Welcome to Gaia! ::

Gaia Forums » GAIA Community » Extended Discussion
<3 </3
Reply
< 1 2 3 4 >

Dapper Codger

7,825 Points
  • Tycoon 200
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Peoplewatcher 100
Offline
Sandokiri


Completely off-topic, but I wanted to say how much I appreciate seeing admins and mods taking part in discussions. I don't see it often enough.

Blessed Tactician

11,250 Points
  • Beta Contributor 0
  • Beta Critic 0
  • Contributor 150
Offline
nitznitz
What this argument doesn't take to consideration is aliens being alien. They can drink sulfuric acid and eat steel and gamma radiation and it'll make perfect sense to them while us preying on other lifeforms will baffle their scientists.

Successful life adapts to its environment, and we adapted to ours.
I have difficulty imagining a scenario where predatory relationships never come into being.

Offline
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?


Just the sample of 19 "parameters" prove that our evangelist friend isn't pointing out "the obvious," but merely making stuff up and parrotting decades of creationist attempts at a fine tuning argument. We need only look at bodies such as Venus and Io - or to consider the history of life on Earth itself - to establish that everything he's saying is either being said in ignorance or an intent to deceive, exaggerating or downplaying what is actually known or hypothesised about essentially everything.

Timid Kitten

5,950 Points
  • Friendly 100
  • Somebody Likes You 100
  • Contributor 150
Offline
It would be very egocentric to think we are the only life that exists in our universe. Our sun is only one star of billions and billions, most of which have a system of planets which revolve around them. The universe continues to expand and grow infinitely so more and more life is possible.

Not only that, but we assume all life needs water or oxygen, but not every being has to be built like us to exist. We are only one form, I think. I like to read a lot on this topic by Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawkings. Look em up if you want to learn more like I did.

Aged Codger

9,675 Points
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • Brandisher 100
  • Destroyer of Cuteness 150
Offline
Divine_Malevolence
nitznitz
What this argument doesn't take to consideration is aliens being alien. They can drink sulfuric acid and eat steel and gamma radiation and it'll make perfect sense to them while us preying on other lifeforms will baffle their scientists.

Successful life adapts to its environment, and we adapted to ours.
I have difficulty imagining a scenario where predatory relationships never come into being.
Hence why th' idea o' that alien lifeform would be alien ta' ye

Dapper Genius

5,875 Points
  • Person of Interest 200
  • Autobiographer 200
  • Dressed Up 200
Offline
SpaceLamb
The universe continues to expand and grow infinitely

That's not what Cosmic Inflation says

SpaceLamb
so more and more life is possible.

And that does not stand to reason.

Offline
Sandokiri
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?


Just the sample of 19 "parameters" prove that our evangelist friend isn't pointing out "the obvious," but merely making stuff up and parrotting decades of creationist attempts at a fine tuning argument. We need only look at bodies such as Venus and Io - or to consider the history of life on Earth itself - to establish that everything he's saying is either being said in ignorance or an intent to deceive, exaggerating or downplaying what is actually known or hypothesised about essentially everything.


I think the point of the Op-Ed is missed. "Scientists say that life cannot exist outside of these 200 parameters", in his opinion, he postulates that Intelligent Design is responsible for the universe to work in such perfect order. I don't think that is a display of ignorance more than it is pointing out the inherent flaw that order cannot feasibly exist in a sudden random moment of annihilation and chaos. The Big Bang can never be confirmed because it is not observable. A Physics Professor of UNC-Chapel Hill said that mathematically, Black Holes do not exist because a dying star can never reach the event horizon as it releases the radiation that is said to be exhibited by black holes. Her math was verified by another physics professor in Toronto. http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html

If an entire theory hinges on the existence of Black Holes, then the Big Bang never happened and it was surely something else, ID or not. This is just an initial development that obviously needs more research and validation. But, this is beside the point of the Op-Ed. Which is, how is the universe so effectively organized to support life or even it's own existence? If you can explain that (Which I doubt it) then you would likely win a Nobel.

