Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galaxy

[Arrqh]

Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax

And? Where have I said that weather is 'random'?
It's governed by chaos theory - meaning it's VERY complex, generating a great variety of environments.

If you're talking about life as a random process, why are you talking about chaos? They are fundamentally different.

Chaotic systems are fully deterministic and are predictable in the short term. Random systems are not predictable with a small number of trials and are predictable with a sufficiently large number.

Also - radioactive decay is NOT governed by chaos theory; indeed, it's a rather predictable phenomeon (within rather tight probabilistical boundaries) - in this respect, it's nothing like weather (which is most definitely NOT predictable over long periods - no one will be able to tell you what the weather in a year will be like - this limitation is due to chaos theory mathematics and is fundamental)

Yes, this was my point, I thought I was pretty clear about that. Radioactive decay is random, and thus predictable over time. Weather is chaotic (and deterministic) and is not. If the formation of life is governed by random processes as you are insisting this means that it is predicable over a long enough period of time.

Of course the 'wrong' reactions would preclude the ulterior 'right' reactions - you see, the compunds needed for the 'right' reactions would not exist.

With sufficiently large quantities of the "starter" materials, of course they would.

Lets take an overly simplified look!

You have substance A and substance B in sufficiently large quantities to never run out. Once a second, they interact. There's a 1% chance that an interaction will form substance C and a 99% chance that every interaction will form substance D. Over the course of, say, a million seconds you will predictably have about 10,000 units of C and 990,000 because over large timescales, random processes produce predictable results. Now all these things can react together in different ways, so A and B only interact once every two seconds and C and A interact once every two seconds. Lets say that there's a 1% chance that when C and A interact, they create life. It is a certainty over a long enough timescale that life will be created, many times in fact! The only limiting factor would be quantities of A and B.

I'm not biologist, but the four nucleotides are all made up of different configurations of nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen. I'm not aware of a shortage of any one of these. Obviously reality would be much more complicated then my little example, with many more limiting factors... and a timescale on the order of billions of years.

Your entire argument is essentially a house of cards built on faulty assumptions about the conditions and requirements for life to form and a lack of understanding on how random systems behave and probability.

 

[doublegoodprole]

Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax

"life can make it on some moon of Saturn"?

That's a completely unproven speculation and NOT a fact, doublegoodprole.
When - AND IF - life is found on Mars/Euopa/Titan/etc, then you can come with this argument. Until then, it's worthless.

Well, I said IF. IF life can make it on some moon of Saturn. Maybe it's not the most elegant sentence in the world, but I'm well aware we haven't found extraterrestrial life as of yet.

we have a pretty good ideea how many sons existed or exist in the Milky Way - and only a small fraction of them can support the evolution of intelligent life (classes K, G, and maybe - probably not - F). And that's just the first term of Drake's equation.

And where is your proof that life can only evolve as it did on Earth, anyway? And even if we are the only life-bearing planet in this galaxy--or even in the local group--that still leaves us with a hell of a lot of stars that could be solar twins. Sorry, but the numbers are against you.

I think it's almost laughably small-minded to assume that in the entire universe, life has only occurred once and once only.

It's "laughably small-minded" to assume that life appears just about everywhere - despite strong indications to the contrary - just because you want it to, doublegoodprole.

I don't see any strong indications to the contrary. I see a universe with many stars, and no reason to assume that we are in any way special, universally speaking. We know life can exist on one world. Why is it such a stretch to think it might have occurred on another? Because we haven't seen it?

The numbers are against you, sadly.

 

[sojourner]

Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax

I give up guys. We are never going to get ProtoAvatar to admit that the possibility exists beyond the point of being ridiculously improbable. He obviously has access to solid data on the subject (although he only keeps repeating "thousands to millions of steps").

I stand by my belief that it's possible. Probable? not likely. Ludicrous to think it's possible? no.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax

"life can make it on some moon of Saturn"?

That's a completely unproven speculation and NOT a fact, doublegoodprole.
When - AND IF - life is found on Mars/Euopa/Titan/etc, then you can come with this argument. Until then, it's worthless.

