Astronomy / The Universe

[Ulysses]

2 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Science can explain so little? That's an astonishing statement. 

 

It's a particularly astonishing statement for a fella to make using electricity, a communications device run on software routines and a CPU, and a complex telecommunications network.

 

How were they made?  ****ing magic, yeah? 

[Ulysses]

3 hours ago, maroonlegions said:

Science today does not know every thing

 

[JFK-1]

11 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

See this is what I think feels like a cop out, how can something just always exist? 

 

Now granted, that's quite possibly down to the fact my human brain just can't fathom that concept but it feels too much like an easy out. Unless there is the maths to show how this is true or could be? 

 

I think I watched that video if it was posted here before and it was great. Might need to rewatch.

 

There are no cop outs in science, they either know something or they don't, and nothing is completely settled which is exactly why everything is 'theory'. Science isn't dogmatic. Any theory will be dropped like a stone if anyone can find a single thing to contradict it. If no one can it remains theory till that changes, if it ever does.

Now this isn't to suggest that there are no absolute facts. The heliocentric theory of the solar system for example, we know for a fact the Earth plus the other planets, moons and various debris are all orbiting the sun, but it's still referred to as theory.

I can hear someone speak on Einstein's famous equation e=mc2 and grasp what the solution is saying and I expect you can too. A tiny amount of matter contains an enormous amount of energy. I can grasp that, but I would be entirely unable to follow all the math that led him to the solution.

Relativity is a theory of gravity taking Isaac Newtons work to the next level, speaking of which if you had to ask most people if they know what gravity is they would likely say yes. When in actual fact nobody, not even the scientists, knows what it is or why it has the effect it does. Thus it's theory but well grounded.

We must all understand that scientific theory isn't like the everyday sense of "I have a theory". It's not just an idea someone randomly pulled out of their arse. Theory is the pinnacle of science. To merit the label a hypothesis must have a mass of observational/experimental evidence to support it. And absolutely nothing to contradict it.

Krauss idea isn't theory, it's a hypothesis but doesn't have enough evidence to become theory or at least not yet it doesn't. But as I previously mentioned, it's not just some wild idea pulled out of thin air. He has some I would say largely mathematical evidence to support it but nothing like enough to be theory.

As for the math of Lawrence Krauss to support his hypothesis that's beyond the capabilities of most people me included to understand. But this doesn't make me doubt his speculations any more than I doubt e=mc2 simply because I don't understand the math that led to e=mc2.

What would make me doubt it is if someone can produce anything to contradict it which currently at least no one can. As for the basic idea of energy being a phenomena that has always existed I can get my head around that in a basic manner. In fact it's the most easily understood proposition of let's say creation that I have ever heard.

[JFK-1]

4 hours ago, Cade said:

When religious people don't understand something, they write it off as being God.

 

While demanding exacting scientific evidence of anything they don't like, then when it's provided denying it's veracity despite volumes of evidence to support it, and providing absolutely nothing to support their 'hypothesis' of invisible magic universe creating entity who created an entire universe for us ants to inhabit a microscopic speck within.

[Unknown user]

6 hours ago, Cade said:

When religious people don't understand something, they write it off as being God.

When archaeologists don't understand something, they write it off as being "ritual".

When scientists don't understand something, they keep working at it.

 

When space enthusiasts don't understand something

 

[ri Alban]

Multicellular live on earth was just one giant fluke. Whether this fluke repeated itself throughout the universe is up for debate. I can't really say either way, because when I played snooker or golf against certain pals, my god, they were flukey *******s everything time I played them.

[JFK-1]

17 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Multicellular live on earth was just one giant fluke. Whether this fluke repeated itself throughout the universe is up for debate. I can't really say either way, because when I played snooker or golf against certain pals, my god, they were flukey *******s everything time I played them.

 

It may not be such a fluke as we might imagine. There's evidence to suggest it may have happened more than once with earlier forms simply not surviving due to environmental conditions at a time when the Earth was still in the early stages.

The planet itself was evolving with changing environments over many millions of years. Vast spans of time but a blink of an eye in terms of the age of the Earth.
 

The current DNA based version of life on earth which is the only form of life known to us  made it this far at least across not just millions but billions of years.
 

And there may actually be new life forms still occurring we simply never see any evidence of. Because as even Darwin speculated, and we know a lot more about evolution than he ever did, anything new occurring now would be quickly consumed by existing microbes. Never get a foothold.

[EH11]

5 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

Like the neighbour's dog who "wouldn't stop baking", you haven't a clue what you're doing, have you?

 

Thanks for the considered conversation.

In the context of the universe, our science knows very little.

To someone who doesn't know what he's doing, it seems that the paradigms of science constantly change and fundamentals may not simply need to be revised but completely torn up.  