Offline
Oowl
I think the point of the Op-Ed is missed. "Scientists say that life cannot exist outside of these 200 parameters", in his opinion, he postulates that Intelligent Design is responsible for the universe to work in such perfect order. I don't think that is a display of ignorance


Given just the cross-section of 19 "parameters" we're given here, it's either ignorance or deception. Even from the onset, with the claim that Jupiter protects the earth from asteroids (rather than its massive gravity being the cause of the asteroids, and perturbations created by its orbit responsible for asteroids falling into the inner solar system,) the information is not accurate or useful.

And I'd expect a pre-quantum cosmology to be questioned with discoveries from quantum physics; science tends to do such things.

But let's look at the 19.

1. Number of star companions:
While the lack of any star would certainly complicate things, it is absolutely possible to get stable orbital paths in a binary star system, whether the planet's orbit is around one or both of the stars. In fact, it's even possible to get them in the system's habitable zone (and at least one such system, Kepler-47, is known, though its second planet is not believed to be biotic.)

And I say complicate, because there are hypothetical scenarios wherein rogue planets (which by definition have no star companions) could in fact sustain the conditions required not just to be biotic, but to support human life.

2-3. Stellar age (with different implications):
What matters is whether the star is in its main sequence, where hydrogen is being fused. This is a significant proportion of the stellar life cycle, for reference. Also, "heavy elements" are not required for life. If it's a matter of planetary formation, planets form along with their parent stars, not later.

4. Distance from galactic centre:
This is a fairly clumsy restatement of a theory called the galactic habitable zone, which says that potential biotic words are most likely to be found in the 13-32kly (4-10kpc) distance from our galactic core, our own system being ~27kly (8.5kpc or so) out. The key words are most likely; not that closer or farther-out biotic worlds are not possible.

As a pause, the major assumption being made by this list - and the fine tuning argument at its zenith - is that the way the entire universe operates is specifically (and deliberately) in order to cause life to be possible on this specific planet, AND that only planets that share the same parameters as this planet can possibly harbour ANY form of life.

5. Stellar mass:
Actually, current astrophysics theory is unsure as to the minimum - even with respect to red dwarfs, which the creationist indirectly mentions as "if less" before citing a hypothesis that only applies to red dwarfs.

6. Star colour:
The response assumes photosynthesis, which is not necessarily true even on Earth (consider chemosynthesis.) Therefore it is not relevant.

7. Surface gravity:
Atmospheric temperature and insolation of the atmosphere are also significant, in that gravity only sets an escape velocity. If the molecules in the atmosphere aren't energetic enough to escape, they won't even if surface gravity is low (cf: Titan, which has much lower gravity than Earth yet has a methane atmosphere.)

8. Distance from star:
Atmospheric pressure, tidal heating from planet-moon systems, and internal geological processes can stabilise the water cycle regardless of the distance to the star. However, too close can lead to too hot, which would cause a different problem for the water cycle...

And keep in mind that only one model (which is popular for obvious reasons) of the solar system's habitable zone declares that only Earth is in it. The various models range from including Venus (or having Venus flitting between in and too close) to Mars and even the asteroid belt (eg, Ceres.)

9. Thickness of crust:
On the other hand, the retained ammonia (from 7, because thicker crust would mean more mass and more surface gravity!) would be broken down by solar radiation into more nitrogen, which is required for life as we know it --- and would eventually lead to more oxygen in the same way.

It's also not necessarily true that a thinner crust would lead to "too great" volcanic and tectonic activity; the crust is CAUSED by that activity. Also, Io (the crust of which is comparable in thickness to Earth's) is extremely volatile in that department.

10. Rotational period:
It was shorter by as much as two hours around the time of the Cambrian explosion. Also, even tidally locked planets are not disqualified from potentially having life at or near their horizon lines (or even on their dark sides.)

11. Lunar gravity:
Assumes that a moon is even needed. Also, ever since the moon was formed from a violently blasted-off chunk of earth, it's been receding - and since this operates on an inverse square law, small changes in lunar distance have somewhat greater effects on lunar gravity.

12. Magnetic fields:
Actually, Venus has a very weak magnetic field; but atmospheric ionisation can in fact cause "shields" that deflect the solar wind. And strong electromagnetic storms would be a problem for technology, more than for life.

13. Axial tilt:
The ideal situation would be none at all, as this would lead to the greatest stability. It's interesting that the creationist asserts that any obliquity other than 23,5% would only increase variance in surface temperatures, however.

14. Albedo:
Snowball Earth is pretty much a discredited theory, though near-snowball conditions are known in the geological record, such as just before the Cambrian explosion. Even the albedo of a Waterworld is not modelled to get the average temperature on Earth much above 30 C - a far cry from a rampant greenhouse effect.

Albedo alone is not the cause; read on.

15. Oxygen / nitrogen ratio:
Speculative nonsense. Life actually started, and thrived for a billion years, in a much lower oxygen environment; then after the cyanobacteria evolved and started using photosynthesis, it eventually reached a point where the oxygen wasn't being absorbed by the crust anymore and started accumulating in the atmosphere.
This is known as the Great Oxygenation Event, and caused a mass extinction among lifeforms to which oxygen was toxic, along with a massive (like longer than the time between the first dinosaurs and today, massive!) ice age called the Huronian glaciation when the oxygen removed most of the atmospheric methane by reaction. Of course, it also resulted in the evolution of aerobic life.

16. CO2 and water in atmosphere.
Funny thing. You know what happens when oxygen reacts to methane? It becomes CO2 and water. So the Great Oxygenation Event should have created a rampant greenhouse effect... but created a three hundred million year long ice age instead.

Also, it's estimated that during the Carboniferous - a rather greenhousish period in earth's history - CO2 levels were as high as 20x what they are now, drawing down to about 5x during the Jurassic, and suffering a more or less sudden (ie, within a million years) drawdown about 50 million years ago. We know this from the concentration of Azolla fern fossils in the Arctic, which captured most of the CO2 and then wound up being buried with it.

17. The ozone layer.
The ozone layer has nothing to do with surface temperatures, since it's basically just oxygen. (The process is interesting, as UV radiation cracks oxygen into atomic form and the atoms triple up to become ozone; then other frequencies of UV radiation crack one atom off the ozone - which can either become an oxygen molecule or another ozone.)

Most solar radiation that causes surface heat is in the IR range, not the UV.

It is, I can give him one point, true that more UV hitting the surface would be bad for life as we know it - but not necessarily any potential lifeforms.

18. Atmospheric electricity:
Most nitrogen fixing is bacterial, not from lightning... though I should specify natural nitrogen fixing, because there's a significant man-made source called the Haber process. Let it suffice to say that world agriculture (and most technologies that use nitrogen in any form) depend on it.

As for how often we have it now... try about 100 strikes per second (spread across the whole world,) including the majority which are cloud to cloud. That means 20-25 per second, time-averaged, that either hit the ground or start from the ground. It would seem to me that even a significant increase in the number of strikes would not produce "too much fire destruction."

19. Seismic activity:
Seismic activity is only one of many sources of nutrient cycling; and as with lightning, it would take more than a significant increase to have a significant threatening effect on life.

Offline
Sandokiri
Oowl
I think the point of the Op-Ed is missed. "Scientists say that life cannot exist outside of these 200 parameters", in his opinion, he postulates that Intelligent Design is responsible for the universe to work in such perfect order. I don't think that is a display of ignorance


Given just the cross-section of 19 "parameters" we're given here, it's either ignorance or deception. Even from the onset, with the claim that Jupiter protects the earth from asteroids (rather than its massive gravity being the cause of the asteroids, and perturbations created by its orbit responsible for asteroids falling into the inner solar system,) the information is not accurate or useful.

And I'd expect a pre-quantum cosmology to be questioned with discoveries from quantum physics; science tends to do such things.

But let's look at the 19.

1. Number of star companions:
While the lack of any star would certainly complicate things, it is absolutely possible to get stable orbital paths in a binary star system, whether the planet's orbit is around one or both of the stars. In fact, it's even possible to get them in the system's habitable zone (and at least one such system, Kepler-47, is known, though its second planet is not believed to be biotic.)

