The only planet on which all possible conditions for human life in our understanding have developed is planet Earth. But people still don’t know if they are the only ones in the Universe. We offer an overview of 10 planets that are potentially suitable for human life.

Discovered in 2012, this poorly understood exoplanet could be considered potentially suitable for human life. It is more than 4 times more massive than Earth, is located at a distance of 11,905 light years from our planet and is the fourth most distant in its system from the Sun-like star Tau Ceti, which is much closer than Venus is in relation to the Sun, and moves faster than Earth. Potentially, taking into account temperature indicators, the planet could be inhabited by people. If people lived on this planet, they would enjoy a yellow sun in the sky, and the year would last 168 days.

Located 1,743 light-years from Earth in the constellation Sagittarius, planet Kepler-283c was discovered in 2014 along with another similar planet. Both planets move in orbit around the star Kepler-283, being at a distance equal to 1/3 of the distance from Earth to the Sun. Planet Kepler-283c is potentially suitable for human life. A year on it is 93 days.

The star EPIC 201367065 is a cool red dwarf star with the mass and size of half our Sun, which is orbited by three exoplanets. It is one of the ten stars around which planets revolve. The planets orbiting it are called 2.1, 1.7, and 1.5. They are 1.5 times the size of the Earth. The smallest is called EPIC 201367065 d and rotates in an orbit that, judging by its distance from the star, is favorable for the emergence of life. It is at this distance that the planet receives enough light and heat. The composition of these planets is not yet known to scientists, but there is a possibility that their surface is as rocky as that of Earth. If this is so, then planet EPIC 201367065 d may have water or a similar liquid.

Another planet whose conditions are close to conditions that support life is the planet Gliese 832 c, located 16 light years from Earth in the constellation Crane. The planet orbits the red dwarf star Gliese 832. It is the second closest potentially habitable planet to Earth. Its mass is less than the mass of the Earth, and its year lasts 36 days. Although the planet is much closer to its star than the Earth is to the Sun, the energy received from the star is sufficient for it. The temperature regime is similar to the temperature on Earth, adjusted for seasonality.

This recently discovered exoplanet is being called "Earth's big cousin." Astronomers were surprised that the living conditions on it were close to the conditions of life on Earth, but, unfortunately, the planet’s days are numbered. It orbits a large, bright, old star at the same distance as Earth. A year on this planet is 385 days, which is only 20 days longer than on Earth. The star around which Kepler-452 b orbits is 1.5 billion years older than our Sun, and the planet itself is much warmer than Earth. This means that it receives 10% more energy from its star than Earth. In addition, it is 1.6 times larger. In this regard, the force of gravity on the planet is greater than on Earth, but people would adapt to these conditions. Scientists are still looking for an answer to the question about the nature of the surface; perhaps it is rocky, like on Earth. Planet Kepler-452 b is located 1,400 light years from Earth. The star around which Kepler-452 b orbits will soon die, and on the planet itself, conditions for life will be unsuitable due to a greenhouse effect similar to that on Venus today.

Kepler-62 e is an exoplanet that orbits at a sufficient distance from its star to be considered potentially habitable. The star Kepler-62 is cooler and smaller than our Sun. Scientists believe that this planet, which is located 1,200 light years from Earth in the constellation Lyra, may have water, and therefore conditions for life. Its year is 122 days, and the planet itself is 1.6 times larger than Earth.

Kepler-442 b is an exoplanet that is close in size to the size of Earth. Its year lasts 112 days and it orbits a yellow dwarf, Kepler-442. The planet is located at a distance of 1120 light years from Earth in the constellation Lyra. There is a 60% chance that this planet has a rocky surface. It receives light from its star in the amount of 2/3 of what the Earth receives from the Sun. Scientists are 97% confident that the planet has the potential to be habitable, but it still needs to be carefully studied.

Gliese 667C c from the constellation Scorpius, located 23 light years from Earth, was discovered in 2011 by American and European astronomers. It is 4 times larger than Earth and may have a rocky surface. The planet rotates in an orbit close to its star, which is slightly less than the distance from Mercury to the Sun. A year on the planet is 23 days and 14 hours. In this regard, at first glance, one may doubt that it is suitable for human life, but this is not so. It orbits a red dwarf star, which is smaller in size than the Sun. This means that the conditions on the planet are almost identical to those on Earth. There is one problem though. One side of the planet is always facing its star, and the other, accordingly, is turned away from it. On the side that is turned towards the star, it is very hot for a person to live comfortably. On the other side it is always cold, even frosty.

There is evidence that Kepler-296 e has dimensions similar to the size of the Earth. The planet orbits the star at a distance that provides optimal conditions for human life. A year on it is 34.1 days.

Discovered in the constellation Lyra at a distance of 470 light years from Earth, the planet Kepler-438 b is 1.2 times larger than Earth. A year on it is 35.2 days. It orbits a yellow dwarf and receives 40% more heat from its star than Earth does from the Sun. 70% of the planet is rocky. Despite the favorable characteristics of size, mass, and level of energy received from the star, this planet is less suitable for human life than Earth, since it is only 83% similar to our planet.

Yes, it's possible. The idea of ​​a plurality of inhabited worlds was first expressed in the Middle Ages by Giordano Bruno. Obscurantists burned the scientist at the stake for this in Rome on February 17, 1600 in the Square of Flowers.
The materialistic understanding of the Universe affirms the origin and development of life on other planets, wherever conditions were favorable for this.
The conditions for the existence of life forms known to us are primarily: temperature not higher than + 100 ° C and not lower than - 100 ° C; the presence of carbon, which is the main component in the structure of living organisms; the presence of oxygen, the main participant in the vital, energy reactions of living organs; the presence of water and, finally, the absence of toxic gases in the planet’s atmosphere.
All these conditions can be met only in exceptional cases if we look for them in the Universe among countless stars and possible planetary systems. But it is precisely this innumerability of stars and their possible planets that greatly increases the likelihood of the existence of all these conditions in thousands, and perhaps millions of points in the Universe.
We are especially interested in our neighbors - the planets of our solar system, on which we can establish with sufficient accuracy the conditions existing on their surface.
Of all the planets in the solar system, the giant planets should immediately be excluded from the list of carriers of life: Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune. They are bound by eternal ice and surrounded by poisonous atmospheres. On Pluto, the farthest from the sun, there is eternal night and unbearable cold; on Mercury, closest to the sun, there is no air. One side of it, always facing the sun, is hot, the other is immersed in eternal darkness and cosmic cold.
Three planets are most favorable for the origin of life: Earth, Venus and Mars.
Temperature conditions on all three planets do not go beyond those at which life is possible. Venus and Mars, like the Earth, have an atmosphere.
It is difficult to judge the composition of the atmosphere of Venus, since the planet is shrouded in a continuous cover of clouds. However, poisonous gases have been discovered in the upper layers of the atmosphere. The atmosphere of Venus is apparently extremely rich in carbon dioxide, which is fatal to animals, but serves as an excellent environment for the development of lower plants.
The existence of nascent life on Venus is possible, but cannot yet be proven. The situation is different with Earth's other neighbor, Mars.

What is Mars?

