The odds of life existing on another planet grow ever longer

[malwareUFO]

Sandokiri

First, "credentials" are not necessary here. There are statements presented as fact, that can be argued against to show that they're wrong. And those refutations can be checked; Kepler-47, for example, is in fact a binary star system with at least two planets orbiting circumbinary... which refutes the op-ed's claim that more than one star makes it impossible to have a stable orbit.

The claim made by this Op-Ed is a claim made by the scientists themselves before the discovery, "The presence of a full-fledged circumbinary planetary system orbiting Kepler-47 is an amazing discovery," Greg Laughlin, professor of Astrophysics and Planetary Science, University of California, Santa Cruz, Calif. "These planets are very difficult to form using the currently accepted paradigm, and I believe that theorists, myself included, will be going back to the drawing board to try to improve our understanding of how planets are assembled in dusty circumbinary disks."(Nasa, 2012. Para. 2)

Quote:

And if those "parameters" aren't necessary, then it doesn't matter how "philosophical" the sermon is, it has all the coherence of juffo-wup flavoured ice cream. Note that we need only consider the reasons why we should accept those parameters as parameters, and consider whether they are true and truly parameters.

We can't really state with any level of certainly that the parameter are or are not necessary. We do know with a degree of certainly that life at any level requires sustainability in order for it to continue. Whether it is chemosynthesis, photosynthesis or preying on other animals or eating vegetation. There is a rudimentary requirement that a life-form be able to ingest, produce or digest in order to sustain itself. But you, in the sake of arguing a philosophical idea, negate it. It's really up to the scientists who make these discovery to lend in their expertise the parameters of the existence of life.

Quote:

Actually, they're not. They're creationist misrepresentations of proposals that some scientists have made, transformed into assertions by clever tricks of presentation.

While that may be true, outside the realm of theology, the world of academia has a very different perspective from you - http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847, while this does not lend any credibility to the complexity and parameters for life to exist on earth, it is a supporting factor that physicists are attempting understand and at the very least test it in an effort to know how the universe has come to be in such a perfect balance.
Resources:

Nasa, 2012. Kepler-47: Our First Binary Star 2-Planet System. Ames Research Center.
Retrieved from:
http://kepler.nasa.gov/news/nasakeplernews/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=228

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Oowl

Look at all of you arguing about the parameters for the existence of life developed by scientists by years of research and discovery. One Op-Ed pointing out the obvious and you start creating your own reality. Lol. It's literally right in front of you - Parameters for the existence of life designed by the very scientists we cite in our debates. A little ridiculous, don't you think?

The issue here is that there are multiple scientists, multiple discoveries, multiple people working on the projects. This is one theory by one group of people, not absolute fact. Life *can* exist in extreme environments, such as extremely hot and cold environments, near volcanoes, at the bottom of the ocean (I.E. doesn't need sunlight), even in space. The idea that life cannot exist in these situations, and thus the parameters where they say life can live, is already fundamentally wrong. The rotation of the earth matters in their conclusion for instance, because it would be too hot or too cold on side, for too long, say their day taking an entire year (like on venus), for life to survive. But because some life can survive in the extreme heat, it doesn't mitigate the chance of life surviving all together.

It also seems to ignore the fact that nature has a way of balancing itself. The ozone layer, for instance, is created from oxygen; as oxygen is exposed to radiation, it creates more ozone. As the ozone is exposed to radiation, it turns back into oxygen, and back into ozone when it's exposed again. In this manner, the ozone layer is constantly recreating itself, and will be depleted and replaced in about a week, in a constantly self creating cycle. More radiation = more ozone, so, saying that everything needs to align perfectly, is somewhat inaccurate, as it will naturally align as it needs. Take our atmosphere; if it was twice as thick let's say, it would reflect or absorb a lot more of the radiation, keeping the earth cooler. If the earth heats up, that means more water vapor; more water vapor means more clouds. More clouds means less light coming to the surface of the earth, reflecting it back into space, which means it cools itself down. The water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas and will warm up the earth slightly, but it can sustain itself in a much wider variation than just being X distance from the earth, because as it gets farther away, it will let in more light, and as it gets closer, it will let in less light, thus meaning it will get hotter and colder dependent on it's distance, keeping itself more or less calibrated, even outside of the supposed goldilocks zone (all, obviously, being a light year away from a sun would still be too far).


Life at the bottom of the ocean doesn't care what life at the surface of the planet is at. So, it's 200 one day, and -200 the next, the ocean has enough thermal capacity that, at the bottom, it might not even change 1 degree. So, life could live underneath and ocean on a planet that was too hot and too cold. This means, distance to the sun, rotation of the earth, and so on, which all influence the day and night temperatures of the earth, have a much wider variation where life can be possible than they're putting forward.

