Posted on 08/25/2016 7:40:44 AM PDT by MtnClimber
And all that means that we’ve left the super-duper “Frying Pan” cluster of galaxies and are headed into the “Fire” super duper cluster!.....:)
At least you seem to have a sense of humor. Now we just need to work on your unacknowledged biases...
Sometimes I forget that astronomy and parts of FR simply dont mix.
“You can clutch that as if that is the definitive proof of no life outside of Earth...”
I never asserted any such thing. You are the one making assertions for which you have no evidence, not me.
“saying that you have mathematically proven that there is no life outside of Earth,”
Never said that, did I? I merely demonstrated that your statement that “it’s simple math” that life must exist somewhere out there is flat out wrong. Obviously you don’t like that fact, but there is no need to start lying about what I’ve said. Anyone can read my comments and see what you are doing, so it’s quite silly anyway.
“Your math isnt any more proof ...”
I wasn’t trying to prove anything. You asserted a proof, and I demonstrated the glaring error in your proof, that is all. You still haven’t addressed the error I pointed out, which is pretty good evidence, I think, that you have no answer for the criticism. I don’t blame you though, since there is no logical answer but to accept the criticism and move on.
“Mathematical argument < empirical observation”
Then why did you try to make a faulty mathematical argument in the first place? I’m perfectly happy to rely on the empirical observations instead. By the way, we haven’t empirically observed life anywhere else but on Earth.
While I would say your reasoning is not conclusive, it is a far cry from the point I was making. There is simply no evidence for life beyond Earth, yet for some reason people completely discount the possibility that the Earth is unique. In fact they mock anyone who holds that possibility might be true.””
Agree. There is no evidence and it is more than unlikely that we will ever discern otherwise. Reality is so much stranger than fiction.
Okay. It seems you inferred my post about Earth being situated in a way to have a clear view of the universe had something to do with the "center of the universe" but, it did not.
We have a clear view from our solar system because there aren't any "nearby" galaxies, star clusters, etc. to ruin our view with light pollution and the like.
I think you forgot your /sarc tag...
Yeah, I know. I just burned a good half hour looking at that, the Virgo supercluster, dwarf galaxies, Omega Centauri, and so on...
Why exactly do you believe that it's an almost certainty that given the same precise conditions that existed on early earth that life would naturally arise on some other planet? And did life only arise once on earth, or at multiple times and multiple locations?
Decades ago a scientist named Stanly Miller attempted to recreate conditions on early earth in a laboratory test tube. He then jolted the chemical mix with electricity and produced amino acids, the building blocks of proteins.
Not really. It just brought to mind the notion of earth being at the "center of the universe".
“So your whole fit that you’ve pitched was because me saying the ABOVE just dug under your skin?”
I pitched no fit, I merely demonstrated your statement was false. You are the one who seems to be getting emotional rather than responding in a rational manner to the flaw I pointed out in your reasoning.
“Sorry, but my original statement still stands...”
No, it’s been mathematically disproven. Perhaps I wasn’t explicit enough for you to understand. Let’s put your statement the form of a mathematical equation, to make your error crystal clear.
There are 3 variables at play in this equation. First, there is the number of planets in the universe conducive to life, we shall call this variable X. Next, there is the probability of life arising at random on a planet conducive to life, let’s call that Y. Finally, there is the probability that life has arisen on at least one other planet in the universe, let’s call that Z.
The equation is quite simple, Z = X * Y. Your statement asserted that Z must be non-zero. Well, in order for that to be true, you must be able to solve the equation for Z. In order to solve such an equation, you must be able to assign values to the other two values, otherwise it is unsolvable. Therein lies your fundamental problem. We can make a reasonable estimate of X, but we cannot make any estimate as to the value of Y. We cannot even determine whether it is a non-zero value or not, which would have an extremely significant effect on limiting the possible range of results. Therefore, the equation is unsolvable.