Mars is a planet with almost half the mass of Earth. It is removed from the Sun at a distance one and a half times greater than the Earth.
Mars rotates on its axis in 24 hours 37 minutes.
Its rotation axis is inclined to the orbital plane in approximately the same way as that of the Earth. Therefore, the same change of seasons occurs on Mars as we do.
It has been established that Mars is surrounded by an atmosphere in which no gases harmful to the development of life have been found.
Carbon dioxide is present on Mars in approximately the same quantities as on Earth. Oxygen there is assumed to be approximately one hundredth of the fraction that is available in the earth's atmosphere.
The climate of Mars is harsh and harsh and is accurately characterized in the story.
Mars is the same age as the Earth and has gone through all the same phases of development as the Earth.
During the period of its cooling and the formation of the first oceans, it was covered with continuous clouds, as Venus is now covered and as the Earth was covered during the Carboniferous period. During this “greenhouse” period of the planet’s development, the temperature on the surface of Mars did not depend, as it once did on Earth, on the Sun. Then the conditions on it were in all respects similar to those on earth, which, as is known, contributed to the emergence of life in the primordial oceans.
A similar process could take place on Mars.
During the greenhouse period, the first plants like the horsetails of the Carboniferous period, as well as other primitive forms of life, could have developed on the cloud-shrouded planet. Only in subsequent periods, when the cloud cover dissipated, Mars, having a smaller gravitational force than the Earth, lost particles of the atmosphere that was trying to break away from it and acquired conditions on its surface that were different from those on Earth.
However, life forms could adapt in the process of evolution to these new conditions. Along with the loss of atmosphere, Mars also lost water, which evaporated into the atmosphere and was carried away into outer space in the form of vapor.
Gradually, Mars turned into a waterless, desert-covered planet.
Now on its surface there are dark spots that were once called seas. But if Mars had seas in ancient times, it lost them long ago. Not a single astronomer has observed glare that would be noticeable on the water surface.
The regions of Mars near the poles are alternately covered with a substance whose reflectivity resembles that of Earth's ice.
As the sun's rays heat up one or another polar region, this white cap (more accurate studies by G. A. Tikhov showed that it is green), like ice not covered with snow, decreases in volume, outlined by a dark stripe (apparently of moist soil ).
As it gets colder, the planet's ice cap begins to increase, and the dark limiting strip is no longer observed. This led to the conclusion that water vapor contained in the atmosphere of Mars (in small quantities) falls in the form of snow precipitation in the polar regions and covers the soil there with a layer of ice about ten centimeters thick.
As we warm, the ice melts and the resulting water either soaks into the soil or is somehow distributed around the planet.
This process occurs alternately at both poles of Mars. When ice melts near the south pole, it forms at the north pole and vice versa.

What is astrobotany?

This is a new Soviet science, created by one of our outstanding astronomers - corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences Gavriil Andrianovich Tikhov.
Tikhov was the first to take photographs of Mars through color filters. In this way, he was able to accurately establish the color of parts of the planet at different times of the year.
Particularly interesting were the spots that were once called seas. These spots changed their color from a green-bluish tint in the spring to brown in the summer and brown tones in the winter. Tikhov drew a parallel between these changes and the change in color of the evergreen taiga in Siberia. Green in spring, bluish in the haze, the taiga turns brown in the summer and takes on a brown tint in winter. At the same time, the color of the vast expanses of Mars remained unchanged - reddish-brown, in all respects similar to the color of the earth's deserts.
The assumption that the spots on Mars that change color are zones of continuous vegetation required proof.
Attempts to detect chlorophyll on Mars using a spectral method, which ensures photosynthesis and the life of terrestrial plants, were unsuccessful.
Earth plants, as reported in the story, are also characterized by the fact that, photographed in infrared rays, they turn out white in the picture, as if covered with snow. If the areas of supposed vegetation on Mars turned out to be as white in infrared images, there would be no doubt about the existence of vegetation on Mars.
However, new photographs of Mars did not confirm bold assumptions.
But this did not bother G. A. Tikhov. He subjected a comparative study to the reflectivity of terrestrial plants in the South and North.
The results were amazing. Only plants that reflected without using these rays turned out white in photographs taken in infrared, thermal rays. In the north, plants (for example, cloudberries or mosses) did not reflect, but absorbed heat rays, which were by no means unnecessary for them. In infrared images, northern plants did not appear white, just as the areas of supposed vegetation on Mars did not appear white.
This research, supported by the polar and high-mountain expeditions of Tikhov’s students, allowed him to draw the witty conclusion that plants, adapting to living conditions, acquire the ability to absorb necessary rays and reflect unnecessary ones. In the South, where there is a lot of sun, plants do not need the thermal rays of the spectrum and > reflect them; in the North, poor in solar heat, plants cannot afford such luxury and strive to absorb all the rays of the solar spectrum. On Mars, where the climate is especially harsh and the sun is sparing, plants naturally strive to absorb as many rays as possible, and the failure of comparing Martian plants in this regard with southern plants of the Earth is understandable. They are more like arctic plants.
Having come to this conclusion, Tikhov also found a solution to the failures associated with attempts to detect chlorophyll on Mars.
Further study of this issue convinced Tikhov more and more of the complete analogy of the development of Martian plants with those on Earth. He discovered zones of vegetation on Mars in vast deserts, similar in reflectivity to those plants that grow in our Central Asian deserts.
Tikhov's reports about the mass flowering of some areas of Martian deserts in early spring are interesting. In color and character, these flowering zones on Mars are very reminiscent of the vast expanses of deserts in Central Asia, briefly covered with a continuous carpet of red poppies.
Recently, Tikhov has made interesting assumptions about the vegetation of Venus. Since there is more than enough heat on Venus, the plants of this planet, if there are any, should reflect the entire thermal part of the solar spectrum, that is, they should be red in color. The discovery of the Soviet astronomer Barabashev at the Pulkovo Observatory, who discovered yellow and orange rays through the clouds of Venus, allowed Tikhov to suggest that these rays are nothing more than a reflection of the cover of the red vegetation of Venus.
Not all scientists yet share the point of view of G. A. Tikhov. The task of the Astrobotany Sector of the Academy of Sciences of the Kazakh SSR is to find new, indisputable evidence of the existence of plant life on other planets and, above all, on Mars.

Are there canals on Mars?

These strange formations were first discovered by Schiaparelli during the great controversy in 1877. They appeared to him as regular straight lines, covering the planet in a network. He called them “canals,” being the first to express the cautious idea that these were artificial structures of the planet’s intelligent inhabitants.
Subsequent studies have cast doubt on the existence of the channels. The new observers did not see them.
An outstanding astronomer, Lowell devoted his life to the problem of the existence of life on Mars. By creating a special observatory in the Arizona desert, where the transparency of the air was favorable for observations, he confirmed Schiaparelli's discovery and developed his cautious idea. Lowell discovered and studied a huge number of channels. He divided them into main arteries (the most noticeable, double, as he claimed, canals), which went from the poles through the equator to the other hemisphere, and into auxiliary canals, coming from the main ones and crossing the zones in different directions in arcs in a large circle, that is, along the shortest path along the surface of the planet (Mars is a planet with a flat topography. There are no mountains or noticeable changes in the topography).
Lowell discovered two networks of canals; one associated with the southern polar region of melting ice, and the other with the same northern region. These networks were visible alternately. When the northern ice melted, one could notice channels coming from the northern ice; when the southern ice melted, channels coming from the southern ice came into view.
All this made it possible for Lowell to declare the canals a grandiose irrigation network of the Martians, who built a gigantic system for using the water generated by the melting of the polar caps. Lowell calculated that the capacity of Mars's water pumping system would be 4,000 times greater than that of Niagara Falls.
Lowell saw confirmation of his thought in the fact that channels appear gradually, from the moment the ice begins to melt. They lengthen as if water moves through them. It has been established that the lengthening channel (or water in it) travels a distance of 4250 kilometers on the surface of Mars in 52 days, which is 3.4 kilometers per hour.
Lowell also established that at the points of intersection of the channels there are spots, which he called oases. He was ready to consider these oases as large centers of the inhabitants of Mars, their cities. However, Lowell’s idea did not find universal recognition. The very existence of the canals was called into question. When examining Mars through stronger telescopes, “channels” as continuous rectilinear formations were not detected. Only isolated clusters of dots were noticed, which the eye mentally tried to connect into straight lines.
The “channels” began to be attributed to optical illusion, to which only a few researchers succumbed.
However, an objective research method came to the rescue.
G. A. Tikhov, working at the Pulkovo Observatory, was the first in the world to photograph the canals of Mars. A photographic plate is not an eye; it would seem that it cannot make mistakes.
In recent years, photography of canals has been carried out on an increasingly wider scale.
Thus, during the 1924 confrontation, Tremiler photographed over a thousand Martian channels. Further photographs confirmed their existence.
The study of the coloring of the mysterious channels turned out to be extremely interesting. Their color is in every way similar to the changing color of the zones of continuous vegetation on Mars.
Calculation of the width of the canals (from one hundred to six hundred kilometers) led to the idea that the canals are not “canals - open excavations in the soil filled with water”; rather, they are strips of vegetation that appear as the water of melting ice flows through grandiose water pipes (with speed of 3.4 kilometers per hour. At this speed, after some time, a wave of seedlings occurs). These strips of vegetation (forests and fields) change color as the seasons change.
The assumption of the existence of water pipes buried in the soil with conclusions in the form of wells could reconcile observers who saw canals and observers who saw not straight lines, but only individual points located along straight lines. These points resemble oases of artificially irrigated vegetation in places where water pipes lead to the surface.
The assumption about the existence of buried pipes is all the more natural since, under the conditions of low atmospheric pressure on Mars, any open body of water would contribute to the rapid loss of water due to intense evaporation.
The debate about the essence of the channels is still ongoing, but it no longer calls into question their existence.
Deviating from a too bold assumption about the structures of intelligent inhabitants of Mars, some scientists are more likely to recognize the “channels” as cracks of volcanic origin, which, by the way, have not been found on any of the other planets in the solar system. This hypothesis also suffers from the fact that it cannot explain the movement of water along the canals without the existence of a powerful water-pressure system supplying polar waters through the equator to the opposite hemisphere.
Another point of view of astronomers is inclined to consider colored, geometrically regular stripes varying in length and color on Mars as traces of the vital activity of living beings who have reached the highest level of mental development, not inferior to the people of Earth.