And I say complicate, because there are hypothetical scenarios wherein rogue planets (which by definition have no star companions) could in fact sustain the conditions required not just to be biotic, but to support human life.

2-3. Stellar age (with different implications):
What matters is whether the star is in its main sequence, where hydrogen is being fused. This is a significant proportion of the stellar life cycle, for reference. Also, "heavy elements" are not required for life. If it's a matter of planetary formation, planets form along with their parent stars, not later.

4. Distance from galactic centre:
This is a fairly clumsy restatement of a theory called the galactic habitable zone, which says that potential biotic words are most likely to be found in the 13-32kly (4-10kpc) distance from our galactic core, our own system being ~27kly (8.5kpc or so) out. The key words are most likely; not that closer or farther-out biotic worlds are not possible.

As a pause, the major assumption being made by this list - and the fine tuning argument at its zenith - is that the way the entire universe operates is specifically (and deliberately) in order to cause life to be possible on this specific planet, AND that only planets that share the same parameters as this planet can possibly harbour ANY form of life.

5. Stellar mass:
Actually, current astrophysics theory is unsure as to the minimum - even with respect to red dwarfs, which the creationist indirectly mentions as "if less" before citing a hypothesis that only applies to red dwarfs.

6. Star colour:
The response assumes photosynthesis, which is not necessarily true even on Earth (consider chemosynthesis.) Therefore it is not relevant.

7. Surface gravity:
Atmospheric temperature and insolation of the atmosphere are also significant, in that gravity only sets an escape velocity. If the molecules in the atmosphere aren't energetic enough to escape, they won't even if surface gravity is low (cf: Titan, which has much lower gravity than Earth yet has a methane atmosphere.)

8. Distance from star:
Atmospheric pressure, tidal heating from planet-moon systems, and internal geological processes can stabilise the water cycle regardless of the distance to the star. However, too close can lead to too hot, which would cause a different problem for the water cycle...

And keep in mind that only one model (which is popular for obvious reasons) of the solar system's habitable zone declares that only Earth is in it. The various models range from including Venus (or having Venus flitting between in and too close) to Mars and even the asteroid belt (eg, Ceres.)

9. Thickness of crust:
On the other hand, the retained ammonia (from 7, because thicker crust would mean more mass and more surface gravity!) would be broken down by solar radiation into more nitrogen, which is required for life as we know it --- and would eventually lead to more oxygen in the same way.

It's also not necessarily true that a thinner crust would lead to "too great" volcanic and tectonic activity; the crust is CAUSED by that activity. Also, Io (the crust of which is comparable in thickness to Earth's) is extremely volatile in that department.

10. Rotational period:
It was shorter by as much as two hours around the time of the Cambrian explosion. Also, even tidally locked planets are not disqualified from potentially having life at or near their horizon lines (or even on their dark sides.)

11. Lunar gravity:
Assumes that a moon is even needed. Also, ever since the moon was formed from a violently blasted-off chunk of earth, it's been receding - and since this operates on an inverse square law, small changes in lunar distance have somewhat greater effects on lunar gravity.

12. Magnetic fields:
Actually, Venus has a very weak magnetic field; but atmospheric ionisation can in fact cause "shields" that deflect the solar wind. And strong electromagnetic storms would be a problem for technology, more than for life.

13. Axial tilt:
The ideal situation would be none at all, as this would lead to the greatest stability. It's interesting that the creationist asserts that any obliquity other than 23,5% would only increase variance in surface temperatures, however.

14. Albedo:
Snowball Earth is pretty much a discredited theory, though near-snowball conditions are known in the geological record, such as just before the Cambrian explosion. Even the albedo of a Waterworld is not modelled to get the average temperature on Earth much above 30 C - a far cry from a rampant greenhouse effect.

Albedo alone is not the cause; read on.