The scientific community isn't open, they like to defend their truth in the same way that people who identify with religion do. I'd offer our human drive to find the known, avoid the chaos of the unknown motivates.

Alas, you've found your truth. Don't mess, or like the neighbour's dog, you might bite 😉

 

 

[spud]

3 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

 

 To merit the label a hypothesis must have a mass of observational/experimental evidence to support it. And absolutely nothing to contradict it.
 

This is not correct. A hypothesis is a statement to test. "My dog barks when it rains" is not testable or refutable. "My dog barks when it rains on my roof" is testable and refutable. A series of tested hypotheses following a similar trend may form a theory.

[ri Alban]

1 hour ago, JFK-1 said:

 

It may not be such a fluke as we might imagine. There's evidence to suggest it may have happened more than once with earlier forms simply not surviving due to environmental conditions at a time when the Earth was still in the early stages.

The planet itself was evolving with changing environments over many millions of years. Vast spans of time but a blink of an eye in terms of the age of the Earth.
 

The current DNA based version of life on earth which is the only form of life known to us  made it this far at least across not just millions but billions of years.
 

And there may actually be new life forms still occurring we simply never see any evidence of. Because as even Darwin speculated, and we know a lot more about evolution than he ever did, anything new occurring now would be quickly consumed by existing microbes. Never get a foothold.

Two single cells combining and surviving back in the beginning is a fluke. Do the real deal experts not call it a fluke. 

If they find life elsewhere, it surely will be only single cell.

 

There are no other civilisations in the universe. But it's exciting to imagine there is. Makes money and the Telly less shite.

Edited August 22, 2021 by ri Alban

[maroonlegions]

8 hours ago, spud said:

It was ignored because it is a NASA link to the possibility of a WARP Drive. It's only a possibility. Because it's written by NASA staff does not make it science. It's speculation, a flight of fancy, an opinion, a mind game, by some NASA staff. It's not wrong neither is it correct because it's just a speculative article about some possible future advance among other future advances.

And let's look at religion. No there is not a testable hypothesis regarding religion. Blind faith is not an Achilles heel (note the spelling) to science because blind faith has no testable hypotheses either. In that regard science challenges every notion of religion.

"Science today does not know every thing". A ridiculous statement which shows how very very little you understand science. There is no scientist in the over 2000 year history of science that has said they know everything. It's only you and your cohorts. If everything was known, science could necessarily not continue - it would have to stop. According to Karl Popper, science should test the opposite of what is known in order to advance the cumulative knowledge of mankind. So hypotheses are based on observations and stated in the negative. Data is collected by a clearly explained methodology and tested by statistical analyses. The hypothesis is then accepted or rejected within a degree of confidence limits. These confidence  limits are also provided by statistical analysis. Note: nothing is proved or can be proved because science does not know everything.

Now two favours.

You seem to like to tell people about "quantum mechanics and "string theory". I'm sure many people, including myself aren't very clear on how these theories are going to bring "a new age"    so an explanation would be appreciated. In your own words, of course. Here was me thinking that they were explanations, silly me.

What exactly is a "peer reviewed hypothesis" I've never heard of such a thing, Could you enlighten me?

 

Lastly it's etc from the Latin etcetera, NOT ect.

 

I am one of those who believe the building blocks of life are scattered throughout the entire universe so I therefore lean towards the possibility of Panspermia. This latest finding seems to be another straw added to that theory if they are correct in their assessment.
 

Would rather listen to creditable sources from NASAS that you mate thats a given. Did you even read that NASA warp drive investigation. 

 

Religion has no bases in science. Could you please provided and explain why religious fairy stories cant be peer reviewed?? 

 

You seem lazy in research any way, demanding that i explain things, why dont you look at it. Yes i am no scientist just like you.

 

A peer reviewed hypothesis is a hypothesis that has been looked at by a bunch of scientific boffins. 

 

You ask me that knowing full well what it meant.

 

Lets look at the following information and data.

 

If science has to reevaluate data from known current facts then surely they have missed something. What else in the future will they have to REEVALUATE.??? 

 

The VLT in Chile , in which i have already provided, sent back data that indicates that the laws of physics might not be the same throughout the universe. That is ,our laws of physics are just right in our part of the universe and might not be in other parts. 

 

Science it appears does not know every thing in this context if it is discovering  new data like the date sent back from the VLT in Chile.     

 

It looks like its you who does not fully understand what i meant by NEW DATA that challenges current scientific understanding.  

 

Science is ever evolving, discovering new things in the field of "quantum mechanics", that is what i meant by science does not every thing in its present sate. but you new that ect...😛

 

You will be disappointed that the below data came from those, unlike your self, who are qualified in their chosen scientific fields. 