What are the circumstances of the Tunguska disaster of 1908?

Based on the testimony of more than a thousand eyewitnesses - correspondents of the Irkutsk seismological station and the Irkutsk Observatory, it was established:
In the early morning of June 30, 1908, a fiery body (the nature of a fireball) flew across the sky, leaving behind a trail like a falling meteorite.
At seven o'clock in the morning local time, a dazzling ball appeared over the taiga near the Vanovara trading post, which seemed brighter than the sun. It turned into a pillar of fire, resting against the cloudless sky.
Nothing like this had ever been observed before when meteorites fell. There was no such picture when a giant meteorite fell in the Far East several years ago and scattered in the air.
After the light phenomena, a blow was heard, repeated many times, like a thunderclap repeated, turning into peals. The sound was heard at a distance of up to a thousand kilometers from the crash site. Following the sound, a hurricane of terrible force swept through, tearing off roofs from houses and knocking down fences at a distance of hundreds of kilometers.
Phenomena characteristic of earthquakes were felt in the houses. Oscillations of the earth's crust were noted by many seismological stations: in Irkutsk, Tashkent, Jena (Germany). Two tremors were recorded in Irkutsk (closer to the disaster site). The second was weaker and, according to the station director, was caused by an air wave that reached Irkutsk late.
The air wave was also recorded in London and circled the globe twice.
For three days after the disaster, luminous clouds were observed in the sky at an altitude of 86 kilometers in Europe and North Africa, making it possible to take photographs and read newspapers at night. Academician A. A. Polkanov, who was then in Siberia, a scientist who knew how to observe and accurately record what he saw, wrote in his diary: “The sky is covered with a dense layer of clouds, it is raining and at the same time it is unusually light. It is so light that in an open place you can quite easily read the small print of the newspaper. There shouldn’t be a moon, but the clouds should be illuminated with some kind of yellow-green, sometimes turning into pink, light.” If this mysterious night light noticed by Academician Polkanov were reflected sunlight, it would be white, not yellow-green and pink.
Twenty years later, Kulik’s Soviet expedition visited the site of the disaster. The results of the expedition's many years of searching are accurately conveyed by the astronomer in the story.
The assumption of a huge meteorite falling into the Tunguska taiga, although more common, does not explain:

a) Absence of any meteorite fragments.
b) Absence of a crater and craters.
c) The existence of a standing forest at the center of the disaster.
e) The presence of groundwater under pressure after the fall of a meteorite.
f) A fountain of water that bubbled up in the first days of the disaster.
g) The appearance of a dazzling ball, like the sun, at the moment of disaster.
h) Accidents with Evenks who visited the site of the disaster in the first days.

The external picture of the explosion that occurred in the Tunguska taiga completely coincides with the picture of an atomic explosion.
The assumption of such an explosion in the air over the taiga explains all the circumstances of the disaster as follows.
The forest in the center is standing on its roots, as an air wave fell on it from above, breaking off branches and tops.
Glowing clouds are the effect of the remnants of a radioactive substance flying upward on the air. Accidents in the taiga are the effect of radioactive particles falling into the soil. The sublimation, transformation into steam, of the entire body that flew into the earth’s atmosphere is natural at the temperature of an atomic explosion (20 million degrees Celsius) and, of course, no remains of it could be found.
The fountain of water that erupted immediately after the disaster was caused by the formation of cracks in the permafrost layer from the impact of the blast wave.

Is it possible for a radioactive meteorite to explode?

No, it's impossible. Meteorites contain all the substances that are found on Earth.
The content of, say, uranium in meteorites is about one two hundred billionth of a percent. For the possibility of a chain reaction of atomic decay, it would be necessary to have a uranium meteorite in an exceptionally pure form, and, in addition, in the form of the rare isotope Uranium-235, never found in its pure form. Besides everything, even if we assume such an incredible case that such a piece of “refined” Uranium-235 turned out to be in nature, then it could not exist, since Uranium-235 is prone to so-called “spontaneous” decay, involuntary explosions of some of its atoms . At the first such involuntary explosion, the supposed meteorite would explode immediately after its formation.
If we assume an atomic explosion, then there will inevitably be an assumption that a radioactive substance produced artificially exploded.

Where could a ship using radioactive fuel come from?

The closest star from us with a planetary system supposed to be around it is in the constellation Cygnus. This was discovered by our Pulkovo astronomer Deitch. The distance from us to it is nine light years. To cover such a distance, you need to fly at the speed of light for nine years!
It is, of course, impossible for an interplanetary spacecraft to achieve such speed. We can only talk about the degree of approximation to it. We know that elementary particles of matter - electrons - move at speeds of up to 300 thousand kilometers per second. If we assume that as a result of a long acceleration the ship would reach such a speed, we get that a round trip from the planet of the nearest star to us would have to take several decades. However, this is where Einstein's paradox comes to the rescue. For people flying at a speed close to the speed of light, time would move slower, much slower than for those who would observe their flight, after being in flight for decades, they would find that millennia had passed on Earth...
It is difficult to talk about the life expectancy of creatures unknown to us, but if we assume such a flight from Earth, then travelers, setting off on a flight, must devote their entire lives to it until they are very old. There is nothing to say about more distant stars and their planets.
Much more realistic would be the assumption of an attempt to fly from a closer planet and, above all, from Mars.

What does celestial navigation say?

Mars moves around the Sun in an ellipse, making one revolution every 687 Earth days (1.8808 Earth years).
The orbits of Earth and Mars converge at the point where Earth passes in the summer. Every two years, the Earth meets Mars in this place, but they are especially close to each other once every 15-17 years. Then the distance between the planets is reduced from 400 million to 55 million kilometers (the great opposition).
However, one cannot expect that it is enough for an interplanetary spacecraft to cover only this distance.
Both planets move in their orbits: Earth at a speed of 30 kilometers per second, Mars at 24 kilometers per second.
A jet ship, leaving a planet, inherits its speed along the orbit, directed perpendicular to the shortest path between the planets. In order for the ship to fly straight, it would be necessary to destroy this lateral speed along the orbit, wasting enormous energy uselessly on this. It is more profitable to fly along a curve, using speed along the orbit and adding to the ship only that speed that will allow it to break away from the planet.
To lift off from Mars, it will take 5.1 kilometers per second, and to lift off from Earth, 11.3 kilometers per second.
The prominent Soviet astronavigator Sternfeld made an accurate calculation of the routes and flight times of the interplanetary spacecraft in relation to the confrontations of 1907 and 1909. He received that the Martian ship, based on the condition of the greatest fuel economy, having departed from Mars at the most favorable time, should have reached the Earth either in 1907 or in 1909, but not in 1908! However, when flying from Venus, taking advantage of the opposition between Earth and Venus in 1908, the astronauts were supposed to arrive on Earth on June 30, 1908 (!).
The coincidence is absolutely exact, allowing us to make far-reaching assumptions.
Accordingly, before the great confrontation of 1909, the Martians who reached Earth in 1908 would have been in the most favorable conditions for returning to Mars.

Were there any signals from Mars?

