Hubble takes the biggest image ever of Andromeda at 1.5 billion pixels

[magnifier661]

You want me to say whatever words you want to attribute to me?

Right!

I don't doubt life exists outside our solar system. It just may be so rare that the nearest life to us might be so far away we can't easily detect it.

Glad we could change your opinion, from being skeptical, to having no doubt Denny... This is what you posted earlier in this thread. It seem jlpk and I smacked you around good enough for you to finally change your opinion.

I'm a skeptic. It seems to me that if life were everywhere, we'd easily detect it. We don't.

There is a lot of evidence that suggests it should arise all over the place, yet we can't find it in our own solar system.

Focus on earth-like planets in the goldilocks zone may be incomplete. The earth has a lot of other features, like plate tectonics and a magnetosphere and a huge moon in comparison to the planet size.

There's a decent sized list of stars within just 21 light years here: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/astro/nearstar.html. If there were any advanced life on planets within 21 light years, it seems we'd be able to watch their TV shows and hear their radio broadcasts.

I have no reason to believe anything but the origin of life is an improbable event. If you put less optimistic numbers into the Drake equation, you come up with number of civilizations less than one.

CHECKMATE

 

[Denny Crane]

Wtf?

Do you comprehend the English language when you quote me?

You and the logic thing and science thing

 

[magnifier661]

Wtf?

Do you comprehend the English language when you quote me?

You and the logic thing and science thing

Ah the "you don't understand me" argument.

What's not to understand Denny? You said you were skeptical, with a probability of less than 1, and now you say "I have no doubt life exists outside this planet". Seems you may be the one that doesn't understand yourself...

 

[Denny Crane]

Not exactly. The comprehension thing is clearly a problem you have. You've attributed statements to me, jlprk, and Tlong in this thread that we haven't written.

You said NASA says it's a theory, when they didn't.

I'm skeptical we're going to find life as easily as scientists claim. Seth Shostak of SETI says he's certain they will find intelligent life outside of earth within a decade. I'm dubious.

Now do your thing and quote me and outright lie about what I really wrote. It's your M.O.

 

[Denny Crane]

And a probability of less than 1 does not mean "no chance at all." It means "small chance" and "rare result."

 

[magnifier661]

Not exactly. The comprehension thing is clearly a problem you have. You've attributed statements to me, jlprk, and Tlong in this thread that we haven't written.

You said NASA says it's a theory, when they didn't.

I'm skeptical we're going to find life as easily as scientists claim. Seth Shostak of SETI says he's certain they will find intelligent life outside of earth within a decade. I'm dubious.

Now do your thing and quote me and outright lie about what I really wrote. It's your M.O.

I quoted your entire post. Did I change anything? Did you not say you were skeptical with a probability of less than 1? Did you just not recently say you don't doubt life exists outside our solar system?

What am I mis-quoting?

 

[magnifier661]

And a probability of less than 1 does not mean "no chance at all." It means "small chance" and "rare result."

Nice back peddle. Arguing with jlpk about that probability being "un-probable" leans more towards you not believing than actually believing. But I commend myself and jlpk for changing your mind. When you say "I don't doubt", that means an absolute probability.

 

[Denny Crane]

You quoted me saying not at all what you keep claiming I've said.

You quoted the nat geo article (or whatever that source was) and completely ignored what it actually said and went on blabbering that it said something else entirely. You claimed NASA said their explanation about the night sky is a theory (not that you've demonstrated you understand what a scientific theory actually is) when it said no such thing.

It's a consistent failure On your part.

My skepticism is not a thing of disbelief, it is one of requiring hard proof.

 

[Denny Crane]

Absolute probability is an oxymoron.

 

[Denny Crane]

You have no clue about what probable means.

You're just digging your already deep hole even deeper.

With two dice there is a 1:36 chance of rolling snake eyes, and 1:6 of rolling a 6. If you roll the dice, you may not roll either. The 1:6 is improbable, not impossible like you seem to believe.

I've written what I believe several times now. Not once have I posted conflicting positions.

Mags cited Ben Zuckerman as if he believes there is no life elsewhere. Wrong.

http://www.toacorn.com/news/2014-06-12/Community/The_search_for_life_in_outer_space.html


“My feeling is that the origin of life is a very improbable event. . . . If the origin of life is improbable, then few planets, even those in the habitable zone, will contain life.”

Not "impossible" and "few" not "none".

Translation for the probability-challenged:
“My feeling is that the origin of life is a very improbable (1 of every million) event. . . . If the origin of life is improbable, then few (only quadrillions instead of quintillions of) planets, even those in the habitable zone, will contain life.”

Comprendo? Yet?

 

[magnifier661]

You quoted me saying not at all what you keep claiming I've said.

