Quote (Ep0ch @ 11 Aug 2018 13:39)
There's like 30k words, but yes and no.
They use data from earth, a place we know sustains life, and look for specific markers on other planets that match earths. Increasing the likely hood of finding another planet suitable for life.
The focus seems to be on planets that are subject to specific wavelength's of light, such as uv, as well as being in a local goldilocks zone, among other factors.
For some reason science implies a huge gap between biotic and abiotic matter, peoples minds are blown at the thought of DNA and RNA processing into things like proteins but consider things such as a gravity simple and commonplace.. my point being I feel like science looks for life only in areas where we might expect it based on our little globe
If things like stars and planets can form spontaneously through active forces I don't see why 'life' cannot come to be in those areas as a chemical resultant
It has been a theory of mine for a long time that our definition of life is inaccurate because there is no data that correlates the transition from abiotic to biotic
Interesting stuff