The light signals from Mars noticed in 1909 are discussed in the article “Mars and Its Canals” in the collection “New Ideas in Astronomy,” published shortly after the great confrontation of 1909.
The once sensational talk about receiving radio signals from Mars in the early twenties during the confrontations between Earth and Mars is well known.
That was the time of the first flowering of radio technology created by the brilliant Popov, the appearance of the first publicly available radio receivers.
Y. Perelman, in the appendix to his book “Interplanetary Travel,” says that in 1920 and 1922, during the approach of Mars to the Earth, terrestrial radio receivers received signals that, by their nature, could not be sent by earthly stations (obviously, what was meant primarily was the length waves, very limited for the Earth's transmitting stations of that time). These signals were attributed to Mars.
Eager for sensations, Marconi and his engineers went on special expeditions to the Andes and the Atlantic Ocean to pick up Martian signals. Marconi tried to catch these signals at a wave of 300,000 meters.

Explosion on Mars

After the great confrontation between Earth and Mars in 1956, the director of the Pulkovo Observatory, corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences A. A. Mikhailov, during his meeting with scientists at the Leningrad House of Scientists in Lesnoy, said that the Pulkovo Observatory recorded an explosion of enormous force on Mars... Judging Based on the fact that the consequences of this explosion were observed through telescopes, and knowing that there are no volcanoes on Mars, the observed explosion most likely should be attributed to a nuclear explosion. It is difficult to imagine a nuclear explosion on Mars that was not artificially caused. It may very well be that this explosion was deliberately caused for some constructive purposes. Thus, the observation of the Pulkovo Observatory can serve as one of the evidence in favor of the existence of intelligent life on Mars.

What is the history of the hypothesis?

For the first time, the hypothesis about the atomic explosion of an interplanetary spacecraft in the Tunguska taiga in 1908 was published in the story “Explosion” by A. Kazantsev. (“Around the World”, No. 1, 1946)
On February 20, 1948, the author presented this hypothesis at a meeting of the All-Union Astronomical Society at the Moscow Planetarium.
The Moscow Planetarium popularized this hypothesis in the dramatization “The Mystery of the Tunguska Meteorite.”
At one time, major astronomers spoke out in defense of the right to put forward a hypothesis about the explosion of an interplanetary rocket over the Tunguska taiga, publishing a letter in No. 9 of the journal “Technology for Youth” in 1948. Among the scientists who signed it were: Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Director of the Pulkovo Observatory Professor A. A. Mikhailov, Chairman of the Moscow Branch of the All-Union Astronomical Society Professor P. P. Parenago, Corresponding Member of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences Professor B. A. Vorontsov-Velyaminov, Professor K-L. Baev, Professor M. E. Nabokov and others.
Subsequently, Professor A. A. Mikhailov proposed his own version of the Tunguska disaster, believing that the Tunguska meteorite was a comet, but this assumption did not have a wide resonance.
One of Kulik’s assistants, V.A. Sytin, believed that the Tunguska disaster was caused not by a meteorite fall, but by a colossal windfall. But this assumption does not explain the picture of the disaster and many of its details.
Experts on meteorites: Academician Fesenkov, Scientific Secretary of the Committee on Meteorites of the USSR Academy of Sciences Krinov, Professor Stanyukovich, Astapovich and others consistently adhered to the point of view that a meteorite weighing about a million tons fell into the Tunguska taiga, and resolutely rejected other points of view.

Aerodynamics research

The problem of the Tunguska meteorite has interested many. The famous aerodynamicist and aircraft designer from Antonov’s group, the author of good Soviet gliders, A. Yu. Monotskov, approached it strictly scientifically. Having processed the testimony of a huge number of eyewitnesses, correspondents of the Irkutsk Observatory, he tried to determine the speed at which the supposed “meteorite” was flying over various areas. He compiled a map, plotting the flight path and the time at which the “meteorite” was noticed by eyewitnesses at various points along the trajectory. The map compiled by Monotskov led to unexpected conclusions: the “meteorite” flew over the ground while braking... Monoidov calculated the speed with which the “meteorite” appeared above the explosion site in the Tunguska taiga, and received 0.7 kilometers per second (and not 30-60 kilometers per second, as was previously believed!). This speed approaches the flight speed of a modern jet aircraft and is an important argument in favor of the fact that the “Tunguska meteorite,” according to Monotskov, was an “aircraft” - an interplanetary spacecraft. If the meteorite fell with such an insignificant speed, then, based on the conclusions of the aerodynamicist, it turns out that in order to cause destruction in the taiga corresponding to the explosion of a million tons of explosives, it should have had a mass of not a million tons, as has been calculated so far astronomers, but a billion tons, having a kilometer across. This does not correspond to observations - the flying meteorite did not darken the sky. Obviously, the energy of destruction in the taiga was not thermal energy, into which the kinetic energy of the meteorite was converted when it hit the ground, but most likely was nuclear energy released during the atomic explosion of the fuel of the interplanetary spacecraft, without hitting the ground.

Scientific or non-scientific debate

Defenders of the hypothesis of a meteorite fall have repeatedly opposed the hypothesis of an explosion in the Tunguska taiga of an interplanetary spacecraft from another planet. They spoke in an extremely irritated tone and presented the following arguments.

1. It is impossible to deny the fall of a meteorite, because it is unscientific (why?).
2. The meteorite fell, but only drowned in the swamp.
3. A crater formed, but it was covered with swampy soil.

It was these arguments that Academician Fesenkov and Krinov made in the article “Meteorite or Martian ship?”, published in Literaturnaya Gazeta in August 1951. The effect of publishing the article was exactly the opposite of the wishes of its authors. The hypothesis about the Martian ship immediately became known to millions of readers. The newspaper began to receive many letters. Some of them quite rightly stated:

a) if a meteorite fell and drowned in a swamp, then where is it? Why was it not detected in the depths by magnetic instruments? Why didn’t its fragments scatter, which always happens when it falls?
b) if a crater was formed - it should be no less than Arizona in size, 1.5 kilometers in diameter, up to 180 meters deep - and this crater, according to meteorite scientists, was covered with swampy soil, then why is there no trace of a crater in the center of the disaster? formation, moreover, why did the peat layer and the permafrost layer remain intact, the latter should have melted? For what reasons could the “swampy soil covering the crater” freeze again, as if the ice age had returned to the earth?

As is known, meteorologists did not give answers to these questions, and they could not give them.

Sensational solution to the mystery of the Tunguska meteorite

Years passed, no one visited again the site of the alleged meteorite fall in the Tunguska taiga, but interest in this phenomenon, perhaps because of the cosmic hypotheses associated with it, did not weaken. And in 1957, meteorite experts were forced to speak in print again on this issue. Krinov in Komsomolskaya Pravda and Professor Stanyukovich in the magazine In Defense of Peace sensationally announced that the mystery of the Tunguska meteorite had finally been solved! There was a meteorite, but... it just sprayed into the air. Finally, meteorite scientists have abandoned the claim that a celestial body hit the Earth and the crater was “lost”! But no! Even this logic is alien.
Meteorites are only interested in the fact that part of the meteorite has been dispersed. To prove that the meteorite was sprayed into the air, it was reported that old jars with soil, once brought from the site of the Tunguska disaster, were found in the basements of the Academy of Sciences. Analysis of these forgotten cans revealed metal dust particles a fraction of a millimeter in size in the soil. Chemical analysis revealed the presence of iron, 7 percent nickel and about 0.7 percent cobalt, as well as magnetite balls measuring hundredths of a millimeter in size, a product of metal melting in air.
One can be glad that the Committee on Meteorites of the USSR Academy of Sciences, a quarter of a century later, made a discovery in the basements of the Academy and carried out a chemical analysis of old samples of taiga soil, but at the same time it must be admitted that the hasty announcement of solving the mysteries of the Tunguska catastrophe is somewhat premature.
In fact, if meteorologists are forced to agree that the meteorite never fell to the ground and for some reason turned to dust, then it is appropriate to ask the question: why did it turn to dust? What caused the explosion in the taiga if there was no impact of the celestial body on the ground and the energy of the meteorite movement did not turn into heat? And where did the colossal energy that felled trees over hundreds of square kilometers in the taiga come from in the event of a meteorite spraying? The meteorologists, who stubbornly clung to the meteorite version of the Tunguska disaster, have no answer to all these natural questions, and there cannot be one.
By the way, the presence of metal dust in soil samples from the Tunguska taiga does not at all prove that these are necessarily the remains of a meteorite. After all, the iron structure characteristic of meteorites has not been discovered. Most likely, we are dealing with the remains of the body (of an interplanetary rocket destroyed by an explosion. The chemical composition of these remains is the most suitable.
As we see, it is very difficult to dismiss the explanation of the Tunguska disaster as an atomic explosion. References to honorary academic titles with simultaneous neglect of a well-known fact - a monstrous explosion in the Tunguska taiga - do not in any way convince an inquisitive person. And this inquisitive person, of course, wants scientists to really explain the mystery of the Tunguska meteorite.