You quoted the nat geo article (or whatever that source was) and completely ignored what it actually said and went on blabbering that it said something else entirely. You claimed NASA said their explanation about the night sky is a theory (not that you've demonstrated you understand what a scientific theory actually is) when it said no such thing.

It's a consistent failure On your part.

My skepticism is not a thing of disbelief, it is one of requiring hard proof.

Spoken like a true fence straddler. It's weird that you keep bringing up the nasa thing, when that's not we are discussing now.

I have presented arguments for black holes (that absorb light) or multiverses that can explain infinite. I may not agree with the multiverse, but real money and empirical testing is still being focused on these theories.

The absolute probablility is just another attempt for you to argue schematics than your statement. For argument sake, let's say you went from highly improbable, being less than the value of one, to highly probable, with you saying "I don't doubt"

 

[magnifier661]

You have no clue about what probable means.

You're just digging your already deep hole even deeper.

With two dice there is a 1:36 chance of rolling snake eyes, and 1:6 of rolling a 6. If you roll the dice, you may not roll either. The 1:6 is improbable, not impossible like you seem to believe.

I've written what I believe several times now. Not once have I posted conflicting positions.





Comprendo? Yet?

Yet you don't doubt now? Checkmate

 

[Denny Crane]

Your use of the word "schematics " twice now is a misuse of the word. A schematic is an engineering drawing.

I don't doubt life exists in at least one othe place in the universe. Period.

I doubt we will find conclusive evidence that it does.

Odds are not proof, they only suggest the likelihood. That likelihood is not ZERO.

If we do find even a single microbe not of this earth, it suggests the universe is full of life.

 

[magnifier661]

Your use of the word "schematics " twice now is a misuse of the word. A schematic is an engineering drawing.

I don't doubt life exists in at least one othe place in the universe. Period.

I doubt we will find conclusive evidence that it does.

Odds are not proof, they only suggest the likelihood. That likelihood is not ZERO.

If we do find even a single microbe not of this earth, it suggests the universe is full of life.

Semantics. And I lol that you just did it again arguing my use of an autocorrect word.

Oh so you doubt now. You admit your "don't doubt" was a complete brain fart by you?

 

[Denny Crane]

I see no reason why life can only exist here on earth.

Doubt is measured by the odds. And it's a matter of which odds: life elsewhere or life on quintillions of worlds or whether we can confirm this life with 100% (not 99.999999999999%) surety.

I've been consistently stating my position in different words hoping the concepts sink in. A 5th grader would get it, but you don't. Or don't want to - check and mate.

jlprk called you probability challenged. He's right.

 

[magnifier661]

I see no reason why life can only exist here on earth.

Doubt is measured by the odds. And it's a matter of which odds: life elsewhere or life on quintillions of worlds or whether we can confirm this life with 100% (not 99.999999999999%) surety.

I've been consistently stating my position in different words hoping the concepts sink in. A 5th grader would get it, but you don't. Or don't want to - check and mate.

jlprk called you probability challenged. He's right.

Sorry, probability less than 1 is doubting. I have a chance greater than your probability explained about life outside our solar system of winning the lotto, but I highly doubt I can win the lotto by playing.

It's not my fault you are posing like block head and straddling the fence throughout this thread.

 

[Denny Crane]

Doubt is not denial.

Keep digging and abusing the language.

 

[Denny Crane]

And... You doubt you will win the lottery, but there is a chance you can win. Your doubt does not mean you will lose. Failing to buy a ticket is the only sure way to not win.

 

[magnifier661]

Doubt is not denial.

Keep digging and abusing the language.

That's not what is being argued here Denny. We aren't saying you are denying life exists outside this solar system. What I am exposing is you went from being highly improbable to highly probable. You went from "doubt" to "no doubt".

I'm done with this because no matter what you try to cover, you are just wrong. Jlpk took your lunch and has already left triumphant. I am going to do the same.

Happy new year and better luck next time buddy!

 

[magnifier661]

And... You doubt you will win the lottery, but there is a chance you can win. Your doubt does not mean you will lose. Failing to buy a ticket is the only sure way to not win.

Um yeah?!?! That's exactly what I'm saying. As I've tried to present to you all morning. You went from highly improbable to highly probable in this thread.

Just read above... I've already won and will move on

 

[Denny Crane]

I never said highly probable. There you go again.

The odds of winning the california lottery is about 1:259,000,000

That's less than 1.

Someone wins, eventually. Not every week, but eventually. Less than 1 doesn't mean impossible as you've translated my words to mean.

The odds that jlprk suggests that there is life is akin to a coin flip (50-50, or 1:2). I've written (in different combinations of words with the hope that you'll comprehend their meaning) that the odds of life nobody knows, that I think it's similar to the tiny 1:259,000,000 number and that jlprk and many scientists seem to think it's 50-50. I say it looks like way < 1 odds because we can't find it. jlprk says the universe is so big that there's lots of life but it doesn't have to be close enough for us to detect. I say if we can detect it, it's a good indication it's everywhere. If we can't detect it, it suggests that what life is out there is infrequent and likely to be so far away from us that we may as well be alone in the universe (as the astrophysicist you quoted, then mischaracterized, actually said).

