Nobody said or implied that as a standalone argument. Whether intentionally or accidentally, you are missing an equally important part of the argument:
Back on post #65 here, presented the case that NASA is trying to get the telescope to find and confirm other Earth like planets;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is No Home in the Universe but Earth
There have to be earth like planets just based on odds alone. Nope. They are all nightmare worlds where no life can survive. But IF there were, how are you going to get there? Star Trek, Star Wars and Buck Roger's are FANTASY. The distances make travel between worlds impossible. It's...www.usmessageboard.com
The Space Telescope That Could Find a Second Earth
What will it take to capture images of a distant world capable of harboring life?
...
For all the excitement surrounding the search for distant exoplanets in recent years, the 4,000-plus planets confirmed so far have been unseen actors on the cosmic stage. Except for a handful of very large bodies imaged by ground-based telescopes, virtually all exoplanets have been detected only when they briefly dim the light coming from their host stars or when their gravity causes the star to wobble in a distinctive way. Observing these patterns and using a few other methods, scientists can determine an exoplanet’s orbit, radius, mass, and sometimes density—but not much else. The planets remain, in the words of one researcher in the field, “small black shadows.”
Scientists want much more. They’d like to know in detail the chemical makeup of the planets’ atmospheres, whether liquid water might be present on their surfaces, and, ultimately, whether these worlds might be hospitable to life.
...
Direct imaging of such a faint target also requires certain technical innovations, most critically a powerful coronagraph—a screen to block out the blinding light of the planet’s host star. Inside the coronagraph instrument, an advanced imaging camera is needed to detect small, rocky planets like our own. Then a highly sensitive spectrograph is required to identify elements like oxygen or methane in a planet’s atmosphere that might suggest the presence of life.
The LUVOIR study team concluded in its final report that the deluxe version of the observatory—as opposed to a scaled-down option that reduces the mirror size almost by half—could identify and study 54 potentially Earth-like planets over a five-year observing period, along with hundreds of larger planets.
This estimate comes from matching the telescope’s technical specifications against the number of small, rocky exoplanets predicted to exist in our celestial neighborhood based on data from NASA’s Kepler survey mission of the last decade. Key to reaching the 54-planet goal will be LUVOIR’s internal coronagraph and the large size of the telescope itself, which has 40 times the light-gathering power of Hubble and can capture images much more quickly.
...
...
The Space Telescope That Could Find a Second Earth
What will it take to capture images of a distant world capable of harboring life?www.airspacemag.com
I'm not basing it on one data point.And it doesn't mean there isn't.You do realize that everything astronomers show us is is the barest fraction of the entire universe and that the light that is bringing astronomers that information can be millions or billions of year old right?
Just looking at the scientific facts. Everything our astronomers shows us is pretty damn hostile.
People can be really confused about this things like this. For instance, they look in the sky and say things like "look at all those stars, there must be other life".
However, 70% of the stars they see are Red Dwarfs. Not only significantly cooler than our own sun but very very variable. The temperature fluctuates significantly. It is hard to have life when it is 70F one day and 370F the next day, isn't it?
Radiation is a real killer for life. Just look at Mars as an example. Earth is protected from radiation because we have a tremendous molten iron core that generates a really powerful magnetic field. That large iron core was created by a very happenstance event. When Theta collided with the primordial earth merging two iron cores.
Speaking of happenstance events our large moon is just as responsible for life as anything. It has stabilized the earth to the point that life could evolve.
May I suggest you read the book "Rare Earth"? It describes all the happenstance events that led to life on earth. It postulates that the happenstance events that created life on earth may be so unique that life (especially complex life) may only exist on earth.
Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Ward and Brownlee argue that the universe is fundamentally hostile to complex life and that while microbial life may be common in the universe, complex intelligent life (like the evolution of biological complexity from simple life on Earth) required an exceptionally unlikely set of circumstances, and therefore complex life is likely to be extremely rare. They argue that among the essential criteria for life are a terrestrial planet with plate tectonics and oxygen, a large moon, magnetic field, a gas giant like Jupiter for protection and an orbit in the habitable zone of the right kind of star. Additionally, events during the Earth's geological past such as Snowball Earth, the Cambrian Explosion, and the various mass extinction events that nearly destroyed life on Earth arguably make the existence and survival of complex life rare as well. They also suggest that animal life, having taken hundreds of millions of years to evolve, unlike bacteria, which were the first life to appear on Earth, is extremely fragile to sudden and severe changes in the environment, and therefore are very prone to becoming extinct very easily and quickly within a short period of geological time, while microbial life is much more resilient to such changes.
View attachment 474149
There are an estimated 10 to the 24th power stars in the universe so to say that none of them have planets capable of supporting life as we know it or otherwise is a bold claim indeed.
Just because there are a lot of stars don't mean there is any more life. Chemistry is common all over the universe but turning chemistry into biology is a whole new ball game.
If the universe is finite there will be unique things in it. Life on earth may be unique.
The problem we have assessing thing likes this is that we have only data point for life. Until we get another data pint we can't make an intelligent assumption. Maybe one of these days we will get another data point but we are not there yet.
We can't even create life in the laboratory. If life was so easy to be created elsewhere you would think that by now our scientists would have been able to create it in a test tube, wouldn't you?
There is a lot more to turning chemistry into biology than a rock planet, a Goldilocks zone and a little water.
I would love to know that the universe is teaming with life. Hell, I would love to be able to screw a Green Orion Slave Girl like Cpt Kirk did but alas there is no proof they exist.
View attachment 474157
Saying that you are 100% certain that no other solar system in the entire universe is capable of harboring life is ridiculous.
I never said I am 100% certain there is no other life in the universe.
I said the only proof we have is that there is life on earth and when we observed the universe everything that we see seems to be hostile and sterile.
It is true that we don't see everything.
The science that we know now says that there has to be some very unique things to have have happen to create life elsewhere. So unique that we can't even reproduce it in a Lab.