How can you solve the mystery of the Tunguska meteorite?

Sending a scientific expedition to the Tunguska taiga will be of undoubted interest. One has to wonder why the Academy of Sciences and its Committee on Meteorites have not yet risked sending such an expedition that could make a contribution, if not to meteorite science, then to our materialistic worldview. It’s very good that the expedition will still take place. Let's wish her good luck!
It is possible to resolve the question of whether an atomic explosion occurred in the Tunguska taiga. To do this, you will need to explore the area where the disaster occurred and examine it for radioactivity. For ordinary areas of the Earth there is a certain standard of radioactivity. With the help of special devices, Geiger counters, a very certain number of atomic decays can be detected in any place.
If powerful radioactive radiation (an atomic explosion) actually occurred in the area of ​​the disaster at the time of the explosion, then the flow of neutrons (elementary particles emitted during the decay of atoms), passing through the wood of fallen trees and the soil, would inevitably cause some changes. So-called “tagged atoms” should have appeared, with heavier nuclei in which some of the passing neutrons were stuck. These labeled atoms are heavier isotopes (varieties) of elements commonly found on Earth. For example, ordinary nitrogen could turn into heavy carbon, which slowly decomposes on its own. Other heavy isotopes decay in the same way. This spontaneous destruction can be detected using the same atomic decay counters.
If it can be established that in the Tunguska taiga region the increased number of atom decays per second exceeds the norm, the nature of the Tunguska catastrophe will be clear. Moreover, it is also possible to establish the center of the catastrophe and, if it coincides with the dead forest, finally restore the entire picture of the death of the Martian ship.

A.P. Kazantsev, Guest from Space, GIGL, Moscow, 1958, 238 p.

Life is the greatest miracle that exists on our planet. The problems of its study are currently occupied not only by biologists, but also by physicists, mathematicians, philosophers and other scientists. Of course, the most difficult mystery is the very origin of life on Earth.

Researchers are still arguing about how this happened. Oddly enough, philosophy has made a significant contribution to the study of this phenomenon: this science allows one to draw correct conclusions by summarizing huge amounts of information. What versions are guiding scientists around the world today? Here are the current theories of the origin of life on Earth:

• The concept of spontaneous generation.
• Creationism, or the theory of divine creation.
• The principle of stationary state.
• Panspermia, whose proponents claim the natural “productivity” of any planet where suitable conditions exist. In particular, this idea was once developed by the well-known academician Vernadsky.
• Biochemical evolution according to A.I. Oparin.

Let us consider all these theories of the origin of life on Earth in a little more detail.

Materialism and idealism

Back in the Middle Ages and earlier, in the Arab world, some scientists, even at the risk of their own lives, assumed that the world could be created as a result of some natural processes, without the participation of a divine essence. These were the first materialists. Accordingly, all other points of view that provided for Divine intervention in the creation of all things were considered idealistic. Accordingly, it is quite possible to consider the origin of life on Earth from these two positions.

Creationists argue that life could only have been created by God, while materialists promote the theory of the emergence of the first organic compounds and life from inorganic substances. Their version is based on the complexity or impossibility of understanding those processes that resulted in life in its modern form. Interestingly, the modern Church only partially supports this hypothesis. From the point of view of the most scientist-friendly figures, it is truly impossible to understand the main Plan of the Creator, but we can determine the phenomena and processes due to which life arose. However, this is still very far from a truly scientific approach.

Currently, the materialist point of view prevails. However, they did not always put forward modern theories of the origin of life. Thus, the hypothesis that the origin and evolution of life on Earth occurred spontaneously was initially popular, and supporters of this phenomenon were found back in the early 19th century.

Proponents of this concept argued that there are certain laws of natural nature that determine the possibility of the arbitrary transition of inorganic compounds into organic ones with the subsequent arbitrary formation of life. This also includes the theory of the creation of a “homunculus,” an artificial person. In general, the spontaneous origin of life on Earth is still considered seriously by some “experts”... At least it’s good that they talk about bacteria and viruses.

Of course, this approach was later proven to be wrong, but it played an important role, providing a huge amount of valuable empirical material. Note that the final rejection of the version of the independent origin of life occurred only in the middle of the 19th century. In principle, the impossibility of such a process was proven by Louis Pasteur. For this, the scientist even received a considerable prize from the French Academy of Sciences. Soon the main theories of the origin of life on Earth come to the fore, which we will describe below.

Academician Oparin's theory

Modern ideas about the origin of life on Earth are based on a theory that was put forward by a domestic researcher, Academician Oparin, back in 1924. He refuted Redi's principle, which spoke about the possibility of only biogenic synthesis of organic substances, pointing out that this concept is valid only for the current state of affairs. The scientist pointed out that at the very beginning of its existence, our planet was a giant rocky ball, on which, in principle, there was no organic matter.

Oparin's hypothesis was that the origin of life on planet Earth is a long-term biochemical process, the raw materials for which are common compounds that can be found on any planet. The academician suggested that the transition of these substances into more complex ones was possible under the influence of extremely strong physical and chemical factors. Oparin was the first to put forward a hypothesis about the continuous transformation and interaction of organic and inorganic compounds. He called it "biochemical evolution." Below are the main stages of the origin of life on Earth according to Oparin.

Stage of chemical evolution

About four billion years ago, when our planet was a huge and lifeless rock in the depths of space, the process of non-biological synthesis of carbon compounds was already underway on its surface. During this period, volcanoes emitted titanic amounts of lava and hot gases. Cooling in the primary atmosphere, the gases turned into clouds, from which torrential rains fell incessantly. All these processes took place over millions of years. But, excuse me, when did the origin of life on Earth begin?

At the same time, the showers gave rise to huge primary oceans, the waters of which were extremely saturated with salts. The first organic compounds got there, the formation of which took place in the atmosphere under the influence of strong electrical discharges and UV irradiation. Gradually their concentration increased until the seas turned into a kind of “broth” saturated with peptides. But what happened next and how did the first cells arise from this “soup”?

Formation of protein compounds, fats and carbohydrates

And only at the second stage do true proteins and other compounds from which life is built appear in the “broth”. Conditions on Earth softened, carbohydrates, proteins and fats, the first biopolymers, and nucleotides appeared. This is how coacervate droplets formed, which were the prototype of real cells. Roughly speaking, this was the name given to drops of proteins, fats, and carbohydrates (as in soup). These formations could absorb and absorb those substances that were dissolved in the waters of the primary oceans. At the same time, a kind of evolution took place, the result of which were drops with increased resistance and stability to environmental influences.

Appearance of the first cells

Actually, at the third stage, this amorphous formation turned into something more “meaningful.” That is, into a living cell capable of the process of self-reproduction. The natural selection of drops, which we have already discussed above, became more and more stringent. The first “advanced” coacervates already had, albeit primitive, metabolism. Scientists suggest that the drop, having reached a certain size, disintegrated into smaller formations that had all the features of the mother “cell”.

Gradually, a layer of lipids appeared around the core of the coacervate, giving rise to a full-fledged cell membrane. This is how the primary cells, archecells, were formed. It is this moment that can rightfully be considered as the origin of life on Earth.

Is non-biological synthesis of organic matter real?

As for the hypothesis of the origin of life on Earth from Oparin... Many people immediately have a question: “How realistic is the formation of organic matter from inorganic matter under natural conditions?” Many researchers have had such thoughts!

In 1953, American scientist Miller modeled the Earth's primordial atmosphere, with its incredible temperatures and electrical discharges. Simple inorganic compounds were placed in this medium. As a result, acetic and formic acids and other organic compounds were formed there. This is how the origin of life on Earth took place. Briefly, this process can be characterized by the philosophical law of “Transition of quantity into quality.” Simply put, with the accumulation of a certain amount of proteins and other substances in the primary ocean, these compounds acquire different properties and the ability to self-organize.