Well, I said IF. IF life can make it on some moon of Saturn. Maybe it's not the most elegant sentence in the world, but I'm well aware we haven't found extraterrestrial life as of yet.

And this 'if' renders this argument of yours worthless - as I already said.

we have a pretty good ideea how many sons existed or exist in the Milky Way - and only a small fraction of them can support the evolution of intelligent life (classes K, G, and maybe - probably not - F). And that's just the first term of Drake's equation.

And where is your proof that life can only evolve as it did on Earth, anyway? And even if we are the only life-bearing planet in this galaxy--or even in the local group--that still leaves us with a hell of a lot of stars that could be solar twins.

You don't seem to understand, doublegoodprole.
Life - any kind of life - can only evolve around K,G,maybe F stars.

Why?
Because all other types either burn too fast (too fast for life to have time to evolve), or, by solar eruptions, burn any potentially viable planet every 2-3 milion years.

Look it up - K,G,maybe F are a small procent of all stars (not so "many stars" anymore) - look it up.
And, as said, that's only the first term of the Drake equation. The next terms are far more draconian.

Sorry, but the numbers are against you.

You repeating that won't make it true, doublegoodprole.

And so far, you came with no argument that can resist a quantitative appraisal.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax

I give up guys. We are never going to get ProtoAvatar to admit that the possibility exists beyond the point of being ridiculously improbable.

In order to get me to admit something you must first come with arguments to support that 'something' - beyond 'because I say so' or straw-men, sojourner.

PS
As for your fallacious 'you prove the contrary':
sojourner, when you came with an affirmation, you are the one who must prove it (a task you failed spectacularly at). Only afterwards do I have to disprove your arguments.

 

[ThankQ]

Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax

"life can make it on some moon of Saturn"?

That's a completely unproven speculation and NOT a fact, doublegoodprole.
When - AND IF - life is found on Mars/Euopa/Titan/etc, then you can come with this argument. Until then, it's worthless.

Science makes predictions. That's not worthless. Sometimes they're accurate, sometimes not.

The black hole hypothesis seems to have worked out rather nicely.

I have a wish somewhat similar to to sojourner's, but rather than wanting to convince you, I just want you to realize that this is your take on the evidence available and not the Lord's Truth.

 

[sojourner]

Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax

I give up guys. We are never going to get ProtoAvatar to admit that the possibility exists beyond the point of being ridiculously improbable.

In order to get me to admit something you must first come with arguments to support that 'something' - beyond 'because I say so' or straw-men, sojourner.

PS
As for your fallacious 'you prove the contrary':
sojourner, when you came with an affirmation, you are the one who must prove it (a task you failed spectacularly at). Only afterwards do I have to disprove your arguments.

Sigh, you keep trying to prove that absence of proof is proof of absence. Which it isn't. Until you can get by this mindset this talk is pointless. What happens to your entire house of cards if Scientists create life in a lab say.. tomorrow?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax

sojourner
Sigh, you keep making affirmations - some even ridiculous - without backing them up in any way and you don't even realise your glaring logical fallacy. What a joke. More often than not, your posts only manage to be amusing, sojourner.

As for me, unlike you, I supported my affirmations by arguments - a fact your straw-men can't change in the least.

ThankQ
The black hole conjecture was supported by solid theoretical/mathematical calculations, relating to general relativity.
By comparison, life's appearance is not understood at all. Until they're factually proven, speculations about life on Europa/etc are worthless - they're supported by practically nothing.

 

[sojourner]

Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax

sojourner
Sigh, you keep making affirmations - some even ridiculous - without backing them up in any way and you don't even realise your glaring logical fallacy. What a joke. More often than not, your posts only manage to be amusing, sojourner.

As for me, unlike you, I supported my affirmations by arguments - a fact your straw-men can't change in the least.

Then it should be very easy for you to point out these fallacies and strawmen that you keep referring to?

At this point I would have to note that your replies are bordering more on insults than arguments.

ThankQ
The black hole conjecture was supported by solid theoretical/mathematical calculations, relating to general relativity.
By comparison, life's appearance is not understood at all. Until they're factually proven, speculations about life on Europa/etc are worthless - they're supported by practically nothing.

Considering the sever lack of data on Europa in this regard, it really hi-lights that your main argument is "absence of proof is proof of absence". Not logical.

 

[doublegoodprole]

Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax

And this 'if' renders this argument of yours worthless - as I already said.

Okay. It should be accepted by all that the possibility of life on Europa or any extraterrestrial world is not evidence nor proof of life. This, despite not being in contention by anyone, is hereby postulated.

Life - any kind of life - can only evolve around K,G,maybe F stars.

Pretty bold assertion, don't you think? You know this how? Oh, wait, here we go.

Why?
Because all other types either burn too fast (too fast for life to have time to evolve), or, by solar eruptions, burn any potentially viable planet every 2-3 milion years.

You continue to make assumptions that you simply cannot support with any viable evidence--which is the same thing you're accusing us of. And you know of a G type star that can support life. You're saying that it's next to impossible that there are other G stars in the universe that also do? Based on what? Your own feeling that life is too complicated to arise more than once?

Look it up - K,G,maybe F are a small procent of all stars (not so "many stars" anymore) - look it up.

Even this percentage is a very big number. I mean, sorry, but I think you're underestimating the number of stars in the universe.

As for the Drake Equation, it is not the ironclad rule you seem to making it out to be. Much of it is conjecture...conjecture...conjecture.

And so far, you came with no argument that can resist a quantitative appraisal.

Well, I can only submit the sheer number of stars in the universe. Seeing as you can apparently account for stellar behavior on a universal scale, I guess I should stop trying to convince you with that argument.

Or--maybe--you can admit that despite accusing me of the same thing, your argument has absolutely no real quantitative basis to stand on--and that, like all of us, you are conjecturing based on an utter lack of evidence and lack of direct observation. You just have a gut feeling. Sorry, but your logic isn't holding up for me.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax

Life - any kind of life - can only evolve around K,G,maybe F stars.

Pretty bold assertion, don't you think? You know this how? Oh, wait, here we go.

Any star larger than F will burn far too quickly to allow for the development of life - their 'habitable zone' exists for FAR too short a time.
And M class stars - every 2-3 million years - will deep fry their 'habitable zones' with massive sollar eruptions.

You continue to make assumptions that you simply cannot support with any viable evidence--which is the same thing you're accusing us of.

Are you serious?
We know how fast - or how slow - stars burn in the universe.
Just as we've observed M class stars' solar eruptions in large numbers across the sky.

At least read up - somewhat - before coming with "you simply cannot support with any viable evidence".
Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_classification
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12184029

And you know of a G type star that can support life. You're saying that it's next to impossible that there are other G stars in the universe that also do? Based on what? Your own feeling that life is too complicated to arise more than once?

No, doublegoodprole.
First, I'm saying life is ridiculously improbable.
Second, that's based on mathematical probability and the few facts about life's apparition we know with reasonable certainty.
Do read my posts before answering them.

You're the one who makes and supposrts affirmations based on nothing but your desire for them to be true.

Look it up - K,G,maybe F are a small procent of all stars (not so "many stars" anymore) - look it up.

Even this percentage is a very big number. I mean, sorry, but I think you're underestimating the number of stars in the universe.

Universe?

Talk about our galaxy. The local group, at the most.
And the number of habitable stars, when compared with the probability of life appearing, becomes really small.

As for the Drake Equation, it is not the ironclad rule you seem to making it out to be. Much of it is conjecture...conjecture...conjecture.

The Drake equation states some VARIABLES needed for life to appear. And a few of these variables - such as the number of habitable stars -, can be pretty well approximated.

BTW, read up on 'variable' and 'conjecture' as well, doublegoodprole.

And so far, you came with no argument that can resist a quantitative appraisal.

Well, I can only submit the sheer number of stars in the universe. Seeing as you can apparently account for stellar behavior on a universal scale, I guess I should stop trying to convince you with that argument.

Guess what - astronomy CAN accurately describe (theory confirmed by observation) large aspects of the stars' behaviour - on a universal scale, that is.

I already told you, doublegoodprole - you should read up before coming with statements like the above - it will save you some embarasssment.