People express doubt as a measure of odds because doubt means:



The "truth" in this discussion being the chances of winning the life lottery.

 

[jlprk]

I'm skeptical we're going to find life as easily as scientists claim. Seth Shostak of SETI says he's certain they will find intelligent life outside of earth within a decade. I'm dubious.

Obviously, he's just fund-raising. Just like whoever said that Saddam had rape rooms. You are such a sucker for ads.

 

[Denny Crane]

Obviously, he's just fund-raising. Just like whoever said that Saddam had rape rooms. You are such a sucker for ads.

He's moved the goalposts back a bit.

http://www.space.com/24622-intelligent-alien-life-detection-2040.html

Bold Prediction: Intelligent Alien Life Could Be Found by 2040

"I think we'll find E.T. within two dozen years using these sorts of experiments," Shostak said here Thursday (Feb. 6) during a talk at the 2014 NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) symposium at Stanford University.

 

[jlprk]

An organization put the biggest optimist they could find in charge, a true believer to network while making fund-raising pep talks. No!

 

[Daweez04]

Not to quibble, but if there were an incalculable number of stars, the night sky would be like daylight.

Light from the farthest reaches of the universe hasn't even reached us yet, so maybe once the light from the end of the universe does reach us, it will be like daylight.

Thus, since we can't even see to the end of the universe, it is impossible to calculate the number of stars in the universe. They "guess" there are over 100 billion galaxies, well that could be 101 billion or 200 billion. That is far too big of a variance to give a responsible estimate, let alone calculate it. So yes, it is incalculable.

Finally, incalculable doesn't equal infinite. You are jumping to conclusions on what was meant by my statement.

 

[Denny Crane]

Light from the farthest reaches of the universe hasn't even reached us yet, so maybe once the light from the end of the universe does reach us, it will be like daylight.

Thus, since we can't even see to the end of the universe, it is impossible to calculate the number of stars in the universe. They "guess" there are over 100 billion galaxies, well that could be 101 billion or 200 billion. That is far too big of a variance to give a responsible estimate, let alone calculate it. So yes, it is incalculable.

Finally, incalculable doesn't equal infinite. You are jumping to conclusions on what was meant by my statement.

Fair enough.

There certainly is a finite number that we can see, and the sky is black.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Fair enough.

There certainly is a finite number that we can see, and the sky is black.

If there‘s all those stars, why is it dark at night?
One hundred billion galaxies, all full of millions of stars, seems like a lot but it isn’t nearly enough to make the night sky as bright as day. If there were an infinite number of stars and the universe was infinitely old, there would be a star everywhere you looked in the night sky and it would be very bright indeed.

But the universe isn’t infinitely old. It was created approximately 14 billion years ago and since the speed of light is constant, we can only see objects that are less than 14 billion light years away. This means that we are living within a spherical ‘observable universe’ which is smaller that the total universe and that the light from stars further away from us than 14 billion light years will not have had enough time to reach the Earth.

In addition, the universe is expanding and all the galaxies, and their stars, are moving away from us. Thanks to this, the light from a moving star changes colour in a similar way that sound from a moving ambulance siren changes pitch. The light that we observe from distant receding stars is more red than it would be if they were stationary – the light is ‘red shifted’. In many cases the red shift is large enough to move the light out of the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum.

http://www.physics.org/facts/sand-dark.asp

 

[Denny Crane]

Your argument for the night sky is just a theory. So it's can be scrutinized. Nice try though cuttie

 

[Denny Crane]

scrutiny.

http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-space/dark-sky.html

Besides being very hard to imagine, the trouble with an infinite universe is that no matter where you look in the night sky, you should see a star. Stars should overlap each other in the sky like tree trunks in the middle of a very thick forest. But, if this were the case, the sky would be blazing with light. This problem greatly troubled astronomers and became known as "Olbers' Paradox." A paradox is a statement that seems to disagree with itself.

Astronomers now realize that the universe is not infinite. A finite universe—that is, a universe of limited size—even one with trillions and trillions of stars, just wouldn't have enough stars to light up all of space.

 

[MarAzul]

Won't it be cool when we see the Blue shift?

When all those stars travelling away reach the end of their tether and begin to contract the Universe, they will be traveling toward us
and we them. Viola! The Blue shift! err maybe viola.

Just because we are still blasting outward from the big bang doesn't mean it will last forever. I think, it will contract and do it again,
in as like a natural oscillator. Natural oscillators exist through out nature (like the interglacial cycle), so it is logical this is just another, while we are too limited in
time to observe but a segment of what appears to be a linear progression. Illogical.