Strengths and weaknesses of Oparin's theory

The concept we have considered has not only strong but also weak points. The strength of the theory is its logic and experimental confirmation of the abiotic synthesis of organic compounds. In principle, this could be the origin and development of life on Earth. A huge weakness is the fact that so far no one can explain how coacervates were able to degenerate into a complex biological structure. Even supporters of the theory admit that the transition from a protein-fat droplet to a full-fledged cell is very doubtful. We are probably missing something by not taking into account factors unknown to us. Currently, all scientists recognize that there was some kind of sharp jump, as a result of which the self-organization of matter became possible. How could this even happen? It is still unclear... What other main theories of the origin of life on Earth exist?

Theory of panspermia and steady state

As we have already said, at one time this version was ardently supported and “promoted” by the famous academician Vernadsky. In general, the theory of panspermia cannot be discussed in isolation from the concept of a stationary state, since they consider the principle of the origin of life from the same point of view. You should know that this concept was first proposed by the German Richter at the end of the 19th century. In 1907, he was supported by the Swedish researcher Arrhenius.

Scientists who adhere to this concept believe that life simply existed in the Universe and will always exist. It is transferred from planet to planet with the help of comets and meteorites, which play the role of peculiar “seeds”. The disadvantage of this theory is that the Universe itself is believed to have formed approximately 15-25 billion years ago. It doesn't look like Eternity at all. Considering that the planets potentially suitable for the formation of life are many times smaller than ordinary rocky planetoids, it is quite logical that the question arises: “When and where did life form and how did it spread throughout the Universe at such a speed, taking into account the unrealistic distances?”

It should be remembered that the age of our planet is no more than 5 billion years. Comets and asteroids fly much slower than the speed of light, so they simply might not have enough time to plant the “seeds” of life on Earth. Proponents of panspermia suggest that certain seeds (spores of microorganisms, for example) are transported “on light rays” at an appropriate speed... But decades of spacecraft have made it possible to prove that there are quite a few free particles in space. The probability of this method of spreading living organisms is too low.

Some researchers today suggest that any planet that is suitable for life may eventually form protein bodies, but the mechanism of this process is unknown to us. Other scientists say that in the Universe, perhaps, there are some “cradles”, planets on which life can form. It sounds, of course, like some kind of science fiction... However, who knows. In recent years, here and abroad, a theory has gradually begun to take shape, the provisions of which speak about the information initially encoded in the atoms of substances...

Allegedly, these data provide the very impetus that leads to the transformation of the simplest coacervates into archecells. If we think logically, then this is the same theory of the spontaneous origin of life on Earth! In general, the concept of panspermia is difficult to consider as a complete scientific thesis. Its supporters can only say that life was brought to Earth from other planets. But how did it form there? There is no answer to this.

"Gift" from Mars?

Today it is known for certain that there was indeed water on the Red Planet and there were all conditions favorable to the development of protein life. The data that confirms this was obtained thanks to the work on the surface of two landers at once: Spirit and Curiosity. But scientists are still passionately arguing: was there life there? The fact is that information received from the same rovers indicates the short-term (in geological aspect) existence of water on this planet. How high is the probability that, in principle, full-fledged protein organisms managed to develop there? Again, there is no answer to this question. Again, even if life came to our planet from Mars, this in no way explains the process of its development there (which we have already written about).

So, we have examined the basic concepts of the origin of life on Earth. Which of them are absolutely true is unknown. The problem is that there is not yet a single experimentally confirmed test that could confirm or refute at least Oparin’s concept, not to mention other theses. Yes, we can synthesize protein without any problems, but we cannot obtain protein life. So scientists have work in store for many decades to come.

There is another problem. The fact is that we are intensely looking for carbon-based life and trying to understand exactly how it came to be. What if the concept of life is much broader? What if it could be based on silicon? In principle, this point of view does not contradict the principles of chemistry and biology. So on the way to finding answers we are met with more and more new questions. Currently, scientists have put forward several fundamental theses, guided by which people are looking for potentially habitable planets. Here they are:

• The planet should orbit in the so-called “comfort zone” around the star: its surface should not be too hot or too cold. In principle, at least one or two planets in each star system meet this requirement (Earth and Mars, in particular).
• The mass of such a body should be average (within one and a half times the size of the Earth). Planets that are too large either have unrealistically high gravity or are gas giants.
• More or less highly organized life can only exist near fairly old stars (at least three to four billion years).
• The star should not seriously change its parameters. It is useless to look for life near white dwarfs or red giants: if it was there, it would have died long ago due to extremely unfavorable environmental conditions.
• It is desirable that the star system be single. In principle, modern researchers object to this thesis. It is possible that a binary system with two stars located at opposite ends could contain even more potentially habitable planets. Moreover, today there is more and more talk that somewhere on the outskirts of the solar system there is a gas-dust cloud, the forerunner of the unborn second Sun.

Final conclusions

So, what can we say in conclusion? First, we urgently lack data on the exact environmental conditions on the newly formed Earth. To obtain this information, ideally one should observe the development of a planet that is similar to ours in other respects. In addition, researchers are still finding it difficult to say exactly what factors stimulate the transition of coacervate archecapelles into full-fledged cells. Perhaps further in-depth studies of the genome of living beings will provide some answers.

The probability of the existence of life on other planets is determined by the scale of the Universe. That is, the larger the Universe, the greater the likelihood of the random emergence of life somewhere in its remote corners. Since according to modern classical models of the Universe it is infinite in space, it seems that the likelihood of life on other planets is rapidly increasing. This issue will be discussed in more detail towards the end of the article, since we will have to start with the idea of ​​alien life itself, the definition of which is rather vague.

For some reason, until recently, humanity had a clear idea of ​​alien life in the form of gray humanoids with large heads. However, modern films and literary works, following the development of the most scientific approach to this issue, increasingly go beyond the scope of the above ideas. Indeed, the Universe is quite diverse and, given the complex evolution of the human species, the likelihood of the emergence of similar forms of life on different planets with different physical conditions is extremely small.

First of all, we must go beyond the concept of life as it exists on Earth, since we are considering life on other planets. Looking around, we understand that all terrestrial life forms known to us are exactly like this for a reason, but due to the existence of certain physical conditions on Earth, a couple of which we will consider further.

Gravity

The first and most obvious earthly physical condition is . For another planet to have exactly the same gravity, it would need exactly the same mass and the same radius. For this to be possible, another planet would probably have to be composed of the same elements as Earth. This will also require a number of other conditions, as a result of which the likelihood of detecting such an “Earth clone” is rapidly decreasing. For this reason, if we intend to find all possible extraterrestrial life forms, we must assume the possibility of their existence on planets with slightly different gravity. Of course, gravity must have a certain range, such that it will hold the atmosphere and at the same time not flatten all life on the planet.

Within this range, a wide variety of life forms are possible. First of all, gravity affects the growth of living organisms. Remembering the most famous gorilla in the world - King Kong, it should be noted that he would not have survived on Earth, since he would have died under the pressure of his own weight. The reason for this is the square-cube law, according to which as a body doubles, its mass increases 8 times. Therefore, if we consider a planet with reduced gravity, we should expect the discovery of life forms in large sizes.

The strength of the skeleton and muscles also depends on the strength of gravity on the planet. Recalling another example from the animal world, namely the largest animal - the blue whale, we note that if it lands on land, the whale suffocates. However, this happens not because they suffocate like fish (whales are mammals, and therefore they breathe not with gills, but with lungs, like people), but because gravity prevents their lungs from expanding. It follows that in conditions of increased gravity, a person would have stronger bones capable of supporting body weight, stronger muscles capable of resisting the force of gravity, and less height to reduce the actual body mass itself according to the square-cube law.

The listed physical characteristics of the body that depend on gravity are just our ideas about the influence of gravity on the body. In fact, gravity can determine a much larger range of body parameters.

Atmosphere

Another global physical condition that determines the shape of living organisms is the atmosphere. First of all, by the presence of an atmosphere, we will deliberately narrow the circle of planets with the possibility of life, since scientists cannot imagine organisms capable of surviving without the auxiliary elements of the atmosphere and under the deadly influence of cosmic radiation. Therefore, let us assume that a planet with living organisms must have an atmosphere. First, let's look at the oxygen-rich atmosphere to which we are all so accustomed.

Consider, for example, insects, whose size is clearly limited due to the characteristics of the respiratory system. It does not include the lungs and consists of trachea tunnels that go out in the form of openings - spiracles. This type of oxygen transportation does not allow insects to have a mass of more than 100 grams, since at larger sizes it loses its effectiveness.

