I didn't realize that there was an accepted definition of "earth-like." I used the term in a real "like Earth" sense: rocky planet, similar mass, liquid water, habitable zone(s) that could support life as we know it. That was simply how I used the term in my post, and I understand that it isn't what the scientists necessarily mean when they refer to "earth-like" planets. Thanks, Chuck. Most of my fiends and family would probable think of me as a pessimist or a cynic. Regarding the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe, I am optimistic, though. I expect that one day we will find that our universe is teaming with life and that it will be recognizable to us, just as we've found that our own world can support life in the most unusual places and that it doesn't have to have some bizarre, unknown characteristics to survive and flourish. I'm even "optimistic" that we'll eventually find evidence for life elsewhere in our own Solar System. And, as a person of both scientific interest and religious faith, it wouldn't bother me a bit. Does anyone know if proponents of creationism or intelligent design have ever weighed-in on the topic of life beyond Earth? I'm truly interested to know if any of these folks have a position. I don't recall ever reading or hearing anyone discuss it. Kim -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 10:04 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Question On Recently Discovered Planet Remember that "earthlike" in this instance doesn't refer to a similar weather system, but mass and probably composition. Most planets this close to stars discovered so-far have been called "hot Jupiters" because they seem to be gas giants. Any planet with a 14-day orbit around a typical yellow or red dwarf star would definitely not have oceans of liquid water. "Venus-like" would be a better term; If there is a substantial atmosphere it would almost certainly have to resemble that of Venus, thus it would be highly convective. The entire planet would be brutally hot, regardless of which side is facing the sun. And the hotter the atmosphere, the more it expands away from the planet's surface. The further from the surface, the faster it is lost. Some kind of volcanic replenishment might need to be invoked to maintain it, given the close orbit. Or high surface gravity. An "earthlike" planet could still have 4, 5, 6-gee surface gravity or more- and thus be a terrible place for us to visit. If the atmosphere is Marslike, thin and tenuous, then I'd agree with you that the dark side would be cold. We're talking about a planet like Mercury in that case- only closer to the sun. Otherwise, I'll stick with a Venus. I think the earth pretty darn special. We are going to have to look long and hard before we find one with temperatures and other physical conditions similar to what we have here. You're such an optimist, Kim! (that's a good quality!)