Right now science has said there is only life on earth. The only thing that says life is elsewhere is 100 years of Science Fiction brainwashing and some mythical faith.
That may change in the future but that is all we have now.
Science also allows for what it doesn't know.
And no serious scientist would ever say that there is no other life but ours in the universe especially since we actually know that the vastness of the universe prevents us from ever knowing the condition of every planet and whether or not those planets are capable of harboring life as we know it or otherwise.
Like I said there are an estimated 1000000000000000000000000 stars in the universe so we really don't know anything about all those possible solar systems.
For all you, I and any scientist knows all 1000000000000000000000000 of the stars in the universe have sterile solar systems.
A scientist that says there is other life is talking out their ass. They do not know.
You cannot make a valid statistical analysis with only one data point. It is unscientific to do that.
If a scientist starts talking about the certainty of life out there then they are like the one prisoner in the Cool Worlds analogy that says it is easy because he hit the combination but ignores the fact that none of the other million prisoners hit the right combination.
Statistics will not turn chemistry into biology. It takes a very precise set of happenstance events that may or may have been repeated elsewhere in the universe.
The only valid thing any scientist or anybody else can say is that we do not know there is life elsewhere. Anything else is nothing more than speculation, not science.
Maybe one of these days we will get another data point and that will change everything. Then we can start making valid statistical probabilities. Until then we have nothing. Nada. Zilch.
The other thing is that given the laws of physics we will probably never get out of our solar system. We will probably never know. We will probably die out as a species before we ever get any real proof. Star trekking across the universe may be popular in fiction but we have no idea how to do it.
The best we can hope for is for the Mars probe to come back with some definitive proof that microbial life once existed on Mars.
Even if we create life in a test tube then that is no proof that the same conditions existed elsewhere for life to have been started on another planet.
exactly my point THEY DON'T KNOW.
So how do you know that our planet is the only one with life ?
The answer is you don't know. Nobody knows. So at least be honest enough to say that.
Did you read what I had written previously? The only thing I have been saying is that we have no idea if life exist outside our planet because we only have one data point.
However, there are lots of people that are absolutely convinced life exist elsewhere because they speculate on invalid statistical probabilities and that is unscientific.
Given the size of the universe it is not only possible but probable that life besides us exists.
I don't think that our little insignificant planet orbiting a run of the mill yellow star in Milky Way Galaxy is the only place that life as we know it or don't know it exists and it has nothing to do with sci fi books or movies but rather a statistical probability given the astronomical (no pun intended) numbers.
See you are doing it again.
You are making an assumption based upon nothing.
Have you ever taken a college course in Statistics? If you did you would know that you can never base a probability on one data point.
Your assumption is based upon how you feel, not on science.
I would love to believe in galactic empires and alien worlds teaming with life but to do so would go against the science that says as far as we can see and for what we know right now earth is the only place with life and the rest of the universe looks to be pretty damn hostile.
By the way, our sun is not a "run of the mill" star. It is a Yellow Dwarf and only about 7% of the stars in our galaxy are like it. The run of the mill stars would be the Red Dwarfs (about 70%) that are much cooler and are not stable. Life would have a hellva time getting established on a planet orbiting a Red Dwarf because of the variability in temperature.
Not really, no. It would only be confirmation of strong theories we already have. Just as the observational confirmation of relativity didn't "change everything".
I'm not basing it on one data point.And it doesn't mean there isn't.You do realize that everything astronomers show us is is the barest fraction of the entire universe and that the light that is bringing astronomers that information can be millions or billions of year old right?
Just looking at the scientific facts. Everything our astronomers shows us is pretty damn hostile.
People can be really confused about this things like this. For instance, they look in the sky and say things like "look at all those stars, there must be other life".
However, 70% of the stars they see are Red Dwarfs. Not only significantly cooler than our own sun but very very variable. The temperature fluctuates significantly. It is hard to have life when it is 70F one day and 370F the next day, isn't it?
Radiation is a real killer for life. Just look at Mars as an example. Earth is protected from radiation because we have a tremendous molten iron core that generates a really powerful magnetic field. That large iron core was created by a very happenstance event. When Theta collided with the primordial earth merging two iron cores.
Speaking of happenstance events our large moon is just as responsible for life as anything. It has stabilized the earth to the point that life could evolve.
May I suggest you read the book "Rare Earth"? It describes all the happenstance events that led to life on earth. It postulates that the happenstance events that created life on earth may be so unique that life (especially complex life) may only exist on earth.
Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe - Wikipedia
Ward and Brownlee argue that the universe is fundamentally hostile to complex life and that while microbial life may be common in the universe, complex intelligent life (like the evolution of biological complexity from simple life on Earth) required an exceptionally unlikely set of circumstances, and therefore complex life is likely to be extremely rare. They argue that among the essential criteria for life are a terrestrial planet with plate tectonics and oxygen, a large moon, magnetic field, a gas giant like Jupiter for protection and an orbit in the habitable zone of the right kind of star. Additionally, events during the Earth's geological past such as Snowball Earth, the Cambrian Explosion, and the various mass extinction events that nearly destroyed life on Earth arguably make the existence and survival of complex life rare as well. They also suggest that animal life, having taken hundreds of millions of years to evolve, unlike bacteria, which were the first life to appear on Earth, is extremely fragile to sudden and severe changes in the environment, and therefore are very prone to becoming extinct very easily and quickly within a short period of geological time, while microbial life is much more resilient to such changes.
View attachment 474149
There are an estimated 10 to the 24th power stars in the universe so to say that none of them have planets capable of supporting life as we know it or otherwise is a bold claim indeed.
Just because there are a lot of stars don't mean there is any more life. Chemistry is common all over the universe but turning chemistry into biology is a whole new ball game.
If the universe is finite there will be unique things in it. Life on earth may be unique.
The problem we have assessing thing likes this is that we have only data point for life. Until we get another data pint we can't make an intelligent assumption. Maybe one of these days we will get another data point but we are not there yet.
We can't even create life in the laboratory. If life was so easy to be created elsewhere you would think that by now our scientists would have been able to create it in a test tube, wouldn't you?
There is a lot more to turning chemistry into biology than a rock planet, a Goldilocks zone and a little water.
I would love to know that the universe is teaming with life. Hell, I would love to be able to screw a Green Orion Slave Girl like Cpt Kirk did but alas there is no proof they exist.
View attachment 474157
Saying that you are 100% certain that no other solar system in the entire universe is capable of harboring life is ridiculous.
I never said I am 100% certain there is no other life in the universe.
I said the only proof we have is that there is life on earth and when we observed the universe everything that we see seems to be hostile and sterile.
It is true that we don't see everything.
The science that we know now says that there has to be some very unique things to have have happen to create life elsewhere. So unique that we can't even reproduce it in a Lab.
Right now science has said there is only life on earth. The only thing that says life is elsewhere is 100 years of Science Fiction brainwashing and some mythical faith.
That may change in the future but that is all we have now.
Science also allows for what it doesn't know.
And no serious scientist would ever say that there is no other life but ours in the universe especially since we actually know that the vastness of the universe prevents us from ever knowing the condition of every planet and whether or not those planets are capable of harboring life as we know it or otherwise.
Like I said there are an estimated 1000000000000000000000000 stars in the universe so we really don't know anything about all those possible solar systems.
For all you, I and any scientist knows all 1000000000000000000000000 of the stars in the universe have sterile solar systems.
A scientist that says there is other life is talking out their ass. They do not know.
You cannot make a valid statistical analysis with only one data point. It is unscientific to do that.
If a scientist starts talking about the certainty of life out there then they are like the one prisoner in the Cool Worlds analogy that says it is easy because he hit the combination but ignores the fact that none of the other million prisoners hit the right combination.
Statistics will not turn chemistry into biology. It takes a very precise set of happenstance events that may or may have been repeated elsewhere in the universe.
The only valid thing any scientist or anybody else can say is that we do not know there is life elsewhere. Anything else is nothing more than speculation, not science.
Maybe one of these days we will get another data point and that will change everything. Then we can start making valid statistical probabilities. Until then we have nothing. Nada. Zilch.
The other thing is that given the laws of physics we will probably never get out of our solar system. We will probably never know. We will probably die out as a species before we ever get any real proof. Star trekking across the universe may be popular in fiction but we have no idea how to do it.
The best we can hope for is for the Mars probe to come back with some definitive proof that microbial life once existed on Mars.
Even if we create life in a test tube then that is no proof that the same conditions existed elsewhere for life to have been started on another planet.
exactly my point THEY DON'T KNOW.
So how do you know that our planet is the only one with life ?
The answer is you don't know. Nobody knows. So at least be honest enough to say that.
Did you read what I had written previously? The only thing I have been saying is that we have no idea if life exist outside our planet because we only have one data point.
However, there are lots of people that are absolutely convinced life exist elsewhere because they speculate on invalid statistical probabilities and that is unscientific.
Given the size of the universe it is not only possible but probable that life besides us exists.
I don't think that our little insignificant planet orbiting a run of the mill yellow star in Milky Way Galaxy is the only place that life as we know it or don't know it exists and it has nothing to do with sci fi books or movies but rather a statistical probability given the astronomical (no pun intended) numbers.
See you are doing it again.
You are making an assumption based upon nothing.
Have you ever taken a college course in Statistics? If you did you would know that you can never base a probability on one data point.
Your assumption is based upon how you feel, not on science.
I would love to believe in galactic empires and alien worlds teaming with life but to do so would go against the science that says as far as we can see and for what we know right now earth is the only place with life and the rest of the universe looks to be pretty damn hostile.
By the way, our sun is not a "run of the mill" star. It is a Yellow Dwarf and only about 7% of the stars in our galaxy are like it. The run of the mill stars would be the Red Dwarfs (about 70%) that are much cooler and are not stable. Life would have a hellva time getting established on a planet orbiting a Red Dwarf because of the variability in temperature.
By saying that the rest of the universe is sterile, you are using one data point.
And probability is part of statistics in case you didn't know that.
The probability in a system as vast as the universe is that at least some other planets harbor life either as we know it or as we don't know it.
You'll notice I'm not saying there is but that the probability exists.
What do you mean "we" Kimosabe?Back on post #65 here, presented the case that NASA is trying to get the telescope to find and confirm other Earth like planets;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~There is No Home in the Universe but Earth
There have to be earth like planets just based on odds alone. Nope. They are all nightmare worlds where no life can survive. But IF there were, how are you going to get there? Star Trek, Star Wars and Buck Roger's are FANTASY. The distances make travel between worlds impossible. It's...
The Space Telescope That Could Find a Second Earth
What will it take to capture images of a distant world capable of harboring life?
...
For all the excitement surrounding the search for distant exoplanets in recent years, the 4,000-plus planets confirmed so far have been unseen actors on the cosmic stage. Except for a handful of very large bodies imaged by ground-based telescopes, virtually all exoplanets have been detected only when they briefly dim the light coming from their host stars or when their gravity causes the star to wobble in a distinctive way. Observing these patterns and using a few other methods, scientists can determine an exoplanet’s orbit, radius, mass, and sometimes density—but not much else. The planets remain, in the words of one researcher in the field, “small black shadows.”
Scientists want much more. They’d like to know in detail the chemical makeup of the planets’ atmospheres, whether liquid water might be present on their surfaces, and, ultimately, whether these worlds might be hospitable to life.
...
Direct imaging of such a faint target also requires certain technical innovations, most critically a powerful coronagraph—a screen to block out the blinding light of the planet’s host star. Inside the coronagraph instrument, an advanced imaging camera is needed to detect small, rocky planets like our own. Then a highly sensitive spectrograph is required to identify elements like oxygen or methane in a planet’s atmosphere that might suggest the presence of life.
The LUVOIR study team concluded in its final report that the deluxe version of the observatory—as opposed to a scaled-down option that reduces the mirror size almost by half—could identify and study 54 potentially Earth-like planets over a five-year observing period, along with hundreds of larger planets.
