Here are a couple of videos that looked at the 3K or planets that we have discovered and only three of them came anywhere close to being considered earth like and one of them was tidal locked. All three of them were marginal at best.
You are falling for the old "it must be because there are so many" fallacy. Every where we look we see planets and conditions that are hostile to life as we know it. Statistics doesn't turn Chemistry in Biology. If the universe is finite then there will be unique things in it. Life may very well be unique to earth.
3 planets out less thousand were earthlike
Here are a couple of videos that looked at the 3K or planets that we have discovered and only three of them came anywhere close to being considered earth like and one of them was tidal locked. All three of them were marginal at best.
You are falling for the old "it must be because there are so many" fallacy. Every where we look we see planets and conditions that are hostile to life as we know it. Statistics doesn't turn Chemistry in Biology. If the universe is finite then there will be unique things in it. Life may very well be unique to earth.
Habitable planets are rare so 3 planets out less than five thousand studied is not bad, about .06%. However when you consider our galaxy is estimated to have 100 billion to 1 trillion planets, .06% would be 6 hundred thousand to 6 million habitual planets. Even if we eliminated all marginal planets we would still have at least tens of thousands in our galaxy alone.
I don't think the problem is the number of habitable planets. It will be finding them and getting to them. The edge of our galaxy is about out 900,000 light years So for all practical purposes today, it doesn't really matter whether there are hundreds of thousands, or ten thousands of habitable planets. If we can't get there or communicate with any beings that are there, they just as well not exist for us.
Last edited: