Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 20, 2007 14:31:46 GMT -4
But up until now you have been saying "there is nothing out there" not "it's improbable that something is out there." My position is simply that we don't yet know enough to have an informed opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Jul 20, 2007 22:00:40 GMT -4
But up until now you have been saying "there is nothing out there" not "it's improbable that something is out there." My position is simply that we don't yet know enough to have an informed opinion. I don't know what context I said "there is nothing out there". It depends on what I mean by "nothing" and "out there". If I said that, and I doubt I did, it was within a certain context and I think it is not fair for you to take that out of context to make me sound kookier than I really am. As far as it being improbable and as far as your position that we do not know enough to have an informed opinion, I have heard that too but I have also heard that we do know enough to make a very informed opinion. I have to wonder what motivates people to say we do not know enough to make an informed opinion. I will say this. It usually said when looking for a grant for another SETI project or a plea for more funds or it is said by scientists whose careers are tied closely with such projects. I have also heard that when Sagan was alive he would ridicule and go after any professor who disagreed with is often highly optimistic view of ETI. I heard stories in college that he tried to ruin careers. Of course Cosmos, the book and the TV program had a vested interest in getting people thinking it was highly possible -- CHA-CHING!! Also, it is an emotional issue that sci-fi fans are really into. I have been treated very irrationally and unfairly on forums discussing this topic. So, naturally, I begin to wonder if people who believe in ETI are thinking with their hearts and not their heads. I have seen hundreds of times how people who want to believe something will mold their perception of reality to fit what they wanted to believe. This is true with other subjects. Why would it be different here? My position is simply that we don't yet know enough to have an informed opinion. I disagree. Here is why. Ask any kid who watches the Discovery Chanel or the Science Channel -- a kid who has never missed an episode about space or the universe -- if we live in a universe that is life-friendly or life-hostile. I doubt you will ever hear such a kid say that it is life-friendly. And the more we know, the more hostile it seems. That trend suddenly turning around is a pipe dream. You might argue "but we are here" but we are here just barely. How many times has the Earth suffered massive extinction? And it would be much more frequent if we were not so lucky as to have 4 colossal super giant gravity magnets as outer planets. Take them away, and we are gone. We also have a massive heavy metal core that gives us our magnetic field. Take that away, and we are gone. Nudge us a little closer to the sun, and we are gone. Move us a little further away from the sun and we are gone And there is more, if you are not convinced. But you should be.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 21, 2007 0:09:38 GMT -4
I think it's very interesting that your attitude here is positively medeival. In the Middle Ages the opinion was that man was alone in the universe - the Earth was a unique creation, and mankind with it. Today Fermi's paradox is also saying the Earth is unique, and mankind with it.
Interesting parallel, don't you think? Drawing the same conclusions with the same dogmatic certainty but from entirely different grounds. It makes you wonder if things have changed at all since the Middle Ages, or if the change has just been scenary and wardrobe, with the same lines being spoken anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Jul 21, 2007 1:25:03 GMT -4
I think it's very interesting that your attitude here is positively medeival. In the Middle Ages the opinion was that man was alone in the universe - the Earth was a unique creation, and mankind with it. Today Fermi's paradox is also saying the Earth is unique, and mankind with it. Google Enrico Fermi. He was not that retarded !! Interesting parallel, don't you think? Drawing the same conclusions with the same dogmatic certainty but from entirely different grounds. It makes you wonder if things have changed at all since the Middle Ages, or if the change has just been scenary and wardrobe, with the same lines being spoken anyway. Have someone explain Fermi's Paradox to you in person. And about your history lesson let me say this. The historic trend goes the other way that you think it does. If you read the Scientific Article, you can see that. People used to think there was life on the moon. Lots of people was sure of it (know who I am talking about?). Then lots of people thought that way about Mars. One by one the livable habitats keep getting crossed off the list. People once thought there had to be life on many of the stars. But then it was discovered that most stars a binary. The extra solar planet hunters don't even bother looking for planets around binary stars. Then black holes were discovered and other star systems were planets are unlikely. Then it was discovered that our star system could not have been formed from the star that we orbit because of the heavy metals that Earths has (that we need in order to survive by its creating the magnetic field). Instead we had to have been formed from an exploded super nova. So that narrows the gap even more as far as live is concerned. And this weird border-line name calling of yours tells me this is a religious issue with you and not one about science or impartial reason. WIthout giving me a reason why I should believe, you are basically saying it is my duty or something?
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 21, 2007 2:17:55 GMT -4
if we were not so lucky as to have 4 colossal super giant gravity magnets as outer planets. Take them away, and we are gone. And it is impossible for another stellar system to contain four (or more) gas giants? Actually, we have a flowing molten iron outer core which gives us out magnetic field. And it is impossible for another planet in another stellar system to have a magnetic field similar to ours? And it is impossible for another planet in another stellar system to exist in its parent star's habitable zone as we do? Yes, there are a great many factors necessary for life to develop and survive as it has on Earth... none of which you have so much as suggested are impossible to happen elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Jul 21, 2007 3:12:28 GMT -4
if we were not so lucky as to have 4 colossal super giant gravity magnets as outer planets. Take them away, and we are gone. And it is impossible for another stellar system to contain four (or more) gas giants? It is not impossible for me to survive falling out of a 3 story building, but the odds are against it. So far the extra solar planets found don't have our life-friendly arrangement. if we were not so lucky as to have 4 colossal super giant gravity magnets as outer planets. Take them away, and we are gone. And it is impossible for another stellar system to contain four (or more) gas giants? Actually, we have a flowing molten iron outer core which gives us out magnetic field. And it is impossible for another planet in another stellar system to have a magnetic field similar to ours? well, a system would have to have have to have both, the molten iron core and the large gas giants sucking up all the impact making objects. So now the probablity has shrunk a lot more. We are taling about something closer to dropping a nickle and having it land on its edge. Sure it is possible. But, ANYthing is possible. But the odds are against it. Don't bet your life on it. Well it would have to have the other two things too. This isn't a one shot deal. if you have a string of unlikely things all toghter where each thing has only one percent of occuring, you go down with each multiple of percents exponentially. 1 percent of 1 percent is 0.01 percent. One percent of that would be 0.0001 percent One percnet of that would be 0.000001 percent. Soon it becomes clear that we are just probably lucky to be here. Now, what point were you trying to make by addressing my post one fact at a time? It seems as if you are out to change the way things really are. It is you that use the word "impossible" not me. Virtually impossible or highly improbable are two different things. Since anything is possible, including Santa Claus and Dragons and Unicorns, where does that leave us? You believe this just because you want to. Like many other things, you are thinking with your heart and not your head. And I noticed you ignored the fact that the vast majority of stars are binary. Plus there are other factors that I have not even mentioned yet that knock the odds down even more. It is an equation of multiples, each one making the odds of finding another ETI less and less exponentially until only blind dreamers would have hope.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 21, 2007 3:35:41 GMT -4
It is not impossible for me to survive falling out of a 3 story building, but the odds are against it. We can have fairly reliable statistics on which to establish the survival rate of a 3-story fall. What are the statistics on which you base your "odds" of 4 (or more) gas giants forming around the same star? And 246 examples detected over less than 20 years, which statistically skew toward massive planets with tight orbits due to the limits of our present detection abilities, hardly constitute an exhaustive survey of the galaxy, much less the universe.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 21, 2007 12:12:23 GMT -4
I understand the paradox perfectly well. What I don't accpet are the assumptions it is based on - assumptions for which we have too little data for an informed opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Jul 21, 2007 19:32:59 GMT -4
It is not impossible for me to survive falling out of a 3 story building, but the odds are against it. We can have fairly reliable statistics on which to establish the survival rate of a 3-story fall. What are the statistics on which you base your "odds" of 4 (or more) gas giants forming around the same star? And 246 examples detected over less than 20 years, which statistically skew toward massive planets with tight orbits due to the limits of our present detection abilities, hardly constitute an exhaustive survey of the galaxy, much less the universe. As far as the universe goes, what good is it to think of life in some galaxy beyond any reasonable method of communication or contact? Massive planets with tight orbits statistically skew the data away from what we would consider an ideal star sytem for life. And I should add that you keep doing the same thing. The point is simply this. We can observe many special things about our planet and our place in the solar system and the way our solar system is. All of these things have one thing in common. If you take away one of these things, we would not be here at all. You demand that I provide exact percentages of likelihood for each of these things. Well, what is more important is that there are dozens of these things and they each seem pretty rare. They ALL have to be here in order for us to exist. Take away ANY of them and we could not