The Carboniferous period (350-300 million years BC) was characterized by an increased oxygen content in the atmosphere (by 30-35%), and the animals characteristic of that time may surprise you. Namely, giant air-breathing insects. For example, the dragonfly Meganeura could have a wingspan of more than 65 cm, the scorpion Pulmonoscorpius could reach 70 cm, and the centipede Arthropleura could have a wingspan of 2.3 meters in length.

Thus, the influence of atmospheric oxygen concentration on the range of different life forms becomes apparent. In addition, the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere is not a firm condition for the existence of life, since mankind knows of anaerobes - organisms that can live without consuming oxygen. Then if the influence of oxygen on organisms is so high, what will be the form of life on planets with a completely different atmospheric composition? - hard to imagine.

Thus, we face an unimaginably large set of life forms that can await us on another planet, taking into account only the two factors listed above. If we consider other conditions, such as temperature or atmospheric pressure, then the diversity of living organisms goes beyond perception. But even in this case, scientists are not afraid to make bolder assumptions, defined in alternative biochemistry:

• Many are convinced that all forms of life can exist only if they contain carbon, as is observed on Earth. Carl Sagan once called this phenomenon “carbon chauvinism.” But in fact, the main building block of alien life may not be carbon at all. Among carbon alternatives, scientists identify silicon, nitrogen and phosphorus or nitrogen and boron.
• Phosphorus is also one of the main elements that make up a living organism, as it is part of nucleotides, nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) and other compounds. However, in 2010, astrobiologist Felisa Wolf-Simon discovered a bacterium in all cellular components of which phosphorus is replaced by arsenic, which, by the way, is toxic to all other organisms.
• Water is one of the most important components for life on Earth. However, water can also be replaced with another solvent; according to scientific research, it can be ammonia, hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen cyanide and even sulfuric acid.

Why did we consider the above-described possible forms of life on other planets? The fact is that with the increase in the diversity of living organisms, the boundaries of the term life itself are blurred, which, by the way, still does not have an explicit definition.

Alien life concept

Since the subject of this article is not intelligent beings, but living organisms, the concept of “living” should be defined. As it turns out, this is quite a complex task and there are more than 100 definitions of life. But, in order not to delve into philosophy, let's follow in the footsteps of scientists. Chemists and biologists should have the broadest concept of life. Based on the usual signs of life, such as reproduction or nutrition, some crystals, prions (infectious proteins) or viruses can be attributed to living beings.

A definitive definition of the boundary between living and nonliving organisms must be formulated before the question of the existence of life on other planets arises. Biologists consider viruses to be such a borderline form. By themselves, without interacting with the cells of living organisms, viruses do not possess most of the usual characteristics of a living organism and are only particles of biopolymers (complexes of organic molecules). For example, they do not have a metabolism; for their further reproduction they will need some kind of host cell belonging to another organism.

In this way, one can conditionally draw a line between living and non-living organisms, passing through a vast layer of viruses. That is, the discovery of a virus-like organism on another planet can become both confirmation of the existence of life on other planets, and another useful discovery, but does not confirm this assumption.

According to the above, most chemists and biologists are inclined to believe that the main feature of life is DNA replication - the synthesis of a daughter molecule based on the parent DNA molecule. Having such views on alien life, we have moved significantly away from the already hackneyed images of green (gray) men.

However, problems with defining an object as a living organism can arise not only with viruses. Taking into account the previously mentioned diversity of possible types of living beings, one can imagine a situation where a person encounters some alien substance (for ease of presentation, the size is on the order of a human), and raises the question of the life of this substance - finding an answer to this question may turn out to be just as difficult as is the case with viruses. This problem can be seen in Stanislaw Lem’s work “Solaris”.

Extraterrestrial life in the solar system

Kepler - 22b planet with possible life

Today, the criteria for searching for life on other planets are quite strict. Among them, the priority is: the presence of water, atmosphere, and temperature conditions similar to those on earth. To have these characteristics, the planet must be in the so-called “habitable zone of the star” - that is, at a certain distance from the star, depending on the type of star. Among the most popular are: Gliese 581 g, Kepler-22 b, Kepler-186 f, Kepler-452 b and others. However, today one can only guess about the presence of life on such planets, since it will not be possible to fly to them very soon, due to the enormous distance to them (one of the closest ones is Gliese 581 g, which is 20 light years away). Therefore, let's return to our solar system, where in fact there are also signs of unearthly life.

Mars

According to the criteria for the existence of life, some of the planets in the solar system have suitable conditions. For example, Mars was discovered to sublimate (evaporate) - a step towards discovering liquid water. In addition, methane, a well-known waste product of living organisms, was found in the atmosphere of the red planet. Thus, even on Mars there is a possibility of the existence of living organisms, albeit the simplest ones, in certain warm places with less aggressive conditions, such as the polar ice caps.

Europe

The well-known satellite of Jupiter is a rather cold (-160 °C - -220 °C) celestial body, covered with a thick layer of ice. However, a number of research results (the movement of Europa's crust, the presence of induced currents in the core) are increasingly leading scientists to believe that there is a liquid water ocean under the surface ice. Moreover, if it exists, the size of this ocean exceeds the size of the Earth's global ocean. The heating of this liquid water layer of Europa most likely occurs through gravitational influence, which compresses and stretches the satellite, causing tides. As a result of observing the satellite, signs of emissions of water vapor from geysers at a speed of approximately 700 m/s to an altitude of up to 200 km were also recorded. In 2009, American scientist Richard Greenberg showed that beneath the surface of Europa there is oxygen in volumes sufficient for the existence of complex organisms. Taking into account other reported data about Europe, we can confidently assume the possibility of the existence of complex organisms, even like fish, that live closer to the bottom of the subsurface ocean, where hydrothermal vents appear to be located.

Enceladus

The most promising place for living organisms to live is Saturn's satellite. Somewhat similar to Europa, this satellite is still different from all other cosmic bodies in the Solar System in that it contains liquid water, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen in the form of ammonia. Moreover, the sounding results are confirmed by real photographs of huge fountains of water gushing from cracks in the icy surface of Enceladus. Putting together the evidence, scientists claim the presence of a subsurface ocean under the south pole of Enceladus, the temperature of which ranges from -45°C to +1°C. Although there are estimates according to which the ocean temperature can even reach +90. Even if the ocean temperature is not high, we still know fish that live in Antarctic waters at zero temperatures (White-blooded fish).

In addition, the data obtained by the apparatus and processed by scientists from the Carnegie Institute made it possible to determine the alkalinity of the ocean environment, which is 11-12 pH. This indicator is quite favorable for the origin and maintenance of life.

Is there life on other planets?

So we have come to assessing the likelihood of the existence of alien life. Everything written above is optimistic. Based on the wide variety of terrestrial living organisms, we can conclude that even on the most “harsh” planet-twin of the Earth, a living organism can arise, albeit completely different from those familiar to us. Even as we explore the cosmic bodies of the solar system, we find nooks and crannies of a seemingly dead world, unlike Earth, in which favorable conditions still exist for carbon-based life forms. Our beliefs about the prevalence of life in the Universe are further strengthened by the possibility of the existence of not carbon-based life forms, but some alternative ones that use, instead of carbon, water and other organic substances, some other substances, such as silicon or ammonia. Thus, the permissible conditions for life on another planet are significantly expanded. Multiplying all this by the size of the Universe, more specifically, by the number of planets, we get a fairly high probability of the emergence and maintenance of alien life.

There is only one problem that arises for astrobiologists, as well as for all of humanity - we do not know how life arises. That is, how and where do even the simplest microorganisms on other planets come from? We cannot estimate the probability of the origin of life itself, even under favorable conditions. Therefore, assessing the probability of the existence of living alien organisms is extremely difficult.

If the transition from chemical compounds to living organisms is defined as a natural biological phenomenon, such as the unauthorized association of a complex of organic elements into a living organism, then the probability of the emergence of such an organism is high. In this case, we can say that life would have appeared on Earth one way or another, having had the organic compounds that it had and observing the physical conditions that it observed. However, scientists have not yet figured out the nature of this transition and the factors that may influence it. Therefore, among the factors influencing the very emergence of life, there can be anything, such as the temperature of the solar wind or the distance to a neighboring star system.