Unless you have an actual mathematical argument to counter mine, your assertion is disproven. Stop bringing emotional arguments and attempt to form a rational response, if you are capable of doing so.
“I merely demonstrated your statement was false.”
You did no such thing.
“No, it’s been mathematically disproven.”
No it has not.
Or perhaps we missed your published paper and Nobel prize because there are a lot of actual astronomers that would be very interested in knowing that they can close shop because Boogieman has apparently crunched the numbers and got the answer all on his own.
What you posted was little more than a mathematical logic puzzle that you are trying to apply erroneously to this particular topic and then absurdly give a conclusion based on the results of your logic puzzle being “unsolvable”.
Congratulations on the result of your thought experiment. Has nothing to do with this. Hell I avoided even mentioning the infamous “Drake Equation” because I didnt see that as anymore of mathematical proof FOR life in the universe than I see this as proof against it.
And at least Drake made an attempt to make his relevant to this subject.
“No it has not.”
Then you’re either being a deliberate ignoramus or you can’t understand 1st year level algebra. I’m sorry, but there is no other possibility
“there are a lot of actual astronomers that would be very interested in knowing that they can close shop because Boogieman has apparently crunched the numbers and got the answer all on his own.”
Actual astronomers are scientists and wouldn’t be silly enough to make a statement so easily mathematically disproven as you did (though they are human and sometimes let their assumptions and biases get the best of them, as seems to be the case here).
“What you posted was little more than a mathematical logic puzzle that you are trying to apply erroneously to this particular topic and then absurdly give a conclusion based on the results of your logic puzzle being “unsolvable”.”
Nope, I simply put your assertion in the form of an equation, which makes it clear that the equation is currently unsolveable despite your claims to the contrary. If I am wrong, it should be easy for you to prove it. Just go ahead and solve the equation for us. I’ll wait...
Yes, the accelerating inflation is a problem the magnitude of which I don’t think is really grasped by most yet.
Acceleration requires a force, since F=MA, and conversely, A=F/M. If the matter is expanding, there must be a force to account for it, and it sure isn’t gravity, the weak force, or the strong force, so what is it? I doubt it’s electromagnetism, but what else is left?
It seems to me either science must admit a 5th fundamental force or find a way that EM could cause the accelerated expansion.
Actual astronomers are scientists and wouldn’t be silly enough to make a statement so easily mathematically disproven as you did
http://www.space.com/32793-intelligent-alien-life-probability-high.html
http://www.universetoday.com/13741/the-odds-of-intelligent-life-in-the-universe/
https://www.rt.com/usa/160848-alien-life-possibility-100-percent/
I can post a wall of these, but you likely knew what you said was absurd that’s why you tried to weasel out of it by saying also:
“though they are human and sometimes let their assumptions and biases get the best of them, as seems to be the case here”
Yeah....those silly astronomers and their goofy human ways.
Dont they know that all they had to do was superimpose an unsolvable equation onto something that has nothing to do with them and save all of this time?
Stay with algebra puzzles and let hard science do its thing free of deliberate ignoramus that think that you can short cut your way through a serious effort like this.
“I can post a wall of these, but you likely knew what you said was absurd that’s why you tried to weasel out of it by saying also”
That’s not “weaseling out”, it’s a fact. Scientists are subject to confirmation bias and bad assumptions, that well known, so I could post a wall of links about that too:
“Dont they know that all they had to do was superimpose an unsolvable equation onto something that has nothing to do with them and save all of this time?”
So you admit the equation is unsolvable? What else is there to argue then? Your assertion is disproven by your own admission now.
Truth goes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed.
Then, it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as common knowledge.
You are at stage one.
Oh...ok.
The “Truth” of what?
I cannot wait to hear what this one is going to be.
Like I said REAL scientists are actually in agreement with me.
You have an algebra puzzle, and an ego big enough to think that it trumps actual science.
Enjoy your puzzle. See what other things you can apply it too and look even more foolish.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.