survive. So the issue is not how likly one or two of them are it is how likely is it for ALL of them to be in another star system. I told you that I can give you a lot more. But am I just wasting my time? If you have not been convinced yet, what good will it do for me to list all the other ones. And, by the way, I have saved some of the really good ones just because they take longer to type out. If this debate comtines, you might draw it out of me. In the meantine, lets discuss Refuges for Life in a Hostile Universe. I will PM you a link to it. I think that Enrico Fermi answered the question of "if" there is ETI. And science is just now catching up to answer the "why". And I am not alone. The trend with those who once thought the idea of us being alone in the galaxy as being absurd are now putting their dreams away and coming around. The SETI Institute has a good write up on Fermi's Paradox: Fermi's Paradox on The SETI Institute Part I Fermi's Paradox on The SETI Institude Part II Fermi's Paradox on The SETI Institude Part III Once they never mentioned Fermi's Paradox. When I first downloaded SETI@HOME I never saw it mentioned on their web site. Now they seem to suggest that it will either take some big dramatic alien soap opera to explain why we seem to be alone, or (and they actually admit it now) we might be alone. The Seti@home project itself has lost some steam because The Planetary Society has bundled the screen saver into another project that does number crunching for other projects. So I think we mediocre dolts are just coming around to thinking that what the genius thought was true. Sure there are books written to try to explain away Fermi's Paradox, but they just amount to apologists speaking in behalf of a cult. Nether they nor their readers have the credentials that Fermi had. I understand the paradox perfectly well. What I don't accpet are the assumptions it is based on - assumptions for which we have too little data for an informed opinion. Fermi never said that there could be some intelligent life hiding out there undetected. But that does not do us any good. Apart from supporting a preconceived ideology, what good does it do anyone to think there is intelligent life out there that we cannot reach? All Fermi esentially asked was "why are they not here?" If that does not mean that for sure they are not out there, as you say it does, it at least means that it is extremely unlikely we will ever find then and they will never find us. Otherwise, the would have by now. I think Fermi was 100% right. If the occurance of life was common, there would definately be another species like us by now and long before we came along since we came along billions of years after the galaxy was formed. He answered the "if". All we have to do is find the "why". I think one of the many multiples of "why" is in biology. I think we are at the end of a very long timeline and food chain that also had to have happened just right and against many odds. There might be lots of planets with microbrial life but very very very few with anything more than that and as you go through the steps towards creatures simular to us, the odds get exponentially less. People do not know two things. #1. For the vast majority of time Earth had life it was microbial. Now you might argue that because we do not have another planet to compare to. So far, this single example does not paint a favorable picture for finding life more advanced than microbes. #2. Human beings have spend the vast majority of our existance being no better than food for other animals. People do not like to talk, think, or write about this and science programs dealing with this subject are on late at night on The Discovery Channel to avoid hate mail from religious groups. But the evidence shows that we were hunted rather than hunters for our first 7 million years on Earth. That would not be an intelligent species to contact across the cosmos. The point is that we are here but just barely. Using our existance to the support the idea of ETI is not sound logic.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 22, 2007 1:46:34 GMT -4
Massive planets with tight orbits statistically skew the data away from what we would consider an ideal star sytem for life. That is not what I said. I said the statistics of what we are presently able to detect skew toward massive planets with tight orbits. 20 years ago, we weren't able to detect any at all. Would those statistics support the assertion that there were no extra-solar planets? I have not demanded anything. I have asked on what you base your odds of any particular feature occurring in an arbitrarily chosen stellar system. You claim that such features are rare. How do you know? On what percentage of stars have such features been confirmed, on what percentage have such features been completely ruled out, and on what percentage do we just not know? Agreed. So, how likely is that? Statistically combine the odds of each of those features occurring, and you will know roughly what the odds are that an arbitrary system will possess all of those features. So until we have those individual statistics, how can we know what those combined statistics are? Convinced of what? That anything not currently discovered must not exist, ergo to look for anything more is a waste of time and effort? Why are those mythical water buffalo not clogging the street every time I leave my driveway? What if it's not "common." What if it is indeed rare, but not so rare that we are it? Is that not more of a reason to actively search for it? Nor is "If it isn't walking down my street right now, it must not exist."
