Maybe I am missing something, but this article doesn't seems to support the hypothesis the title advances.
First it explains that the habitable zone for planets is bigger than we thought, but then it also introduces a ton of new criteria (other than distance from the planet's star) that must be met for a planet to support life (size, composition, orbit, etc.).
To me that implies that there is likely LESS life out there, not more. The summary version of the article as I read it is: over the past 20 years the habitable zone got bigger, but we realized that habitable zone is only one requirement of many for a planet to be habitable.
How does that support the article's title? (Serious question, not trying to be snarky. Me = not a science guy.)
May be the author derived the title from this last sentence:
What if exotic forms of life could thrive where there is no liquid water at all - swimming around in lakes of liquid methane on Saturn's frigid moon, Titan, for example?
But then these things have been known and being considered for decades. What calls for an article on this with such a sensational title?
Looks like this publication has a thing for sensationalism.IMO, not a very good indicator of being scientific.
First it explains that the habitable zone for planets is bigger than we thought, but then it also introduces a ton of new criteria (other than distance from the planet's star) that must be met for a planet to support life (size, composition, orbit, etc.).
To me that implies that there is likely LESS life out there, not more. The summary version of the article as I read it is: over the past 20 years the habitable zone got bigger, but we realized that habitable zone is only one requirement of many for a planet to be habitable.
How does that support the article's title? (Serious question, not trying to be snarky. Me = not a science guy.)