In fact, life has been much warmer than it is now, such as back in the Cambrian periods, and life survived alright. There's a bit more resilience to life than people give it credit for, even if we are individually fragile. Humans might not exist on such a planet, but some other form of life could easily take it's place.

[malwareUFO]

Suicidesoldier#1

I think I've covered this in my discussion with Sandokiri. Read over it if you want. It isn't very long. The point I was trying to make is that this Op-Ed is a philosophical postulation, although can be picked apart by attacking the parameter it lists, it cannot be discarded as illegitimate simply by virtue of the fact that the universe has a very specific make-up of physics that if tampered high or low, would not exist at all. This is an interesting article, although far-fetched, does lend credibility to what I've said in this post; http://news.discovery.com/space/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation-2-121216.htm

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Oowl

Suicidesoldier#1

I think I've covered this in my discussion with Sandokiri. Read over it if you want. It isn't very long. The point I was trying to make is that this Op-Ed is a philosophical postulation, although can be picked apart by attacking the parameter it lists, it cannot be discarded as illegitimate simply by virtue of the fact that the universe has a very specific make-up of physics that if tampered high or low, would not exist at all. This is an interesting article, although far-fetched, does lend credibility to what I've said in this post; http://news.discovery.com/space/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation-2-121216.htm

My conversation is more about, the parameters which life can exist, which aren't as specific as have been said. whee

And that the word of some scientists is not a catch all for all of science.


When they say "scientists say", the question is, which scientists say, and why?

What data lead them to that conclusion, not that their word is the word of God.


It's a way people like to manipulate other people these days it seems, by saying "it's proven by science", when really, it's been said by certain scientists, and sometimes their conclusions are not always accurate.

[malwareUFO]

Suicidesoldier#1

Oowl

Suicidesoldier#1

I think I've covered this in my discussion with Sandokiri. Read over it if you want. It isn't very long. The point I was trying to make is that this Op-Ed is a philosophical postulation, although can be picked apart by attacking the parameter it lists, it cannot be discarded as illegitimate simply by virtue of the fact that the universe has a very specific make-up of physics that if tampered high or low, would not exist at all. This is an interesting article, although far-fetched, does lend credibility to what I've said in this post; http://news.discovery.com/space/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation-2-121216.htm

My conversation is more about, the parameters which life can exist, which aren't as specific as have been said. whee

And that the word of some scientists is not a catch all for all of science.


When they say "scientists say", the question is, which scientists say, and why?

What data lead them to that conclusion, not that their word is the word of God.


It's a way people like to manipulate other people these days it seems, by saying "it's proven by science", when really, it's been said by certain scientists, and sometimes their conclusions are not always accurate.

That's a good point. This guy, http://www.anthropic-principle.com/ said it, and his work has been peer reviewed.

As far as the specific parameters for the existence of life, my knowledge is trumped by your own. All I can argue is that I can only rely on the arguments proposed by the scientists themselves. It seems clear to me, despite my theological point of views that there is a complexity in our universe that has not yet explained its origin. The laws of physics ultimately dictate the existence of life on any planet, and this fine-tuned universe we live in is quite a miraculous thing whether you subscribe to a theology or not.

[Divine_Malevolence]

Bogotanian

Haha well I still stand by that statement
That's still assuming the mediocrity principle. It could be, but it could also not be. Also I'd like to see an explanation for the simplicity of self replicating entities, you care to say how life would get somewhere in the universe in the first place, let alone in different parameters?

Also are you referring to the Drake Equation with the law of large numbers?

And taking into account all the situations where it could and couldn't be, the rational course of action is to say that it's more likely that there are other forms of life out there.
Where? Dunno.
What type? Dunno.
How common? Dunno.
But in terms of probability, there's an extremely favorable chance that there's extraterrestrial life.

Bogotanian

No that is an assumption that there is probably life elsewhere because the universe is so big. People make this leap all the time, but there is no science behind it. Again it could be, or could not be. And probably is in of itself an assumptive attitude. It is not "probably." In fact, if anything, the more we find, the more unlikely it seems (as the OP's article suggests).

Yeah, not quite science, but instead logic.
We know what life is.
We know what it needs to thrive in our case, and presume that it has more than that singular form. If it can exist in other forms, we don't even search for that.
We then use this scientific knowledge of life, and astronomy as the case may have it, to observe the universe. Observe how many entities there are that we know full well could create and sustain life.
Through this we make a logical step, but one that retains proper uncertainty.
Based on biology, chemistry, physics, and astronomy, there is an exceptional probability that there is in fact life out there.