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 22, 2007 9:57:35 GMT -4
Okay, how can you prove there isn't something better than a puppy out there? Countless times, I have discussed that the burden of proof is on those who say something does exist, not on those who say it does not. And as I have said before, no one at SETI is saying that ETI does exist, just that it might. It's a possibility that can't be ruled out (since as even you admit, you can't prove something doesn't exist) and that makes it worth investigating. You're basically saying that since we can't prove aliens exist NOW we shouldn't even investigate the possibility in order to prove their existence LATER. You want us to prove their existence before we have even looked... don't you see the problem with that? Don't you see the problem with requiring an answer before the investigation has been completed? The fact that intelligent life exists on at least one planet that we know of (Earth) is all the reason I need to believe it can exist elsewhere. Our existence works against Fermi's Paradox because if it can happen here there is no reason it can't happen elsewhere. It might be extremely rare, but if it can happen once it can happen again.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Jul 23, 2007 23:34:06 GMT -4
And as I have said before, no one at SETI is saying that ETI does exist, just that it might. It's a possibility that can't be ruled out (since as even you admit, you can't prove something doesn't exist) I'm with you so far. Well, maybe. There is a cost to investigating it. We don't have unlimited resources to investigate every possible thing that might be interesting. We have to decide which possibilities are worth pursuing, and which are not, and we have to make that decision in the absence of complete information. There's just no way around that. So while I agree there is not (and cannot be) any proof that ETI does not exist, the implication that we ought to look for it doesn't follow automatically. That said, my understanding of SETI is that it now is privately funded. If that's the case, then they can look for intelligent microbes on Pervez Musharraf's nose hairs for all I care, as long as I'm not asked to pay for it. If a private group wants to use their own resources to look for ETI, then that's up to them.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Aug 12, 2007 13:00:35 GMT -4
From a biblical standpoint, there is no life on other planets. God did not create intelligent life anywhere else in the universe, with the exception of angels, which are spirits.
God created life on Earth.
Satan came to Earth to spread his rebellion.
Jesus came to Earth to die for man's sin.
Jesus will return to Earth to reign for a millennium.
Afterwards, God will destroy and remake the entire universe (including Earth).
The new (heavenly) Jerusalem will descend from heaven to the new Earth.
Christ will rule and reign for all eternity in the new Jerusalem.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Aug 12, 2007 13:57:44 GMT -4
Afterwards, God will destroy and remake the entire universe (including Earth). Will people be destroyed too? Will the new Universe have different natural laws than ours?
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Aug 12, 2007 18:26:32 GMT -4
From a biblical standpoint, there is no life on other planets. God did not create intelligent life anywhere else in the universe, with the exception of angels, which are spirits. Different religions say that the universe is full of life. If you are a Sociologist, you would think it is assured that there is life and we are a very small part of the drama that has played out over "trillions" of years. Hubbard was sure there was a base on Mars as recent as a few decades ago. Brigham Young talked about life on the moon. We are limited to the confines of our own species. We cannot step outside of ourselves and see things 100% as they really are. What a religion says today is true, tomorrow it might be forced to redefine its rhetoric and dogma in light of ever changing knowledge from science and research. And we reinterpret what scripture said as really meaning something else. The fact that there is no life on the moon does not steer anyone away from Mormonism. The fact that there is not a base on Mars does not steer anyone away from Scientology. In both cases people say that the meaning of the worlds were misinterpreted and they redefine their theology and move on. As I said before, we are limited beings. Our minds are not logical machines like computers. And even if we use computers, we would input the data that we want to get the results we want. It is logical to think that Fermi was smarter than all of us put together. It is logical to think that he had a point even though all the other scientists at that lunch table in Los Alamos Lab was sure that there had to be intelligent life in our galaxy like us. I see a connection between Fermi's Paradox and the Seti @ home project. Because of Fermi's Paradox, we will not get a good hit with the Seti @home project. I think if the Seti@home project was underway when Fermi was alive he would be sure that it would not get a hit. Now, no, I am not saying that there are some beings out there some where that we cannot reach. But I am working with the information and data we have and looking at it logically.
|
|