This estimate comes from matching the telescope’s technical specifications against the number of small, rocky exoplanets predicted to exist in our celestial neighborhood based on data from NASA’s Kepler survey mission of the last decade. Key to reaching the 54-planet goal will be LUVOIR’s internal coronagraph and the large size of the telescope itself, which has 40 times the light-gathering power of Hubble and can capture images much more quickly.
...
...
The Space Telescope That Could Find a Second Earth
What will it take to capture images of a distant world capable of harboring life?
That would change everything, wouldn't it?
Maybe one of these days we would get another data point but not today.
FWIW, "Orion" is a constellation of stars, many quite distant from each other, and not a single star.You do realize that everything astronomers show us is is the barest fraction of the entire universe and that the light that is bringing astronomers that information can be millions or billions of year old right?
Just looking at the scientific facts. Everything our astronomers shows us is pretty damn hostile.
People can be really confused about this things like this. For instance, they look in the sky and say things like "look at all those stars, there must be other life".
However, 70% of the stars they see are Red Dwarfs. Not only significantly cooler than our own sun but very very variable. The temperature fluctuates significantly. It is hard to have life when it is 70F one day and 370F the next day, isn't it?
Radiation is a real killer for life. Just look at Mars as an example. Earth is protected from radiation because we have a tremendous molten iron core that generates a really powerful magnetic field. That large iron core was created by a very happenstance event. When Theta collided with the primordial earth merging two iron cores.
Speaking of happenstance events our large moon is just as responsible for life as anything. It has stabilized the earth to the point that life could evolve.
May I suggest you read the book "Rare Earth"? It describes all the happenstance events that led to life on earth. It postulates that the happenstance events that created life on earth may be so unique that life (especially complex life) may only exist on earth.
Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe - Wikipedia
Ward and Brownlee argue that the universe is fundamentally hostile to complex life and that while microbial life may be common in the universe, complex intelligent life (like the evolution of biological complexity from simple life on Earth) required an exceptionally unlikely set of circumstances, and therefore complex life is likely to be extremely rare. They argue that among the essential criteria for life are a terrestrial planet with plate tectonics and oxygen, a large moon, magnetic field, a gas giant like Jupiter for protection and an orbit in the habitable zone of the right kind of star. Additionally, events during the Earth's geological past such as Snowball Earth, the Cambrian Explosion, and the various mass extinction events that nearly destroyed life on Earth arguably make the existence and survival of complex life rare as well. They also suggest that animal life, having taken hundreds of millions of years to evolve, unlike bacteria, which were the first life to appear on Earth, is extremely fragile to sudden and severe changes in the environment, and therefore are very prone to becoming extinct very easily and quickly within a short period of geological time, while microbial life is much more resilient to such changes.
View attachment 474149
There are an estimated 10 to the 24th power stars in the universe so to say that none of them have planets capable of supporting life as we know it or otherwise is a bold claim indeed.
Just because there are a lot of stars don't mean there is any more life. Chemistry is common all over the universe but turning chemistry into biology is a whole new ball game.
If the universe is finite there will be unique things in it. Life on earth may be unique.
The problem we have assessing thing likes this is that we have only data point for life. Until we get another data point we can't make an intelligent assumption. Maybe one of these days we will get another data point but we are not there yet.
We can't even create life in the laboratory. If life was so easy to be created elsewhere you would think that by now our scientists would have been able to create it in a test tube, wouldn't you?
There is a lot more to turning chemistry into biology than a rock planet, a Goldilocks zone and a little water.
I would love to know that the universe is teaming with life. Hell, I would love to be able to screw a Green Orion Slave Girl like Cpt Kirk did but alas there is no proof they exist.
View attachment 474157
That book sounds intriguing and the premise is plausible.
Just looking at the scientific facts. Everything our astronomers shows us is pretty damn hostile.
People can be really confused about this things like this. For instance, they look in the sky and say things like "look at all those stars, there must be other life".
However, 70% of the stars they see are Red Dwarfs. Not only significantly cooler than our own sun but very very variable. The temperature fluctuates significantly. It is hard to have life when it is 70F one day and 370F the next day, isn't it?
Radiation is a real killer for life. Just look at Mars as an example. Earth is protected from radiation because we have a tremendous molten iron core that generates a really powerful magnetic field. That large iron core was created by a very happenstance event. When Theta collided with the primordial earth merging two iron cores.
Speaking of happenstance events our large moon is just as responsible for life as anything. It has stabilized the earth to the point that life could evolve.
May I suggest you read the book "Rare Earth"? It describes all the happenstance events that led to life on earth. It postulates that the happenstance events that created life on earth may be so unique that life (especially complex life) may only exist on earth.
Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe - Wikipedia
Ward and Brownlee argue that the universe is fundamentally hostile to complex life and that while microbial life may be common in the universe, complex intelligent life (like the evolution of biological complexity from simple life on Earth) required an exceptionally unlikely set of circumstances, and therefore complex life is likely to be extremely rare. They argue that among the essential criteria for life are a terrestrial planet with plate tectonics and oxygen, a large moon, magnetic field, a gas giant like Jupiter for protection and an orbit in the habitable zone of the right kind of star. Additionally, events during the Earth's geological past such as Snowball Earth, the Cambrian Explosion, and the various mass extinction events that nearly destroyed life on Earth arguably make the existence and survival of complex life rare as well. They also suggest that animal life, having taken hundreds of millions of years to evolve, unlike bacteria, which were the first life to appear on Earth, is extremely fragile to sudden and severe changes in the environment, and therefore are very prone to becoming extinct very easily and quickly within a short period of geological time, while microbial life is much more resilient to such changes.
View attachment 474149
www.vice.com
Scientific research is about what we don't know.
I would have ignored my point, too
That book sounds intriguing and the premise is plausible.
Just looking at the scientific facts. Everything our astronomers shows us is pretty damn hostile.
