New observations from NASA’s Spitzer Space Telescope suggest that moons like Earth’s are rare across the universe, occurring in only five to 10 percent of planetary systems at most. (Via Science Daily.)
The observation is based on the belief that the moon was born when the infant Earth was clobbered by something the size of Mars (shades of Velikovsky, except he had collisions like that that happening in historical times). Astronomers don’t see the amount of dust around other stars they would expect to see if those types of collisions were common.
This could have an impact on the likelihood of land-based life on other planets, since life may have moved from the ocean to the land on Earth due to the tides the moon induces. And here’s another question: would we have dreamed of travelling to other worlds if we hadn’t had one hanging so conveniently close in the night sky? Without a moon, would other civilizations ever develop space travel? (Image: NASA.)
Here’s an even more alarming thought: without a moon, think how differently science fiction would have developed. It might not even have developed at all.
And worse yet, what would songwriters have done without a moon to rhyme June with?
Why, the mind boggles.
UPDATE: Here’s an article from Astrobiology Magazine examining what Earth would be like "If We Had No Moon."
[tags]moon,astronomy,NASA[/tags]
I assume the second part of this post is increasingly tongue-in-cheek? Or was it written during full moon?
Anyway:
>>>>This could have an impact on the likelihood of land-based life on other planets, since life may have moved from the ocean to the land on Earth due to the tides the moon induces.<<<>>>And here’s another question: would we have dreamed of travelling to other worlds if we hadn’t had one hanging so conveniently close in the night sky?<<<>>>Without a moon, would other civilizations ever develop space travel?<<<>>>Here’s an even more alarming thought: without a moon, think how differently science fiction would have developed. It might not even have developed at all.<<<<
Of all the non sequiturs, this one takes the cake. Swift’s Gulliver didn’t travel to the moon, Mary Shelly didn’t need it for Frankenstein, and while H.G. Wells got “The First Men in the Moon”, his most famous novels involve time travelling, an invasion from Mars, and an island. Similarly Jules Verne wrote “From the Earth to the Moon”, but his most famous novels went ‘to the center of the earth’, ‘twenty thousand leagues under the sea’, and ‘around the world in eighty days’.
I’m very sorry, but SF would have started without the moon just fine.
Formatting screwed up my first post, so here goes again:
I assume the second part of this post is increasingly tongue-in-cheek? Or was it written during full moon?
Anyway:
[quote]This could have an impact on the likelihood of land-based life on other planets, since life may have moved from the ocean to the land on Earth due to the tides the moon induces.[unquote]
1) Tides are cuased by the moon *and* the sun. Without the moon there would still be tides.
2) “life *may* have moved…” *may* is indeed the word: this is very hypothetical. Life may have moved out of the oceans due to waves or severe storms? Life may have moved out of the oceans due to sea level changes between glacial and warm periods? Fill in your own guess.
[quote]And here’s another question: would we have dreamed of travelling to other worlds if we hadn’t had one hanging so conveniently close in the night sky?[unquote]
Again, you’re overlooking the prime candidate here: from the top of my head both the old Egyptians and the Aztecs worshipped the sun, not the moon.
[quote]Without a moon, would other civilizations ever develop space travel?[unquote]
Yeah, the sun and the stars are not inspiring enough? Oh, those poor, unimaginative aliens…
[quote]Here’s an even more alarming thought: without a moon, think how differently science fiction would have developed. It might not even have developed at all.[unquote]
Of all the non sequiturs, this one takes the cake. Swift’s Gulliver didn’t travel to the moon, Mary Shelly didn’t need it for Frankenstein, and while H.G. Wells got “The First Men in the Moon”, his most famous novels involve time travelling, an invasion from Mars, and an island. Similarly Jules Verne wrote “From the Earth to the Moon”, but his most famous novels went ‘to the center of the earth’, ‘twenty thousand leagues under the sea’, and ‘around the world in eighty days’.
I’m very sorry, but SF would have started without the moon just fine.
Point taken, Jetse – however, both the Aztecs and the Egyptians may have venerated the sun, but they also had a soft spot for her silver sister … and both of them were far more obsessed with Venus than either! Not to mention the Egyptian obsession with Sirius … 😉
More seriously, I see where you’re going with your argument. But I think there is a degree of strength to Edward’s point – the moon is the only object that appears regularly in our skies that can easily be discerned as being *an object* by the naked eye … so maybe the root-of-sf argument is a little weak, but the dreams-of-a-world-beyond-Earth one still holds to a degree.
Well, yes, the second half of the post was written with tongue in cheek (my cheek is where I like to store my tongue most of the time, actually). However, although I can’t put my finger on exactly where I heard the argument before, I’m certain the notion that the close proximity, and imposing size, of our moon contributed to the development of space travel is not original to me.
As for the root-of-SF argument, I very carefully didn’t say that SF wouldn’t have developed, I just said it would likely have developed differently: less focus on space travel, perhaps, and more on matters closer to home–rather like the Mundane movement espouses even now.
P.S. I note that my argument that poets would have found it harder to rhyme June in the absence of the moon goes unanswered!