sun. Identical twins. Couldn't tell 'em apart in a police line-up.

And of those let's say that only .001% have Earth-sized chunks of rock + water to stand on. Although obviously you can't actually stand on the watery bits unless they're frozen. And why would you want to do such a daft thing? So we're only counting chunks where it's warm enough for the ice to be molten. Don't get your socks wet.

But rock and water and sun do not an Earth make. So you need the Deluxe Luxury Model that among other features has magnetic field, atmosphere, a good mix of other elements and which rotates at a speed where morning only comes at tolerable intervals. And being somewhat short-sighted the factory only made about .001% worlds so equipped. (How were they to know there would be a demand?)

That leaves us with just 70,000,000,000 places for us to pack our wagons and head out toward.

So why are we sitting around here at CR4? Let's get going already!

"I don't sleep well so I stay up counting, ok?"

Have you tried counting sheep?

Don't be absurd. You can't travel across intergalactic space to colonize a sheep.

Well, yes, technically you can. There is one known space sheep actually big enough to hold an appreciable atmosphere. But the wool is itchy and there's no getting away from it. Then there's the bleating.

The horrible, world-shaking bleating!

*shudder*

You could use the Sheep Shuttle, and the International Sheep Station.

And the smell, you forgot the terrible terrible smell of wet sheep when it rains.

So rather than doubting the assumptions in their computer simulation which fails to model observable data (our solar system), these geniuses instead assume the observable data is "unusual" and their model is correct. You've got to love it. Somewhere there is a guy or gal struggling to get funding for developing more efficient solar panels or a cold fusion reactor, but these are the guys getting the grants. Scientists who, when their model disagrees with nature, says nature is wrong.

Your answer eats itself. First you say that the model is wrong because is doesn't agree with observations, then you say that the model is wrong because it does.

The correct answer is, "Hey - that's an great bit of engineering you did there. I look forward to seeing if it's accurate."

Why hate on someone else's research?

Because, again, it isn't based on observations, its based on a model. The model takes biased data and assumptions regarding forces involved and extrapolates motion.

You Said "The correct answer is, "Hey - that's an great bit of engineering you did there. I look forward to seeing if it's accurate.""

Good for you, that's your correct answer. The correct answer for someone who doesn't actually understand how these models are generated and what complete nonsense they are.

You Said "Why hate on someone else's research?"

It's criticism, not hate, that's what scientists do, they test each other to make sure. The point of Science is develop rules that explain the observable universe, not some imaginary universe you believe exists right over the horizon. The key to bad science is when it can neither be proven or disproven, which is exactly the case with this dumb model.

So, by that logic Einstein was dumb because no one could test his theories in 1905.

This model can be tested, and it will be tested, because, as you said, that's the way science works. If it was some untestable nonsense, you'd have a point.

If someone says, "Hey, I looked at all the available data and built a model based on it, and my model predicts A, B, and C", that's not dumb. It may well turn out to be incomplete, or even 100% wrong, it's not dumb. It's good science.

Ah, you know what, never mind. Talk amongst yourselves, I'm out of this thread.

"Although, AFAIK, solar systems that look like ours (in terms of star type, planet masses, distances and orbits) have never been observed."

And that is the issue. It is very hard to model and simulate a Giraffe if one only has observed Llamas.

Thanks AH, that's what I was trying to say. I didn't mind Bhankii objecting, I thought his objection was intelligent, but the fact that he got three good answers stunned me a bit. Felt personal.

Do we have a good mathematical model of the creation of our solar system?

The Drake equation is based on what observations? Without a clear understanding of how our solar system and life developed AND which can then be put in mathematical terms, it is just "conservative guessing". It can stimulate the imagination and be fun, but in the end it's just guessing. Do we know with mathematical certainty (not specifically related to this discussion but see Morris Kline's book, "Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty") how life gets started? There are a lot more variables than exist in computer models to account for an "earth-like" planet.