"Are you certain?"

******** no, but when it comes down to it you can't even be sure you're alive as this could all be some sort of highly vivid hallucination an inanimate object is having.
Or something.

Bogotanian

But right. All we know is that due to red shifts and such, everything appears to be moving away from us. Hawking admits that it's an assumption to think that everything is moving away from everything, but one that many people simply choose to make. It's when Hubble blew up a balloon to show the idea that everything could be moving away from each other. It could be, or could not, but it's still an assumption. We're the center and occupying a special position is an option as well. The point is that everyone assumes the former without evidence.

Everything that isn't true by definition, such as "The word blue is the word blue", is an assumption on some level.
Hell, even things that are true by definition can be.
But what science currently says is that, visibly, all the evidence points to things generally spreading out, and if you were to map out the paths of every known stellar object in the universe, it would appear the same way everywhere.
Proven beyond a doubt? No.
But far more likely than any given alternative.

Bogotanian

Well Friedmann is important for some of the assumptions behind the current cosmological model that assumes spatial isotropy and homogenaity throughout the universe, and Hawking admits that it is an assumption, but one he chooses to take.

Actually, that wouldn't necessarily be ridiculous. We are the only life that we see. As far as we know, we're the only life that exists. However, it would be ridiculous to assume that life exists elsewhere when there's no proof of that. It's sort of either position can't really be "proven" in a sense, but people simply choose what their assumptions are.

Yeah, but here's the thing.
It's an assumption either way.
You say "There is life out there in the universe" and you're making a baseless assumption that may be wrong.
You say "There is no life out there in the universe" and you're also making a baseless assumption that may be wrong.



How, then, do we give statements with any value?
We use what we know coupled with observations of things we're not sure of to determine probabilities.
Which leads to the proper response to the question "Is there alien life in the universe."
What is it?

"Probably."

Bogotanian

Also could you explain the murphy's law more? I thought that that was "anything that could go wrong will go wrong" could you clarify?

It's essentially saying anything that can happen will happen.
Normally applied to negatives, though. It's like, you design a power outlet, and there's a design flaw that allows children to kill themselves by sticking their tongue in it.

Sometime, somewhere, a child's going to kill themselves by sticking their tongue in it.
Probability dictates it.

Bogotanian

Not according to all the parameters for life existing in the universe

Except it is according to all the parameters for life existing in the universe.
Hell, even on earth, there are so many different enviornments and time periods where the world was vastly different all containing life that even beginning to say that life is a privilege is absurd.
Life is basically defined by its characteristic of being able to adapt to basically anything. It's demonstrated every day that even the limited amount of life reliant on DNA can survive in numerous different circumstances.
According to basically every relevant area of study I've heard about, there's nothing special or privileged about it.

Bogotanian

No that's still not founded actually. I forget what the number is (maybe someone could fill me in) but how many "earth-like" planets have they found? I forget if it's thousands or millions of candidates.

Oh, only 8.8.

....
Billion.
So if we gave a planet to every human alive, we wouldn't run out of potentially habitable ones in the milky way until somewhere around 2030.

Bogotanian

Anyways back in the day people assumed that these meant there was a good chance for life to exist. However, we know that life is more complicated with the necessity of more parameters than simply for a planet "having water and being the right distance from the star."

*Life As we know it.

Bogotanian

To date no life has been confirmed and everything is speculation about earth-like planets, so you can't say "hey there's an earth-like planet" (which it isn't really) that must mean that there's life there.

Having water or possible water somewhere does not mean life.

No, in fact, it doesn't.
What it does mean is that there are 8.8 billion candidates that, as far as we can tell, meet the most basic requirements for life and could well have any number of the others.
Note that nobody's saying, "Hey, it's definite that all of these planets have life".
They're saying "It's probable that a few of these planets have life."

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Oowl

Suicidesoldier#1

Oowl

Suicidesoldier#1

I think I've covered this in my discussion with Sandokiri. Read over it if you want. It isn't very long. The point I was trying to make is that this Op-Ed is a philosophical postulation, although can be picked apart by attacking the parameter it lists, it cannot be discarded as illegitimate simply by virtue of the fact that the universe has a very specific make-up of physics that if tampered high or low, would not exist at all. This is an interesting article, although far-fetched, does lend credibility to what I've said in this post; http://news.discovery.com/space/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation-2-121216.htm

My conversation is more about, the parameters which life can exist, which aren't as specific as have been said. whee

And that the word of some scientists is not a catch all for all of science.


When they say "scientists say", the question is, which scientists say, and why?

What data lead them to that conclusion, not that their word is the word of God.