 

Like the Dutch boys finger in the wall , holding back the future, pull yer finger oot.. ect..  

 

In a recently published survey of the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, a group of scientists from around the globe found something hanging around the inner Solar System that they say simply should not be there; a pair of dark red rocks seemingly covered in complex organic material.

 

“Two asteroids (203 Pompeja and 269 Justitia) have been discovered with a redder spectrum than any other object in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter,” a Japanese Aerospace Exploration Association (JAXA) release states. And according to that same release, “spectroscopic observations suggest the presence of complex organic matter on the surface of these asteroids.”

BACKGROUND: IS THERE LIFE ON OTHER PLANETS?

Among the most fascinating concepts behind the origin of life on Earth is panspermia, or the notion that life here evolved somewhere else before arriving on our planet via comets, asteroids, or other interplanetary bodies (or beings?).

 

Recently, the idea has gained some traction, including the concept that life originated within our solar system and was later seeded here on Earth. By all accounts, this latest discovery by the JAXA-led team hints toward at least one possible mechanism behind this concept, and one that may have occurred way back when the solar system was first forming.

 

That’s because certain types of asteroids (and even larger space rocks known as ‘planetesimals’) originally formed beyond our farthest planet Neptune, at the extreme outer edges of our solar system.

 

Furthermore, according to the study’s authors, due to the mechanics of their super cold environment, these far-out objects often form complex organic compounds on their surface, something these transient interlopers found by the international team also appear to have, giving them their dark red color.

 

Until now, this particular class of organically covered space rock was thought to have stayed beyond Neptune, never having the opportunity to work its way down to Earth and seed it with those organic compounds. However, these latest results seem to challenge that notion.

 

 

ANALYSIS: THE SEEDS OF LIFE;

 

Led by Hasegawa Sunao, an Associate Senior Researcher at JAXA’s Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (ISAS), and supported by an international team of researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Hawai’i, Seoul National University, Kyoto University, and the Laboratoire d’Astrophysique de Marseille, the group first zeroed in on 203 Pompeja just to make sure they were reading the unusual spectroscopic data correctly. And what they found, they say, was utterly unexpected.

 

“In the spectroscopic survey, we discovered that 203 Pompeja, with a diameter of 110 km, has a spectrum redder than even that of the D-type asteroids,” the release states, noting that the unexpected rock was redder than the reddest asteroids normally found in this region.

 

That discovery, they say, led them to look at previously recorded data to see if 203 Pompeia was alone, or if other renegade space objects covered with critical ingredients for life had somehow moved from the outer solar system to the inner asteroid belt.

 

              

thedebrief.org...

Edited August 22, 2021 by maroonlegions

[maroonlegions]

2 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Two single cells combining and surviving back in the beginning is a fluke. Do the real deal experts not call it a fluke. 

If they find life elsewhere, it surely will be only single cell.

 

There are no other civilisations in the universe. But it's exciting to imagine there is. Makes money and the Telly less shite.

 Wow, you should be the head of NASAs research programme.

 

Please explain why you think its not possible for life to exist out side our solar system.  

 

Have you even looked at the data from Hubble that has discovered 1000,s of planets orbiting their parent star/sun that ARE in a habitual zone. The earth is in a habitual zone around our sun, which allows like to exist, our planet is not to far, to cold and not to close, far to hot for life too exist , as we know it.  

 

The chances of life existing else were mate has gone up. Pay attention ..

[spud]

2 hours ago, maroonlegions said:

Religion has no bases in science. Could you please provided and explain why religious fairy stories cant be peer reviewed?? 

 

You seem lazy in research any way, demanding that i explain things, why dont you look at it. Yes i am no scientist just like you.

 

A peer reviewed hypothesis is a hypothesis that has been looked at by a bunch of scientific boffins. 

 

 

 

"Religion has no bases in science. Could you please provided and explain why religious fairy stories cant be peer reviewed??"

 

What the hell are you talking about. Religion has no basis (check the spelling) in science. Then you want to know why religion can't be peer reviewed? Are you having people on? Surely you can't be that stupid.

 

"You seem lazy in research any way, demanding that i explain things, why dont you look at it. Yes i am no scientist just like you."

 Sorry I am a scientist with over 20 scientific peer reviewed papers published in international scientific journals.

 

"A peer reviewed hypothesis is a hypothesis that has been looked at by a bunch of scientific boffins".  What a load of bollocks. You don't know what you are talking about. There is no such thing a peer reviewed hypothesis.

 

Instead of collecting articles that agree with your beliefs, why don't you read a book about on introductury science. A book on English spelling and grammar wouldn't go amiss either.

[ri Alban]

2 hours ago, maroonlegions said:

 Wow, you should be the head of NASAs research programme.

 

Please explain why you think its not possible for life to exist out side our solar system.  

 

Have you even looked at the data from Hubble that has discovered 1000,s of planets orbiting their parent star/sun that ARE in a habitual zone. The earth is in a habitual zone around our sun, which allows like to exist, our planet is not to far, to cold and not to close, far to hot for life too exist , as we know it.  

 

The chances of life existing else were mate has gone up. Pay attention ..

No Life outside earth? I didn't say that. But Multicellular technological civilisations?  I'll listen to the experts, and sorry ML, that ain't some "I'll buy any car" Lego sniffer from YouTube.

 

 

Oh and Prove it. All these new recording devices and , yet, pictures still can't be recorded in focus.

 

Anyway, do you wish to purchase some tartan paint, glass hammers and left handed screwdrivers? On special offer for very special people 😉.

Edited August 22, 2021 by ri Alban

[AlphonseCapone]

10 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

 

There are no cop outs in science, they either know something or they don't, and nothing is completely settled which is exactly why everything is 'theory'. Science isn't dogmatic. Any theory will be dropped like a stone if anyone can find a single thing to contradict it. If no one can it remains theory till that changes, if it ever does.

Krauss idea isn't theory, it's a hypothesis but doesn't have enough evidence to become theory or at least not yet it doesn't. But as I previously mentioned, it's not just some wild idea pulled out of thin air. He has some I would say largely mathematical evidence to support it but nothing like enough to be theory.

As for the math of Lawrence Krauss to support his hypothesis that's beyond the capabilities of most people me included to understand. But this doesn't make me doubt his speculations any more than I doubt e=mc2 simply because I don't understand the math that led to e=mc2.

What would make me doubt it is if someone can produce anything to contradict it which currently at least no one can. As for the basic idea of energy being a phenomena that has always existed I can get my head around that in a basic manner. In fact it's the most easily understood proposition of let's say creation that I have ever heard.

 

I deleted a fair bit of your post, hope that's alright, wasn't ignroning it but you were explaining the basics of the scientific method to me which I fully understand and would rather focus on the specifics here of Krauss' hypothesis. 

 

On your first paragraph, I agree to an extent but you're not entirely correct here because the logic you've set-out is exactly what religious folk do with the existence of God. "God is real, show me evidence he isn't". But that's the wrong way around. The onus is on the individual making the claim God exists to prove it.

 

The reason this is important here is because you said about Krauss' hypothesis on energy always existing and I'm interested in what evidence he has for that claim, mathematical or not, because that's a huge claim, and it's not for someone else to simply come along with evidence to refute it, it's also for Krauss to present evidence for it. However, I just want to be clear I've no doubt he absolutely must have some, otherwise I can't see him coming out with it, unless it was a throw away remark. This is probably my own fault because rather than asking you about that evidence I should not be lazy and go and look this up myself, which I will. Before looking it up though I am fairly confident there is a big difference between accepting this and accepting e = mc2 despite not understanding the maths of either simply because the latter has been around for so long and no one has been able to prove it wrong. 

 

So to be clear, I'm not doubting on Krauss, clearly, who the hell am I to do that, but more interested in his evidence for suggesting this theory, which again, I'll go look into myself like a big boy! 

 

On your last paragraph, if you can get your head around that beyond the basic concept of it then fair play, perhaps it's just me that struggles with it. Like on a simple level I understand the idea of something always existing. But on a deeper, practical level, I can't get my head to understand how something could always exist, I still struggle with the question of how can it always exist, and that it had to come from somewhere surely but then I'm back to the whole can't create or destroy energy and so my head hurts again. 

 

Anyway, interesting stuff. I'll perhaps come back when I educate myself more on this hypothesis. 

 

Edited to add this might all be explained in that video and if so apologies for not watching that again before engaging. 

Edited August 22, 2021 by AlphonseCapone

[Unknown user]

This thread started so pleasantly until the tantrums started

[spud]

H Agreed. Here's a photo I took a couple of years back of the Orion Nebula. It isn't that great but the colours are true. It is estimated that the hydrogen gas will dissipate in around 100,000 years leaving the newly formed stars. Is it not wonderful to comrehend?

[Unknown user]

8 minutes ago, spud said:

H Agreed. Here's a photo I took a couple of years back of the Orion Nebula. It isn't that great but the colours are true. It is estimated that the hydrogen gas will dissipate in around 100,000 years leaving the newly formed stars. Is it not wonderful to comrehend?

 

Utterly beyond my comprehension tbh

[spud]

14 minutes ago, spud said:

H Agreed. Here's a photo I took a couple of years back of the Orion Nebula. It isn't that great but the colours are true. It is estimated that the hydrogen gas will dissipate in around 100,000 years leaving the newly formed stars. Is it not wonderful to comrehend?

Sorry I meant comprehend. I may have had too much 12 year old Deanston Highland Malt bottled at 46.3% which is another beautiful thing beyond comprehension.

[Dawnrazor]

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

This thread started so pleasantly until the tantrums started

Like every other thread.

[Bigsmak]

8 hours ago, EH11 said:

 

To someone who doesn't know what he's doing, it seems that the paradigms of science constantly change and fundamentals may not simply need to be revised but completely torn up.  

The scientific community isn't open, they like to defend their truth in the same way that people who identify with religion do. I'd offer our human drive to find the known, avoid the chaos of the unknown motivates.

Alas, you've found your truth. Don't mess, or like the neighbour's dog, you might bite 😉

 

 

 

 

Actually.. Science is the exact opposite of that.  When a paper is published its effectively a challenge for others to go out and prove them wrong (or right) .. Every single competent scientest will change their views on things if proper evidence is presented to them.  

 

I don't think you understand what Science is? 

 

 

[Cade]

Peer Review is a fundamental cornerstone of Science.

 

You publish a paper then anybody who wants to can tear into it in great detail, try to replicate your experiment or otherwise poke holes in it.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

[kila]

I believe there'll be life in our own galaxy never mind elsewhere in the vastness of the universe. It's just a question of time and the ingredients being right. The cosmos is forever changing with the dying and birth of stars, and it happens things are just right in our patch of it - though it won't forever.

 

As telescopes get more powerful and live in orbit beyond our planet, we'll be able to peek back in time in great detail and perhaps see confirmation that we're not the first life forms. But the question is how many life forms exist in our moment of time?

 

[EH11]

3 hours ago, Bigsmak said:

 

 

Actually.. Science is the exact opposite of that.  When a paper is published its effectively a challenge for others to go out and prove them wrong (or right) .. Every single competent scientest will change their views on things if proper evidence is presented to them.  

 

I don't think you understand what Science is? 

 

 

 

 

In theory, what you have written seems reasonable but can you honestly say that established science doesn't try to defend itself or that convention isn't resistant to change?

Guys like Bruce Lipton, one of the founding fathers of Epigenetics would disagree with you.  The community shunned him when he suggested that DNA wasn't the whole show but when they mapped the human genome and found a disappointing 25million strands of DNA for the 'superior mammal', well, it seems like he knew what he was talking about.  That wasn't before he was kicked out of his teaching position at Stanford University and derided by his peers. 

 

Science is fantastic, like many on this thread the wonder of it is liberating and awesome.  That said, there are such massive gaps in understanding that it's important to keep an open mind. Was it not the case that big bang was seen as a ridiculous premise when it was first introduced in the 1940's, only for it to become adopted as convention by the scientific community.  But now, there's an increasing body of evidence that the universe is eternal and therefore renders big bang inaccurate.  

 

I enjoy the work of guys like Peter Russell, who explores the idea of science and non duality.  Let's have open conversations and acknowledge that as a species, despite the wonder of science, we actually know very little in the scheme of things.

 

Genuinely written with respect.  "Say not I have found the truth, say I have found a truth", Kahlil Gibran.

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Smithee said:

This thread started so pleasantly until the tantrums started

 

As someone who doesn't identify as religious, it would appear that suggesting that Science has a limited understanding of the universe leads to the same reaction as when I challenge the dogma associated with religion with people of faith.  The Italian Physicist, Carlo Rovelli's work is brilliant in that he talks about points of truce between science and religion and I can identify with this to some degree.  I don't post much on KB and have little interest in social media, you look for some democracy of thought, openness and respect for opinion, not just your own truth.  Guys like Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson are inspiring for their ability to openly debate and respect fundamental differences without getting personal.  

 

Anyway, I realise that posting on here is time consuming (if there is such a thing).  I'm off to listen to Polaris by Damon Albarn, brilliant track, out of this world.

 

 

[Pap]

6 hours ago, spud said:

H Agreed. Here's a photo I took a couple of years back of the Orion Nebula. It isn't that great but the colours are true. It is estimated that the hydrogen gas will dissipate in around 100,000 years leaving the newly formed stars. Is it not wonderful to comrehend?

 

Brilliant photo. How did you take it? 

[Cade]

1 hour ago, kila said:

I believe there'll be life in our own galaxy never mind elsewhere in the vastness of the universe. It's just a question of time and the ingredients being right. The cosmos is forever changing with the dying and birth of stars, and it happens things are just right in our patch of it - though it won't forever.

 

As telescopes get more powerful and live in orbit beyond our planet, we'll be able to peek back in time in great detail and perhaps see confirmation that we're not the first life forms. But the question is how many life forms exist in our moment of time?