People can be really confused about this things like this. For instance, they look in the sky and say things like "look at all those stars, there must be other life".
However, 70% of the stars they see are Red Dwarfs. Not only significantly cooler than our own sun but very very variable. The temperature fluctuates significantly. It is hard to have life when it is 70F one day and 370F the next day, isn't it?
Radiation is a real killer for life. Just look at Mars as an example. Earth is protected from radiation because we have a tremendous molten iron core that generates a really powerful magnetic field. That large iron core was created by a very happenstance event. When Theta collided with the primordial earth merging two iron cores.
Speaking of happenstance events our large moon is just as responsible for life as anything. It has stabilized the earth to the point that life could evolve.
May I suggest you read the book "Rare Earth"? It describes all the happenstance events that led to life on earth. It postulates that the happenstance events that created life on earth may be so unique that life (especially complex life) may only exist on earth.
Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe - Wikipedia
Ward and Brownlee argue that the universe is fundamentally hostile to complex life and that while microbial life may be common in the universe, complex intelligent life (like the evolution of biological complexity from simple life on Earth) required an exceptionally unlikely set of circumstances, and therefore complex life is likely to be extremely rare. They argue that among the essential criteria for life are a terrestrial planet with plate tectonics and oxygen, a large moon, magnetic field, a gas giant like Jupiter for protection and an orbit in the habitable zone of the right kind of star. Additionally, events during the Earth's geological past such as Snowball Earth, the Cambrian Explosion, and the various mass extinction events that nearly destroyed life on Earth arguably make the existence and survival of complex life rare as well. They also suggest that animal life, having taken hundreds of millions of years to evolve, unlike bacteria, which were the first life to appear on Earth, is extremely fragile to sudden and severe changes in the environment, and therefore are very prone to becoming extinct very easily and quickly within a short period of geological time, while microbial life is much more resilient to such changes.
View attachment 474149
One of many questions would be just how much all the factors are essential for complex life to develop? For example, an Earth like planet with a more stable history and one or more of those factors not present could also develop complex life but might do so in shorter time-span and with less fragile prospects.
How much did an impact event, the creation of such a large moon, and resulting plate tectonics real factor in fostering life, especially complex life versus having made what we have here even more rare compared to tamer conditions in other star systems and on other planets. ???
Some speculations are that Mars may have been more habitable and supportive of life in it's past, when it appears to have had liquid oceans and may have still retained a thicker atmosphere and warmer surface temperatures.
I've a couple of interesting and related articles to present, but will do so in another post following this.
I'm not basing it on one data point.And it doesn't mean there isn't.You do realize that everything astronomers show us is is the barest fraction of the entire universe and that the light that is bringing astronomers that information can be millions or billions of year old right?
Just looking at the scientific facts. Everything our astronomers shows us is pretty damn hostile.
People can be really confused about this things like this. For instance, they look in the sky and say things like "look at all those stars, there must be other life".
However, 70% of the stars they see are Red Dwarfs. Not only significantly cooler than our own sun but very very variable. The temperature fluctuates significantly. It is hard to have life when it is 70F one day and 370F the next day, isn't it?
Radiation is a real killer for life. Just look at Mars as an example. Earth is protected from radiation because we have a tremendous molten iron core that generates a really powerful magnetic field. That large iron core was created by a very happenstance event. When Theta collided with the primordial earth merging two iron cores.
Speaking of happenstance events our large moon is just as responsible for life as anything. It has stabilized the earth to the point that life could evolve.
May I suggest you read the book "Rare Earth"? It describes all the happenstance events that led to life on earth. It postulates that the happenstance events that created life on earth may be so unique that life (especially complex life) may only exist on earth.
Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe - Wikipedia
Ward and Brownlee argue that the universe is fundamentally hostile to complex life and that while microbial life may be common in the universe, complex intelligent life (like the evolution of biological complexity from simple life on Earth) required an exceptionally unlikely set of circumstances, and therefore complex life is likely to be extremely rare. They argue that among the essential criteria for life are a terrestrial planet with plate tectonics and oxygen, a large moon, magnetic field, a gas giant like Jupiter for protection and an orbit in the habitable zone of the right kind of star. Additionally, events during the Earth's geological past such as Snowball Earth, the Cambrian Explosion, and the various mass extinction events that nearly destroyed life on Earth arguably make the existence and survival of complex life rare as well. They also suggest that animal life, having taken hundreds of millions of years to evolve, unlike bacteria, which were the first life to appear on Earth, is extremely fragile to sudden and severe changes in the environment, and therefore are very prone to becoming extinct very easily and quickly within a short period of geological time, while microbial life is much more resilient to such changes.
View attachment 474149
There are an estimated 10 to the 24th power stars in the universe so to say that none of them have planets capable of supporting life as we know it or otherwise is a bold claim indeed.
Just because there are a lot of stars don't mean there is any more life. Chemistry is common all over the universe but turning chemistry into biology is a whole new ball game.
If the universe is finite there will be unique things in it. Life on earth may be unique.
The problem we have assessing thing likes this is that we have only data point for life. Until we get another data pint we can't make an intelligent assumption. Maybe one of these days we will get another data point but we are not there yet.
We can't even create life in the laboratory. If life was so easy to be created elsewhere you would think that by now our scientists would have been able to create it in a test tube, wouldn't you?
There is a lot more to turning chemistry into biology than a rock planet, a Goldilocks zone and a little water.
I would love to know that the universe is teaming with life. Hell, I would love to be able to screw a Green Orion Slave Girl like Cpt Kirk did but alas there is no proof they exist.
View attachment 474157
Saying that you are 100% certain that no other solar system in the entire universe is capable of harboring life is ridiculous.
I never said I am 100% certain there is no other life in the universe.
I said the only proof we have is that there is life on earth and when we observed the universe everything that we see seems to be hostile and sterile.
It is true that we don't see everything.
The science that we know now says that there has to be some very unique things to have have happen to create life elsewhere. So unique that we can't even reproduce it in a Lab.