It's a way people like to manipulate other people these days it seems, by saying "it's proven by science", when really, it's been said by certain scientists, and sometimes their conclusions are not always accurate.

That's a good point. This guy, http://www.anthropic-principle.com/ said it, and his work has been peer reviewed.

As far as the specific parameters for the existence of life, my knowledge is trumped by your own. All I can argue is that I can only rely on the arguments proposed by the scientists themselves. It seems clear to me, despite my theological point of views that there is a complexity in our universe that has not yet explained its origin. The laws of physics ultimately dictate the existence of life on any planet, and this fine-tuned universe we live in is quite a miraculous thing whether you subscribe to a theology or not.

Ahh, but who was the peer that reviewed it? I've heard of a lot of people who've reviewed their own work and called it peer reviewed (but they had a handful of other people review it, too). xp

When I clicked on the link, Norton said it had blocked something along the lines of "web attack: magnitude exploit kit 2", so, you may want to run a virus scanner. Could just be a cookie or something, I block most things, even usually flash when I run computers (actually fairly nice, helps with advertisements sometimes too, but not as often as you'd think).


Anyways, I understand the idea that the complexity of the universe leads to the conclusion that there is likely a higher plane of thought, or at least something really, really interesting to the universe.

As much as I like that as evidence, is not however, absolute fact, as complexity is not proof of higher reasoning; for all we know, there's millions of universes, and ours just so happens to be the one where everything works out, I.E. it could be completely random. We like to give it meaning because we like to think it's a result of higher thought, but it may just be that, existence of life is rare, and we are simply rare; we exist because we are the rare few who do, rather than, it's so rare it would be impossible without higher thought. While I'm largely agnostic myself, I certainly get the theological thoughts come from the complexity of the universe, though; a stronger understanding of science often strengthens people's beliefs, it just makes them thing a different way. There's some cool stuff about the universe, man. Almost magical.

[Sandokiri]

Oowl

The claim made by this Op-Ed is a claim made by the scientists themselves before the discovery, "The presence of a full-fledged circumbinary planetary system orbiting Kepler-47 is an amazing discovery," Greg Laughlin, professor of Astrophysics and Planetary Science, University of California, Santa Cruz, Calif. "These planets are very difficult to form using the currently accepted paradigm, and I believe that theorists, myself included, will be going back to the drawing board to try to improve our understanding of how planets are assembled in dusty circumbinary disks."(Nasa, 2012. Para. 2)

So, by your own admission, the op-ed is presenting obsolete paradigms as necessarily true criteria. That's a major part of the problem here.

Quote:

We can't really state with any level of certainly that the parameter are or are not necessary. We do know with a degree of certainly that life at any level requires sustainability in order for it to continue.

Which isn't the matter at discussion. The claim made by the op-ed is this:

-This specific set of 200 conditions exists.
-Any variance - even sub-nanoscopic - in any of them would not permit life (or, for some of them, the universe itself.)
-The probability that each of them is calibrated as it is, is mind-blowing and basically impossible;
-Therefore some personal agent - and you are supposed to understand this as being the Christian trinity - did it.

Yes, life at any level does require sustainability - which means continuing to operate in the environment it has optimised itself for, or adapting to changes to it. This is not the same as saying that the only environments suitable for life at any level are those suitable for humans, or that the only possibly habitable worlds are third planets orbiting singular G2V type stars.

Quote:

While that may be true, outside the realm of theology, the world of academia has a very different perspective from you - http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847, while this does not lend any credibility to the complexity and parameters for life to exist on earth, it is a supporting factor that physicists are attempting understand and at the very least test it in an effort to know how the universe has come to be in such a perfect balance.

Attempting to understand and test, exactly. Not asserting as absolute, as the op-ed is presenting them as doing.

[Ame Yuki Kaze]

I'm sure there's other life out there somewhere. The universe is just too vast for us to be the only ones in it. Then if you take into account the possibility of a multiverse, the odds of other lifeforms increase exponentially.

[Arcoon Effox]

Divine_Malevolence

Don't humor Bog's nonsense, DM. Dude calls everything you're saying an assumption while glibly embracing several whoppers of his own... such as
his ideas about how we're living in a geocentric, Intelligently Designed universe... which is what all his talk of 'privileged positions' is actually about.

Furthermore, his claim about Hawking was quote-mined from an explanation about the thought-process leading to seeing that Friedmann was, in fact, right.

[Divine_Malevolence]

Arcoon Effox

Divine_Malevolence

Don't humor Bog's nonsense, DM. Dude calls everything you're saying an assumption while glibly embracing several whoppers of his own... such as
his ideas about how we're living in a geocentric, Intelligently Designed universe... which is what all his talk of 'privileged positions' is actually about.