 

 

There's a fair chance of finding life in our own star system.

Mars may have been stable and water covered for long enough to form basic life. Any life we do find there will be fossilised.

Some of the moons around the planets may actually have existing microbial life on them. Europa, Titan and Enceladus especially seem good candidates.

 

If we do find more life in our own system then that probably means it's everywhere.

 

 

[Ulysses]

14 hours ago, EH11 said:

Thanks for the considered conversation.

In the context of the universe, our science knows very little.

To someone who doesn't know what he's doing, it seems that the paradigms of science constantly change and fundamentals may not simply need to be revised but completely torn up.  

The scientific community isn't open, they like to defend their truth in the same way that people who identify with religion do. I'd offer our human drive to find the known, avoid the chaos of the unknown motivates.

Alas, you've found your truth. Don't mess, or like the neighbour's dog, you might bite 😉

 

 

 

Let me know what dressing you'd like with that word salad. 

[Ulysses]

7 hours ago, spud said:

I may have had too much 12 year old Deanston Highland Malt bottled at 46.3% which is another beautiful thing beyond comprehension.

 

Ah, the scientific method.  Much to commend, it has.

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, EH11 said:

 

 

As someone who doesn't identify as religious, it would appear that suggesting that Science has a limited understanding of the universe leads to the same reaction as when I challenge the dogma associated with religion with people of faith.

 

 

 

What are you looking for?  A degree in stating the feckin' obvious?  The whole sodding point of science is that it has a limited understanding of the universe.  Otherwise, it would stop.

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, Cade said:

 

There's a fair chance of finding life in our own star system.

Mars may have been stable and water covered for long enough to form basic life. Any life we do find there will be fossilised.

Some of the moons around the planets may actually have existing microbial life on them. Europa, Titan and Enceladus especially seem good candidates.

 

If we do find more life in our own system then that probably means it's everywhere.

 

 

 

I think that there is life scattered throughout the universe.  But I have absolutely no evidence that this is so, and therefore I wouldn't try to claim that my notion is true.

[spud]

2 hours ago, Pap said:

 

Brilliant photo. How did you take it? 

The photo is not at all brilliant but thanks anyway. It used to be known as The Great Nebula of Orion but that was thought to be too dramatic so it's just the Orion Nebula now. As I said I took it a few years back using a Canon DSLR fitted to my 9.25 inch Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope. I think I took 200 x 10s exposures plus 60 compensation exposures. They were all stacked using software which is freely available on the net. The stack resulted in the one photograph. I didn't use any filters so the colours are how it appears. The photo only shows the core, maybe 10 light years across? The whole thing is estimated to be around 25 light years across with indeterminate borders and is an area where hydrogen and dust are condensing into new stars. Astronomy has identified at least 4 stars that have probably escaped. It's visible to the naked eye near the "sword" (the 3 stars nearly in a line) in Orion. It appears as a small fuzzy area on a good clear night. It's easier to see with binoculars if you don't have a telescope. Although if you want to see it, you better hurry; it's due to disappear in around 100,000 years.

According to some God made it.

[spud]

Sorry, the above location should be the belt of Orion not the sword of Orion.

[Maple Leaf]

5 hours ago, EH11 said:

 

 

In theory, what you have written seems reasonable but can you honestly say that established science doesn't try to defend itself or that convention isn't resistant to change?

Guys like Bruce Lipton, one of the founding fathers of Epigenetics would disagree with you.  The community shunned him when he suggested that DNA wasn't the whole show but when they mapped the human genome and found a disappointing 25million strands of DNA for the 'superior mammal', well, it seems like he knew what he was talking about.  That wasn't before he was kicked out of his teaching position at Stanford University and derided by his peers. 

 

Science is fantastic, like many on this thread the wonder of it is liberating and awesome.  That said, there are such massive gaps in understanding that it's important to keep an open mind. Was it not the case that big bang was seen as a ridiculous premise when it was first introduced in the 1940's, only for it to become adopted as convention by the scientific community.  But now, there's an increasing body of evidence that the universe is eternal and therefore renders big bang inaccurate.  

 

I enjoy the work of guys like Peter Russell, who explores the idea of science and non duality.  Let's have open conversations and acknowledge that as a species, despite the wonder of science, we actually know very little in the scheme of things.

 

Genuinely written with respect.  "Say not I have found the truth, say I have found a truth", Kahlil Gibran.

 

 

 

 

As someone who doesn't identify as religious, it would appear that suggesting that Science has a limited understanding of the universe leads to the same reaction as when I challenge the dogma associated with religion with people of faith.  The Italian Physicist, Carlo Rovelli's work is brilliant in that he talks about points of truce between science and religion and I can identify with this to some degree.  I don't post much on KB and have little interest in social media, you look for some democracy of thought, openness and respect for opinion, not just your own truth.  Guys like Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson are inspiring for their ability to openly debate and respect fundamental differences without getting personal.  