15. Oxygen / nitrogen ratio:
Speculative nonsense. Life actually started, and thrived for a billion years, in a much lower oxygen environment; then after the cyanobacteria evolved and started using photosynthesis, it eventually reached a point where the oxygen wasn't being absorbed by the crust anymore and started accumulating in the atmosphere.
This is known as the Great Oxygenation Event, and caused a mass extinction among lifeforms to which oxygen was toxic, along with a massive (like longer than the time between the first dinosaurs and today, massive!) ice age called the Huronian glaciation when the oxygen removed most of the atmospheric methane by reaction. Of course, it also resulted in the evolution of aerobic life.

16. CO2 and water in atmosphere.
Funny thing. You know what happens when oxygen reacts to methane? It becomes CO2 and water. So the Great Oxygenation Event should have created a rampant greenhouse effect... but created a three hundred million year long ice age instead.

Also, it's estimated that during the Carboniferous - a rather greenhousish period in earth's history - CO2 levels were as high as 20x what they are now, drawing down to about 5x during the Jurassic, and suffering a more or less sudden (ie, within a million years) drawdown about 50 million years ago. We know this from the concentration of Azolla fern fossils in the Arctic, which captured most of the CO2 and then wound up being buried with it.

17. The ozone layer.
The ozone layer has nothing to do with surface temperatures, since it's basically just oxygen. (The process is interesting, as UV radiation cracks oxygen into atomic form and the atoms triple up to become ozone; then other frequencies of UV radiation crack one atom off the ozone - which can either become an oxygen molecule or another ozone.)

Most solar radiation that causes surface heat is in the IR range, not the UV.

It is, I can give him one point, true that more UV hitting the surface would be bad for life as we know it - but not necessarily any potential lifeforms.

18. Atmospheric electricity:
Most nitrogen fixing is bacterial, not from lightning... though I should specify natural nitrogen fixing, because there's a significant man-made source called the Haber process. Let it suffice to say that world agriculture (and most technologies that use nitrogen in any form) depend on it.

As for how often we have it now... try about 100 strikes per second (spread across the whole world,) including the majority which are cloud to cloud. That means 20-25 per second, time-averaged, that either hit the ground or start from the ground. It would seem to me that even a significant increase in the number of strikes would not produce "too much fire destruction."

19. Seismic activity:
Seismic activity is only one of many sources of nutrient cycling; and as with lightning, it would take more than a significant increase to have a significant threatening effect on life.


Like I said, I think the point of the Op-Ed is missed. You can begin to qualify your own understanding of these 19 as fact but wothout the proper credentials, only lends it as your own analysis that may or may not be qualified. I think you've made assumptions in some of them, life is a complex system that has yet to be fully unlocked. The Op-Ed points out 19 initially and then subsequently introduces that there are 200. I've read many documents that go through them all. You sound smart, but you're not necessarily correct. This Op-Ed shouldn't be looked at as a factual analysis of scientific theory, because it isn't. It a philosophical piece that addresses an underlining concern that life, however resilient, has parameters that need to be in place for life to exist. We don't see life thriving on the surface of mars, we only see evidence that it once did. Furthermore, the requirements for life similar on earth get more complex. As I said, these parameters are assertions that scientists have given, debunking them without lending credibility is a rather fruitless endeavor.

Heroic Hero

Offline
Divine_Malevolence
It's a dumb argument because it doesn't understand how life forms.

Well I'd say that's a little arrogant to say
Quote:
Basically saying "This hole in the ground was fine tuned to fit this puddle. If the hole was even slightly different, with even a slightly larger radius, the puddle as we know it wouldn't exist."


You're going off of the assumption that other puddles or forms of puddles can exist in the first place. (That other life can develop in the universe with different conditions, perhaps with different parameters). An assumption that is not proved to date. Just because many people believe in the mediocrity principle doesn't make it true.
Quote:

But, here's the thing.
Jupiter not there, and doesn't act as a asteroid slingshot? Somehow creates a situation where the atmosphere doesn't instantly obliterate most asteroids?
Maybe something changes.
Maybe we no longer exist.


We no longer exist

Quote:

The thing, though?
Something else probably does.