Assuming that only time is required for the emergence and existence of life in habitable conditions, and no further unexplored interactions with external forces, we can say that the probability of finding living organisms in our galaxy is quite high, this probability exists even in our Solar System. If we consider the Universe as a whole, then based on everything written above, we can say with great confidence that there is life on other planets.

Today you can often hear - “Earth is just one of many planets on which life can exist.” Don't believe it. Even the most “suitable for life” planets cannot be compared with Earth, since they do not have the necessary conditions, the list of which is constantly growing.

Scientists continue the expensive search for life on other worlds. They are sure that they have good reasons for this. If life exists only on Earth, this means that our planet is unique and must have a Creator. However, this thought frightens reluctant scientists. If life arose naturally, as they believe, we should find it on other planets in the Universe.

Dreams of finding life on other planets outside our solar system have not yet come true, but this does not dampen the ardor of astronomers. In 2009, the National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA) launched the Kepler telescope (at a cost of more than half a billion dollars) with the goal of observing 145,000 stars and discovering orbiting planets. As a result of the study, more than 3,500 candidates were identified. However, Kepler was only able to detect a small fraction of the planets orbiting their stars. By adjusting the results and applying them to other stars, scientists can calculate the number of planets that exist. The Milky Way alone can accommodate about 100 billion planets.

Despite all the hype, the study once again confirms that no other planet can support life.

What is life?

For decades, evolutionists thought that life emerged from a warm, calm body of water—an environment that still harbors life today. However, once harsh conditions were discovered on other planets, they began to talk differently. Repeated studies have shown other planets, although many people do not want to believe it.

Secular astronomers are actually looking not for life itself, but for places in which living organisms could theoretically exist. But they fail to find even the bare minimum - the necessary conditions for liquid water.

Over the past 30 years, scientists have been looking for different explanations and they think they have found something. Extremophiles are organisms that survive in the most extreme conditions on Earth, such as high temperatures of underwater hydrothermal vents, high underground pressure, cold and dark lakes buried under Antarctic ice, etc. Scientists now think that life originated in such harsh conditions.

They hope that certain places on other planets, such as , may be home to organisms similar to terrestrial extremophiles. Similar arguments have been made for some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, where water may be present deep below the surface. Since life requires liquid water, evolutionists believe that life can appear anywhere there is liquid water.

Notice how low the bar for evolutionists is. Secular astronomers are actually looking not for life itself, but for places in which living organisms could theoretically exist. But they fail to find even the bare minimum - the necessary conditions for liquid water.

But the bar for biblical creationists, on the contrary, is set very high. God's Word calls animals “living things,” not plants or microorganisms. The basic needs of animal life are limitless. This in no way diminishes the fact that extremophiles are amazing creatures in their own right, with a special design that allows them to survive harsh conditions that are detrimental to all other life forms.

Scientists have coined a new term, exobiology, the study of life beyond Earth. Many books and conferences are devoted to exobiology, although there is no evidence of the existence of life on other planets. Undoubtedly, exobiology is a science without any data.

What planets can support life?

Astronomers have long suspected the existence of planets outside the solar system, but the first exoplanet was discovered only 20 years ago. Currently, approximately 1,000 exoplanets have been confirmed to exist. A quarter of them were discovered using the Kepler telescope. Discovery of exoplanets! It sounds loud, but other than their mass and distance from the stars, we know nothing about them.

And although we have little information, it is enough to show that most planets do not have the necessary conditions even for the life of extremophiles.

The Earth has the perfect distance

Speaking about the need for liquid water for life, astronomers have determined the habitable zone around other stars. This zone is a thin strip around the star in which liquid water may exist. If a planet orbits closer than the habitable zone, it will be too hot for liquid water. But if the planet is outside the habitable zone, any water on it will simply freeze.

The same can be said about the solar system. Venus is located too close to the Sun, so there is no water on it. Mars is too far from the Sun, so almost all the water on it is frozen. But the Earth is in the middle of the habitable zone of the Sun. The star's habitable zone is very narrow, and only a few exoplanets discovered are located in the habitable zones of their stars.

The Earth has an ideal mass (for an ideal atmosphere)

It is not enough to simply be in the habitable zone. Despite the fact that the Moon is in this zone, there is no life on it. The fact is that the Moon has too little mass (and therefore too little gravity) to support an atmosphere. Liquid water cannot exist in a vacuum, like on the lunar surface. However, if a planet is too massive, it will have the wrong atmosphere, like Jupiter. In order for a planet or satellite to harbor life, it must have an exact mass.

When considering whether an exoplanet can host life, we need to consider all of these factors, not just the habitable zone.

Our planet earth with perfect composition

The exact distance from the star and the required mass are still not enough. Even if the Moon had an atmosphere similar to Earth's, there would still be no life on it. The Moon lacks the necessary chemical elements found on Earth. Among them is iron.

Example Gliese 581g

Astronomers have discovered several exoplanets that appear to orbit in the habitable zones of their stars. However, despite media reports about planets supposedly suitable for life, none of them are confirmed. For example, in 2010, astronomers announced the discovery of the planet Gliese 581g, which orbits in the habitable zone of the star Gliese 581. The publications covering this news were silent about three main problems that make life on this planet impossible.

Unstable orbit (temperature change)

One of the problems with this planet is its elliptical orbit. This means that the planet moves closer and further away from its star, which creates a very wide range of temperatures on the planet's surface.

No rotation (boil or freeze syndrome)

Secondly, the star is dim, so the planet orbits very close to it. Such a close orbit creates synchronous rotation on the planet. This means that one side of the planet is always turned towards the star, and the other is always turned away from it. As a result, one side of the planet is always hot and the other is always cold.

Variable brightness of a star (change in radiation)

Thirdly, Gliese 581 is a variable star, because its brightness is constantly changing. This can have devastating consequences on life. As the brightness of a star changes, the planet's temperature changes. Moreover, the change in brightness is associated with powerful magnetic fields that emit harmful radiation.

When considering whether an exoplanet can host life, we need to consider all of these factors, not just the habitable zone. We must also consider astronomers' reliance on circumstantial evidence for these distant objects. A more detailed study makes one seriously question whether Gliese 581g actually exists.

Astronomers have discovered only a small number of other planets in the habitable zone of their stars, and Gliese 581g is one of those stars. Even if we assume that these planets exist, they are all unsuitable for life. The main problem with these planets is that they are several times more massive than Earth. In addition, the composition of the atmospheres of these planets is completely unsuitable for life. But secular astronomers do not give up and continue their search. They hope to find the next illusory planet on which, purely theoretically, extremophiles could exist.

The Creation Model assumes that life exists only on Planet Earth. We believe that life does not arise on its own, but exists where God intended it to be.

The Creation Model assumes that life exists only on Planet Earth. We believe that life does not arise on its own, but exists where God intended it to be. Could God create life on other planets? Of course, he could, but the question is not that, but whether He wants it. God created the earth in a special way so that living things could live on it (Genesis 1, Isaiah 45:18). Both our planet and the people living on it are all God’s creations, which have no equal in the entire Universe.

If we assume that God created life on other planets, the question of the Fall and curse immediately arises. In Romans 8:22 we read that the entire universe is tormented by the effects of the Fall and the curse. And what, Adam’s sin brings death to other planets? Did God create intelligent beings on other planets? If they have a soul, do they also need to be saved?

The Bible clearly tells us that man is the center of God's attention. Therefore, we can be sure that no other extraterrestrial beings are created in the image of God like humans. They would not be the objects of God's merciful salvation, which the Father demonstrated through His Son, Jesus Christ.

On the other hand, an evolutionary worldview must assume that life arises where the right conditions exist. But what does the science (data) say? Of the eight planets in the solar system, only one, Earth, is suitable for life. Of the nearly thousand exoplanets known today, only a few are theoretically suitable for life. And even these few planets make us seriously think about the existence of conditions necessary for life on them.

The search for life on other planets is consistent with the Creation model, and completely contradicts the evolutionary worldview. The earth has countless amazing properties, including the presence of two great luminaries, the Sun and the Moon, showing God's care for His creation.

Dr. Danny Faulkner was hired Genesis Answers after serving 26 years as a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of South Carolina at Lancaster. He is the author of numerous articles in astronomical journals, and the author of the book The universe as a result of design.