Right now science has said there is only life on earth. The only thing that says life is elsewhere is 100 years of Science Fiction brainwashing and some mythical faith.
That may change in the future but that is all we have now.
Science also allows for what it doesn't know.
And no serious scientist would ever say that there is no other life but ours in the universe especially since we actually know that the vastness of the universe prevents us from ever knowing the condition of every planet and whether or not those planets are capable of harboring life as we know it or otherwise.
Like I said there are an estimated 1000000000000000000000000 stars in the universe so we really don't know anything about all those possible solar systems.
For all you, I and any scientist knows all 1000000000000000000000000 of the stars in the universe have sterile solar systems.
A scientist that says there is other life is talking out their ass. They do not know.
You cannot make a valid statistical analysis with only one data point. It is unscientific to do that.
If a scientist starts talking about the certainty of life out there then they are like the one prisoner in the Cool Worlds analogy that says it is easy because he hit the combination but ignores the fact that none of the other million prisoners hit the right combination.
Statistics will not turn chemistry into biology. It takes a very precise set of happenstance events that may or may have been repeated elsewhere in the universe.
The only valid thing any scientist or anybody else can say is that we do not know there is life elsewhere. Anything else is nothing more than speculation, not science.
Maybe one of these days we will get another data point and that will change everything. Then we can start making valid statistical probabilities. Until then we have nothing. Nada. Zilch.
The other thing is that given the laws of physics we will probably never get out of our solar system. We will probably never know. We will probably die out as a species before we ever get any real proof. Star trekking across the universe may be popular in fiction but we have no idea how to do it.
The best we can hope for is for the Mars probe to come back with some definitive proof that microbial life once existed on Mars.
Even if we create life in a test tube then that is no proof that the same conditions existed elsewhere for life to have been started on another planet.
exactly my point THEY DON'T KNOW.
So how do you know that our planet is the only one with life ?
The answer is you don't know. Nobody knows. So at least be honest enough to say that.
Did you read what I had written previously? The only thing I have been saying is that we have no idea if life exist outside our planet because we only have one data point.
However, there are lots of people that are absolutely convinced life exist elsewhere because they speculate on invalid statistical probabilities and that is unscientific.
Given the size of the universe it is not only possible but probable that life besides us exists.
I don't think that our little insignificant planet orbiting a run of the mill yellow star in Milky Way Galaxy is the only place that life as we know it or don't know it exists and it has nothing to do with sci fi books or movies but rather a statistical probability given the astronomical (no pun intended) numbers.
See you are doing it again.
You are making an assumption based upon nothing.
Have you ever taken a college course in Statistics? If you did you would know that you can never base a probability on one data point.
Your assumption is based upon how you feel, not on science.
I would love to believe in galactic empires and alien worlds teaming with life but to do so would go against the science that says as far as we can see and for what we know right now earth is the only place with life and the rest of the universe looks to be pretty damn hostile.
By the way, our sun is not a "run of the mill" star. It is a Yellow Dwarf and only about 7% of the stars in our galaxy are like it. The run of the mill stars would be the Red Dwarfs (about 70%) that are much cooler and are not stable. Life would have a hellva time getting established on a planet orbiting a Red Dwarf because of the variability in temperature.
By saying that the rest of the universe is sterile, you are using one data point.
And probability is part of statistics in case you didn't know that.
The probability in a system as vast as the universe is that at least some other planets harbor life either as we know it or as we don't know it.
You'll notice I'm not saying there is but that the probability exists.
I would have ignored my point, too
Nope. Thats what you did. You are lying and your god hates liars.I would have ignored my point, too
Liar. I applaud God's justice. You hate justice.
I'm not basing it on one data point.And it doesn't mean there isn't.You do realize that everything astronomers show us is is the barest fraction of the entire universe and that the light that is bringing astronomers that information can be millions or billions of year old right?
Just looking at the scientific facts. Everything our astronomers shows us is pretty damn hostile.
People can be really confused about this things like this. For instance, they look in the sky and say things like "look at all those stars, there must be other life".
However, 70% of the stars they see are Red Dwarfs. Not only significantly cooler than our own sun but very very variable. The temperature fluctuates significantly. It is hard to have life when it is 70F one day and 370F the next day, isn't it?
Radiation is a real killer for life. Just look at Mars as an example. Earth is protected from radiation because we have a tremendous molten iron core that generates a really powerful magnetic field. That large iron core was created by a very happenstance event. When Theta collided with the primordial earth merging two iron cores.
Speaking of happenstance events our large moon is just as responsible for life as anything. It has stabilized the earth to the point that life could evolve.
May I suggest you read the book "Rare Earth"? It describes all the happenstance events that led to life on earth. It postulates that the happenstance events that created life on earth may be so unique that life (especially complex life) may only exist on earth.
Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe - Wikipedia
Ward and Brownlee argue that the universe is fundamentally hostile to complex life and that while microbial life may be common in the universe, complex intelligent life (like the evolution of biological complexity from simple life on Earth) required an exceptionally unlikely set of circumstances, and therefore complex life is likely to be extremely rare. They argue that among the essential criteria for life are a terrestrial planet with plate tectonics and oxygen, a large moon, magnetic field, a gas giant like Jupiter for protection and an orbit in the habitable zone of the right kind of star. Additionally, events during the Earth's geological past such as Snowball Earth, the Cambrian Explosion, and the various mass extinction events that nearly destroyed life on Earth arguably make the existence and survival of complex life rare as well. They also suggest that animal life, having taken hundreds of millions of years to evolve, unlike bacteria, which were the first life to appear on Earth, is extremely fragile to sudden and severe changes in the environment, and therefore are very prone to becoming extinct very easily and quickly within a short period of geological time, while microbial life is much more resilient to such changes.
View attachment 474149
There are an estimated 10 to the 24th power stars in the universe so to say that none of them have planets capable of supporting life as we know it or otherwise is a bold claim indeed.
Just because there are a lot of stars don't mean there is any more life. Chemistry is common all over the universe but turning chemistry into biology is a whole new ball game.