Big assumption there
Quote:

Alter any one value and the universe as we know it doesn't exist. So?
Something else does.

Again big assumption. But that's okay a lot of cosmologists base their views on Friedmann's second assumption. In the words of Stephen Hawking

"it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann's second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe

Are you assuming that another universe could exist with different parameters for life or that other life must exist simply because of "modesty"?
Quote:

There are, in fact, values that would make things easier. Values that would allow for more life, values that would make us live longer and better, so many things that could be different.
But they aren't, and from that, we arose to fill the mold.

Or we're the only possible life that can exist in the universe because we occupy a privileged position. We are the only life that we can see, yet people work on the assumption that the universe must be teeming with life.
Quote:
We are the puddle, shaped by the hole. If the hole was different, there would still be a puddle, it would just be different.

Big assumptions. Interesting to talk about, but unfounded.

Offline
Oowl
Like I said, I think the point of the Op-Ed is missed. You can begin to qualify your own understanding of these 19 as fact but wothout the proper credentials, only lends it as your own analysis that may or may not be qualified.


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.

Quote:
I think you've made assumptions in some of them, life is a complex system that has yet to be fully unlocked. The Op-Ed points out 19 initially and then subsequently introduces that there are 200. I've read many documents that go through them all. You sound smart, but you're not necessarily correct. This Op-Ed shouldn't be looked at as a factual analysis of scientific theory, because it isn't. It a philosophical piece that addresses an underlining concern that life, however resilient, has parameters that need to be in place for life to exist.


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.

Quote:
We don't see life thriving on the surface of mars, we only see evidence that it once did. Furthermore, the requirements for life similar on earth get more complex. As I said, these parameters are assertions that scientists have given, debunking them without lending credibility is a rather fruitless endeavor.

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

Blessed Tactician

11,250 Points
  • Beta Contributor 0
  • Beta Critic 0
  • Contributor 150
Offline
Bogotanian

Well I'd say that's a little arrogant to say

And I'd say I'm me.
Nice to meet you.
Bogotanian
You're going off of the assumption that other puddles or forms of puddles can exist in the first place. (That other life can develop in the universe with different conditions, perhaps with different parameters). An assumption that is not proved to date. Just because many people believe in the mediocrity principle doesn't make it true.

You seem to be misunderstanding.... Basically everything.
Which really takes some gymnastics, really.
First, one can't take metaphor too literally.
The odds are still for it forming in some way somewhere along the line due to the simplicity of the concept of self replicating entities and the law of large numbers.
Bogotanian
We no longer exist


We aren't that important.
Bogotanian

Big assumption there

"Probably."
AKA Not an assumption.
Bogotanian

Again big assumption. But that's okay a lot of cosmologists base their views on Friedmann's second assumption. In the words of Stephen Hawking

"it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann's second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe

Are you assuming that another universe could exist with different parameters for life or that other life must exist simply because of "modesty"?

Arrogant then modest. A lot of strange character assumptions
But as far as Hawking goes, that is, in essence, the basis of relativity. Yes. Galaxies would all be appearing to move apart in comparison to each other if they look to be moving apart in comparison to the one.
Just.... Y'know... Logically. With the angles and all the like it would be exceptionally strange if they weren't visibly moving apart from basically every star we see right now.
Like, maybe the night sky would look different. I'm personally under the assumption that they'd see stars we can't while being unable to see ones that we do because of optical illusions misunderstood by the concept of special relativity, but the core of the whole "Things are visibly moving apart so we think we're the center" thing would still be there.
That one ain't an assumption.

I don't particularly care about some Friedmann chap, but the assumption I'm thinking of is Murphy.
Anything that can happen, will happen.
Time, location, type, all subject to change, but let's be serious. It would be ridiculous to assume that we could exist here and nothing else could exist elsewhere.
Bogotanian

Or we're the only possible life that can exist in the universe because we occupy a privileged position. We are the only life that we can see, yet people work on the assumption that the universe must be teeming with life.