Furthermore, his claim about Hawking was quote-mined from an explanation about the thought-process leading to seeing that Friedmann was, in fact, right.

But the golden rule.
All nonsense must be humored if you want your nonsense humored.

ninja

[malwareUFO]

Sandokiri

So, by your own admission, the op-ed is presenting obsolete paradigms as necessarily true criteria. That's a major part of the problem here.

Sure. But that doesn't negate the principle of its argument, the author himself was likely uninformed of recent events in the last three years. Regardless, the perspective of the writer is simple - the fact that the physics requires that the universe work in absolutes is otherwise proof that there exists a Creator.

Quote:

-Therefore some personal agent - and you are supposed to understand this as being the Christian trinity - did it.

Is that what it did? Where? I think it is your own bias towards Christianity that leads you to assume that's what he's talking about. For all you know the author isn't Christian and is Jewish, or subscribes to no theology at all and simply presumes that there is a Creator, to what extent, it is unknown. He never classifies it.

Quote:

Attempting to understand and test, exactly. Not asserting as absolute, as the op-ed is presenting them as doing.

The Theory of the Big Bang through scientific method and evidence is an attempt to understand the beginning of the universe, yet that is asserted as fact, because it is otherwise true until proven not to be by imperial evidence or mathematical improbability.

To finish, I will simply point out the quotes that this Op-Ed cites from actual scientists in the field.

"Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself"

[Arcoon Effox]

Divine_Malevolence

Arcoon Effox

Divine_Malevolence

Don't humor Bog's nonsense, DM. Dude calls everything you're saying an assumption while glibly embracing several whoppers of his own... such as
his ideas about how we're living in a geocentric, Intelligently Designed universe... which is what all his talk of 'privileged positions' is actually about.

Furthermore, his claim about Hawking was quote-mined from an explanation about the thought-process leading to seeing that Friedmann was, in fact, right.

But the golden rule.
All nonsense must be humored if you want your nonsense humored.

ninja

I draw the line at stuff that's been thoroughly disproven.

[Divine_Malevolence]

Arcoon Effox

I draw the line at stuff that's been thoroughly disproven.

I draw the line at things that are boring.
Though I wouldn't give any argument of geocentrism the light of day.

[Bogotanian]

Arcoon Effox

Bogotanian

a lot of cosmologists base their views on Friedmann's second assumption. In the words of Stephen Hawking...

...Hawking admits that it's an assumption to think that everything is moving away from everything...

Hawking admits that it is an assumption...

There you go quote-mining Hawking again, and flagrantly misrepresenting what he's saying.

Just like I did when you (mis)used this quote in your "geocentrism is totes legit" thread, I'll point out that this quote comes from chapter 3 of A Brief History of Time. By actually reading the chapter, we see that Hawking's saying pretty much the exact opposite of what you're claiming he is; that the universe is getting bigger over time, just as Friedmann predicted.

Seriously, why are you still trying to pass this off as something it's not?

There really is no discrepancy here. Where have I ever said that Hawking disagreed with Friedmann's assumption? Oh right, I've always said that he agreed with it, that's why he says in the quote that he agrees with it (and I'm sure he expands on that idea more in the chapter, why that assumption is right and what not). Yet you consistently say that I'm "quote-mining"

Regardless of whether he agrees with Friedmann's ideas or not, Hawking still admits that it's an assumption that he takes...

Quote:

Bogotanian

Assumption

Big assumption there

Again big assumption

Big assumptions. Interesting to talk about, but unfounded.

...much like the idea of Intelligent Design espoused in the OP's quoted article.

No, those parameters are pretty evident for life existing, or would you deny that? (if anything was different we wouldn't exist)

Quote:

You wanna see another unfounded assumption, with nothing scientific supporting it? Here you go:

Bogotanian

We're the center (of the universe) and occupying a special position.

We're the only possible life that can exist in the universe because we occupy a privileged position.

Not only is geocentrism unfounded, it's been thoroughly debunked.

MMmmmmmmmm no it really hasn't, it's just that people are ignorant of some facts that no-one seems to bring up these days (seeing as they would go against the current cosmological model) Just because people like Hawking or Tyson assume the mediocrity principle and base their ideas around it, doesn't make it any more credible than geocentrism.

And note: nowhere in the thread I made did I specifically say that I was a geocentrist. I was arguing that geocentrism is a viable idea and gave reasons/experiments for it.

Quote:

inb4 M-M Experiment results weren't actually null, etc etc

Yeah, they weren't. People say they were to support current ideas and presuppositions