 

Anyway, I realise that posting on here is time consuming (if there is such a thing).  I'm off to listen to Polaris by Damon Albarn, brilliant track, out of this world.

 

 

You should post more often.  We can never have enough reasonable opinions expressed in a reasonable manner.

[Maple Leaf]

3 hours ago, spud said:

The photo is not at all brilliant but thanks anyway. It used to be known as The Great Nebula of Orion but that was thought to be too dramatic so it's just the Orion Nebula now. As I said I took it a few years back using a Canon DSLR fitted to my 9.25 inch Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope. I think I took 200 x 10s exposures plus 60 compensation exposures. They were all stacked using software which is freely available on the net. The stack resulted in the one photograph. I didn't use any filters so the colours are how it appears. The photo only shows the core, maybe 10 light years across? The whole thing is estimated to be around 25 light years across with indeterminate borders and is an area where hydrogen and dust are condensing into new stars. Astronomy has identified at least 4 stars that have probably escaped. It's visible to the naked eye near the "sword" (the 3 stars nearly in a line) in Orion. It appears as a small fuzzy area on a good clear night. It's easier to see with binoculars if you don't have a telescope. Although if you want to see it, you better hurry; it's due to disappear in around 100,000 years.

According to some God made it.

 

I clearly remember the first time I saw three stars in a row.  I was about 12 years old living in Gilmerton and I ran all the way home to tell my parents that I had made a stupendous discovery. 

 

[J.T.F.Robertson]

28 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

You should post more often.  We can never have enough reasonable opinions expressed in a reasonable manner.

 

I couldn't agree more, even if it is a number of light years over my neutron star-like, dense bonce.

Anytime we are afflicted with our (utterly delusory) delusions of grandeur, they should be nano-secondly cut short by the scale of it all.

Imagine how much more I would love the subject if I had the first clue about it all. 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 23, 2021 by J.T.F.Robertson

[spud]

6 hours ago, EH11 said:

 

 

In theory, what you have written seems reasonable but can you honestly say that established science doesn't try to defend itself or that convention isn't resistant to change?

Guys like Bruce Lipton, one of the founding fathers of Epigenetics would disagree with you.  The community shunned him when he suggested that DNA wasn't the whole show but when they mapped the human genome and found a disappointing 25million strands of DNA for the 'superior mammal', well, it seems like he knew what he was talking about.  That wasn't before he was kicked out of his teaching position at Stanford University and derided by his peers.

 

Science is fantastic, like many on this thread the wonder of it is liberating and awesome.  That said, there are such massive gaps in understanding that it's important to keep an open mind. Was it not the case that big bang was seen as a ridiculous premise when it was first introduced in the 1940's, only for it to become adopted as convention by the scientific community.  But now, there's an increasing body of evidence that the universe is eternal and therefore renders big bang inaccurate.  

 

 

 

Bruce Lipton is a purveyor of pseaudoscience. What he proposes is the links between cells and spirituality. It is one step away from regular religion and a pretty small step at that. He was shunned and eventually lost his job because he believed that cells are a microcosm of self. Not only that he believes that cells communicate with each other and if they don't like what they are hearing they go in the huff and become cancerous. He believes and has stated that Coronavirus is not dangerous and anyone infected has little chance of death - unless they are scared. It's the scariness that kills people, according to Lipton. And that pharmaceutical companies make people scared in their advertising. He sets up entirely bogus claims then proceeds to debunk them.

For example, he believes that as scientists are all or mostly male and men do their thinking through their testes. Of course, this is where sperm is kept and sperm is full of genetic material therefore the cell nucleus which is also full of genetic material must be the "brain of the cell". Which according to Lipton, scientists have been searching for ages for this "brain of the cell", which is complettely untrue. He then offers evidence that cells can remain viable in a petri dish for months even if their nucleus is removed. Therefore, science is wrong about the nucleus being the "brain of the cell". An idea that he proposed, not science.

Here's another good one - Lipton believes that cells live in communities which is true. You are made up of many millions of cells, which Lipton describes as communities, so here in his own words, is how you get cancer;

"If a cell doesn't listen to the community's voice, then the cell is not part of the community. Cancer cells have withdrawn from the community. They're still in there but they're not listening to the voice of the community. They're doing their own thing. Why would some cells get out of the community? And the answer is why are people homeless? Why are people out of work, or why are people suffering? If their community is not supporting them at some point the cells recognize at some point "My God what do I want to be in this for?" So, there's a point that cancer starts to recognize as a result of break down of the community."

The guy is a complete whacko.