Privilege is a social construct, not a universal one.
There is no privilege to check in physics.
Bogotanian

Big assumptions. Interesting to talk about, but unfounded.
As far as the metaphor goes, entirely founded, because with water, gravity, and ground existing, there's going to be a puddle.
It just might be a small puddle or an entire ocean.

Conservative Regular

Offline
Bogotanian

You're going off of the assumption that other puddles or forms of puddles can exist in the first place. (That other life can develop in the universe with different conditions, perhaps with different parameters). An assumption that is not proved to date. Just because many people believe in the mediocrity principle doesn't make it true.


Life developed on earth with a Atmosphere largely of nitrogen plus carbon dioxide and inert gases with a ocean what was basically full of rust

Nothing today could live on that Earth and and vice versa

the most important condition what let us live ( "free" Oxygen) is artificial.

Heroic Hero

Offline
Divine_Malevolence
Bogotanian

Well I'd say that's a little arrogant to say

And I'd say I'm me.
Nice to meet you.

Haha well I still stand by that statement
Quote:
Bogotanian
You're going off of the assumption that other puddles or forms of puddles can exist in the first place. (That other life can develop in the universe with different conditions, perhaps with different parameters). An assumption that is not proved to date. Just because many people believe in the mediocrity principle doesn't make it true.

You seem to be misunderstanding.... Basically everything.
Which really takes some gymnastics, really.
First, one can't take metaphor too literally.
The odds are still for it forming in some way somewhere along the line due to the simplicity of the concept of self replicating entities and the law of large numbers.

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?
Quote:
Bogotanian
We no longer exist


We aren't that important.

Assumption
Quote:
Bogotanian

Big assumption there

"Probably."
AKA Not an assumption.

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).
Quote:
Bogotanian

Again big assumption. But that's okay a lot of cosmologists base their views on Friedmann's second assumption. In the words of Stephen Hawking

"it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann's second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe

Are you assuming that another universe could exist with different parameters for life or that other life must exist simply because of "modesty"?

Arrogant then modest. A lot of strange character assumptions
But as far as Hawking goes, that is, in essence, the basis of relativity. Yes. Galaxies would all be appearing to move apart in comparison to each other if they look to be moving apart in comparison to the one.
Just.... Y'know... Logically. With the angles and all the like it would be exceptionally strange if they weren't visibly moving apart from basically every star we see right now.
Like, maybe the night sky would look different. I'm personally under the assumption that they'd see stars we can't while being unable to see ones that we do because of optical illusions misunderstood by the concept of special relativity, but the core of the whole "Things are visibly moving apart so we think we're the center" thing would still be there.
That one ain't an assumption.


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.
Quote:

I don't particularly care about some Friedmann chap, but the assumption I'm thinking of is Murphy.
Anything that can happen, will happen.
Time, location, type, all subject to change, but let's be serious. It would be ridiculous to assume that we could exist here and nothing else could exist elsewhere.

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.

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?
Quote:
Bogotanian

Or we're the only possible life that can exist in the universe because we occupy a privileged position. We are the only life that we can see, yet people work on the assumption that the universe must be teeming with life.

Privilege is a social construct, not a universal one.
There is no privilege to check in physics.

Not according to all the parameters for life existing in the universe
Quote:
Bogotanian

Big assumptions. Interesting to talk about, but unfounded.
As far as the metaphor goes, entirely founded, because with water, gravity, and ground existing, there's going to be a puddle.
It just might be a small puddle or an entire ocean.


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.

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."

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.

Mora Starseed's Husband

Intellectual Combatant

11,225 Points
  • Battle: Mage 100
  • Unfortunate Abductee 175
  • Mark Twain 100
Offline
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?
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.

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.

inb4 M-M Experiment results weren't actually null, etc etc
Gaia Forums » GAIA Community » Extended Discussion

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
More
Get GCash
Offers
More
Get Items
More Items
More
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
  • Guilds
    fan clubs for the stuff you love
  • Chat
    chat in real time with other Gaian's
  • Art Arenas
    browse & rate gaian art galleries
  • Clans
    play zOMG with others
More
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
More
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
More
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum
More