If the universe is finite there will be unique things in it. Life on earth may be unique.
The problem we have assessing thing likes this is that we have only data point for life. Until we get another data pint we can't make an intelligent assumption. Maybe one of these days we will get another data point but we are not there yet.
We can't even create life in the laboratory. If life was so easy to be created elsewhere you would think that by now our scientists would have been able to create it in a test tube, wouldn't you?
There is a lot more to turning chemistry into biology than a rock planet, a Goldilocks zone and a little water.
I would love to know that the universe is teaming with life. Hell, I would love to be able to screw a Green Orion Slave Girl like Cpt Kirk did but alas there is no proof they exist.
View attachment 474157
Saying that you are 100% certain that no other solar system in the entire universe is capable of harboring life is ridiculous.
I never said I am 100% certain there is no other life in the universe.
I said the only proof we have is that there is life on earth and when we observed the universe everything that we see seems to be hostile and sterile.
It is true that we don't see everything.
The science that we know now says that there has to be some very unique things to have have happen to create life elsewhere. So unique that we can't even reproduce it in a Lab.
Right now science has said there is only life on earth. The only thing that says life is elsewhere is 100 years of Science Fiction brainwashing and some mythical faith.
That may change in the future but that is all we have now.
Science also allows for what it doesn't know.
And no serious scientist would ever say that there is no other life but ours in the universe especially since we actually know that the vastness of the universe prevents us from ever knowing the condition of every planet and whether or not those planets are capable of harboring life as we know it or otherwise.
Like I said there are an estimated 1000000000000000000000000 stars in the universe so we really don't know anything about all those possible solar systems.
For all you, I and any scientist knows all 1000000000000000000000000 of the stars in the universe have sterile solar systems.
A scientist that says there is other life is talking out their ass. They do not know.
You cannot make a valid statistical analysis with only one data point. It is unscientific to do that.
If a scientist starts talking about the certainty of life out there then they are like the one prisoner in the Cool Worlds analogy that says it is easy because he hit the combination but ignores the fact that none of the other million prisoners hit the right combination.
Statistics will not turn chemistry into biology. It takes a very precise set of happenstance events that may or may have been repeated elsewhere in the universe.
The only valid thing any scientist or anybody else can say is that we do not know there is life elsewhere. Anything else is nothing more than speculation, not science.
Maybe one of these days we will get another data point and that will change everything. Then we can start making valid statistical probabilities. Until then we have nothing. Nada. Zilch.
The other thing is that given the laws of physics we will probably never get out of our solar system. We will probably never know. We will probably die out as a species before we ever get any real proof. Star trekking across the universe may be popular in fiction but we have no idea how to do it.
The best we can hope for is for the Mars probe to come back with some definitive proof that microbial life once existed on Mars.
Even if we create life in a test tube then that is no proof that the same conditions existed elsewhere for life to have been started on another planet.
exactly my point THEY DON'T KNOW.
So how do you know that our planet is the only one with life ?
The answer is you don't know. Nobody knows. So at least be honest enough to say that.
Did you read what I had written previously? The only thing I have been saying is that we have no idea if life exist outside our planet because we only have one data point.
However, there are lots of people that are absolutely convinced life exist elsewhere because they speculate on invalid statistical probabilities and that is unscientific.
Given the size of the universe it is not only possible but probable that life besides us exists.
I don't think that our little insignificant planet orbiting a run of the mill yellow star in Milky Way Galaxy is the only place that life as we know it or don't know it exists and it has nothing to do with sci fi books or movies but rather a statistical probability given the astronomical (no pun intended) numbers.
See you are doing it again.
You are making an assumption based upon nothing.
Have you ever taken a college course in Statistics? If you did you would know that you can never base a probability on one data point.
Your assumption is based upon how you feel, not on science.
I would love to believe in galactic empires and alien worlds teaming with life but to do so would go against the science that says as far as we can see and for what we know right now earth is the only place with life and the rest of the universe looks to be pretty damn hostile.
By the way, our sun is not a "run of the mill" star. It is a Yellow Dwarf and only about 7% of the stars in our galaxy are like it. The run of the mill stars would be the Red Dwarfs (about 70%) that are much cooler and are not stable. Life would have a hellva time getting established on a planet orbiting a Red Dwarf because of the variability in temperature.
By saying that the rest of the universe is sterile, you are using one data point.
And probability is part of statistics in case you didn't know that.
The probability in a system as vast as the universe is that at least some other planets harbor life either as we know it or as we don't know it.
You'll notice I'm not saying there is but that the probability exists.
There's no chance in hell that mere chemistry can form anything remotely akin to a living organism.
God's hand did just that on Earth. I said mere chemistry cannot and does not produce life.I'm not basing it on one data point.And it doesn't mean there isn't.You do realize that everything astronomers show us is is the barest fraction of the entire universe and that the light that is bringing astronomers that information can be millions or billions of year old right?
Just looking at the scientific facts. Everything our astronomers shows us is pretty damn hostile.
People can be really confused about this things like this. For instance, they look in the sky and say things like "look at all those stars, there must be other life".
However, 70% of the stars they see are Red Dwarfs. Not only significantly cooler than our own sun but very very variable. The temperature fluctuates significantly. It is hard to have life when it is 70F one day and 370F the next day, isn't it?
Radiation is a real killer for life. Just look at Mars as an example. Earth is protected from radiation because we have a tremendous molten iron core that generates a really powerful magnetic field. That large iron core was created by a very happenstance event. When Theta collided with the primordial earth merging two iron cores.
Speaking of happenstance events our large moon is just as responsible for life as anything. It has stabilized the earth to the point that life could evolve.
May I suggest you read the book "Rare Earth"? It describes all the happenstance events that led to life on earth. It postulates that the happenstance events that created life on earth may be so unique that life (especially complex life) may only exist on earth.
Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe - Wikipedia
Ward and Brownlee argue that the universe is fundamentally hostile to complex life and that while microbial life may be common in the universe, complex intelligent life (like the evolution of biological complexity from simple life on Earth) required an exceptionally unlikely set of circumstances, and therefore complex life is likely to be extremely rare. They argue that among the essential criteria for life are a terrestrial planet with plate tectonics and oxygen, a large moon, magnetic field, a gas giant like Jupiter for protection and an orbit in the habitable zone of the right kind of star. Additionally, events during the Earth's geological past such as Snowball Earth, the Cambrian Explosion, and the various mass extinction events that nearly destroyed life on Earth arguably make the existence and survival of complex life rare as well. They also suggest that animal life, having taken hundreds of millions of years to evolve, unlike bacteria, which were the first life to appear on Earth, is extremely fragile to sudden and severe changes in the environment, and therefore are very prone to becoming extinct very easily and quickly within a short period of geological time, while microbial life is much more resilient to such changes.
View attachment 474149
There are an estimated 10 to the 24th power stars in the universe so to say that none of them have planets capable of supporting life as we know it or otherwise is a bold claim indeed.
Just because there are a lot of stars don't mean there is any more life. Chemistry is common all over the universe but turning chemistry into biology is a whole new ball game.
If the universe is finite there will be unique things in it. Life on earth may be unique.
The problem we have assessing thing likes this is that we have only data point for life. Until we get another data pint we can't make an intelligent assumption. Maybe one of these days we will get another data point but we are not there yet.
We can't even create life in the laboratory. If life was so easy to be created elsewhere you would think that by now our scientists would have been able to create it in a test tube, wouldn't you?
There is a lot more to turning chemistry into biology than a rock planet, a Goldilocks zone and a little water.
I would love to know that the universe is teaming with life. Hell, I would love to be able to screw a Green Orion Slave Girl like Cpt Kirk did but alas there is no proof they exist.
View attachment 474157
Saying that you are 100% certain that no other solar system in the entire universe is capable of harboring life is ridiculous.
I never said I am 100% certain there is no other life in the universe.
I said the only proof we have is that there is life on earth and when we observed the universe everything that we see seems to be hostile and sterile.
It is true that we don't see everything.
The science that we know now says that there has to be some very unique things to have have happen to create life elsewhere. So unique that we can't even reproduce it in a Lab.
Right now science has said there is only life on earth. The only thing that says life is elsewhere is 100 years of Science Fiction brainwashing and some mythical faith.
That may change in the future but that is all we have now.
Science also allows for what it doesn't know.
And no serious scientist would ever say that there is no other life but ours in the universe especially since we actually know that the vastness of the universe prevents us from ever knowing the condition of every planet and whether or not those planets are capable of harboring life as we know it or otherwise.
Like I said there are an estimated 1000000000000000000000000 stars in the universe so we really don't know anything about all those possible solar systems.
For all you, I and any scientist knows all 1000000000000000000000000 of the stars in the universe have sterile solar systems.
A scientist that says there is other life is talking out their ass. They do not know.
You cannot make a valid statistical analysis with only one data point. It is unscientific to do that.
If a scientist starts talking about the certainty of life out there then they are like the one prisoner in the Cool Worlds analogy that says it is easy because he hit the combination but ignores the fact that none of the other million prisoners hit the right combination.
Statistics will not turn chemistry into biology. It takes a very precise set of happenstance events that may or may have been repeated elsewhere in the universe.
The only valid thing any scientist or anybody else can say is that we do not know there is life elsewhere. Anything else is nothing more than speculation, not science.
Maybe one of these days we will get another data point and that will change everything. Then we can start making valid statistical probabilities. Until then we have nothing. Nada. Zilch.
The other thing is that given the laws of physics we will probably never get out of our solar system. We will probably never know. We will probably die out as a species before we ever get any real proof. Star trekking across the universe may be popular in fiction but we have no idea how to do it.
The best we can hope for is for the Mars probe to come back with some definitive proof that microbial life once existed on Mars.
Even if we create life in a test tube then that is no proof that the same conditions existed elsewhere for life to have been started on another planet.
exactly my point THEY DON'T KNOW.
So how do you know that our planet is the only one with life ?
The answer is you don't know. Nobody knows. So at least be honest enough to say that.
Did you read what I had written previously? The only thing I have been saying is that we have no idea if life exist outside our planet because we only have one data point.
However, there are lots of people that are absolutely convinced life exist elsewhere because they speculate on invalid statistical probabilities and that is unscientific.
Given the size of the universe it is not only possible but probable that life besides us exists.
I don't think that our little insignificant planet orbiting a run of the mill yellow star in Milky Way Galaxy is the only place that life as we know it or don't know it exists and it has nothing to do with sci fi books or movies but rather a statistical probability given the astronomical (no pun intended) numbers.
See you are doing it again.
You are making an assumption based upon nothing.
Have you ever taken a college course in Statistics? If you did you would know that you can never base a probability on one data point.
Your assumption is based upon how you feel, not on science.
I would love to believe in galactic empires and alien worlds teaming with life but to do so would go against the science that says as far as we can see and for what we know right now earth is the only place with life and the rest of the universe looks to be pretty damn hostile.
By the way, our sun is not a "run of the mill" star. It is a Yellow Dwarf and only about 7% of the stars in our galaxy are like it. The run of the mill stars would be the Red Dwarfs (about 70%) that are much cooler and are not stable. Life would have a hellva time getting established on a planet orbiting a Red Dwarf because of the variability in temperature.
By saying that the rest of the universe is sterile, you are using one data point.
And probability is part of statistics in case you didn't know that.
The probability in a system as vast as the universe is that at least some other planets harbor life either as we know it or as we don't know it.
You'll notice I'm not saying there is but that the probability exists.
There's no chance in hell that mere chemistry can form anything remotely akin to a living organism.
The Hand of God can turn Chemistry into Biology. We see it here on earth.
Nope. Thats what you did. You are lying and your god hates liars.I would have ignored my point, too
Liar. I applaud God's justice. You hate justice.