I find your second paragraph rather confusing, hinting that science is resistant to new ideas. But then you list how new ideas have been accepted by the scientific community. This is a "strawman" argument perfected by Lipton stating something that is not true then explaining why it isn't true as if you have made a great discovery.

[JFK-1]

20 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

I deleted a fair bit of your post, hope that's alright

No problem, hell I would have deleted it. LOL

 

I rambled away on tangents when my real thing was science executing cop outs. That's an accusation often made by religionists, which I don't think you are, and the irony of that is almost indescribable. Or at least for me it is.

There are no cop outs in science, you either know something or you don't. You may have ideas to say explain a phenomena, but without compelling evidence it's an idea not a faith based dogma.

If science were to be comparable to religion they would just say the universe dunnit and it needs no further investigation.

 

Quote

On your first paragraph, I agree to an extent but you're not entirely correct here because the logic you've set-out is exactly what religious folk do with the existence of God. "God is real, show me evidence he isn't". But that's the wrong way around. The onus is on the individual making the claim God exists to prove it.

 

Totally agree, and so would all scientists. Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence.

 

Quote

The reason this is important here is because you said about Krauss' hypothesis on energy always existing and I'm interested in what evidence he has for that claim, mathematical or not, because that's a huge claim, and it's not for someone else to simply come along with evidence to refute it, it's also for Krauss to present evidence for it. However, I just want to be clear I've no doubt he absolutely must have some, otherwise I can't see him coming out with it, unless it was a throw away remark.

 

Definitely no throwaway remark. He has written a book on it and has conducted tours speaking about it. The mathematical aspects of it will be beyond us. But there are observational aspects to the conclusion as well. He explains it in a lot more depth than I could here.

As for the potential of the idea to become established theory, who knows. Certainly not me. It appeals to me because I can get my head around it. Unlike in other aspects of the whole stramash.

Multi bloody dimensions in all directions including in directions we can't even see. Particles behaving in one way when you're observing, and an entirely different way when you're not observing them. Unlike all that shit, the Krauss idea I can see a basis for.

But obviously my feelings or opinions on it have no relevance. If somebody else come up with another idea that had a lot more evidence I would go for that, religion doesn't give up on the original hypothesis. Regardless of any new evidence.

 

Quote

On your last paragraph, if you can get your head around that beyond the basic concept of it then fair play, perhaps it's just me that struggles with it.

  

I assure you it's not just you, everybody, Krauss included, finds this shit mind boggling the further down the rabbit hole you go. It's mystifying. And exactly why the earliest 'theories' were no more complex than super being in the sky dunnit. Which apparently some still cling to.
 

Quote

can't get my head to understand how something could always exist, I still struggle with the question of how can it always exist, and that it had to come from somewhere surely but then I'm back to the whole can't create or destroy energy and so my head hurts again. 

 

Yep, headache inducing, imagine the migraines of those in the field. I think part of the headache for us laymen is the concept of nothing. Can that even exist?

Regarding the Krauss idea I get my head around it by deciding to put nothing aside, and view it from a perspective that there always has to be something. Even if there's no space for it to be in, in our view.

What about all these multi dimensions there is strong mathematical evidence for? But no way to test.

But presume that were real, all around us there are dimensions we in our 3D universe cannot see.  So, when this inflation process from some primordial atom or whatever it was we label the big bang occurs it didn't come from nowhere, it always had a dimension we cannot see to exist in.

Given that there may be all this background all around us we cannot see I feel encouraged to conclude from there that before what we can see all existed, there was always some sort of simply natural background fabric.

Something for energy to spontaneously occur in. Maybe I just had an original thought. I just thought of dimensions sort of floating around like continental plates. Jostling at points.  Enough of this energy accumulates in a specific dimension/space/time location and you get what we call the big bang.

Or maybe not. LOL

[JFK-1]

5 hours ago, spud said:

Bruce Lipton is a purveyor of pseaudoscience

 

Probably one reason I have never heard of him. But decided to look him up.
 

Quote

In Science-Based Medicine, professor David Gorski described Lipton as a "well-known crank" and likened his idea to the law of attraction, also known as "The Secret": "wanting something badly enough makes it so"

 

[jambopilms]

https://youtu.be/Iy7NzjCmUf0

 

I like these little snippets of info. Probably too dumbed down for the super brains on here.

Some really easy to watch info on loads of subjects on these channels.

 

Edited August 23, 2021 by jambopilms

[AlphonseCapone]

1 hour ago, JFK-1 said:

No problem, hell I would have deleted it. LOL

 

I rambled away on tangents when my real thing was science executing cop outs. That's an accusation often made by religionists, which I don't think you are, and the irony of that is almost indescribable. Or at least for me it is.

There are no cop outs in science, you either know something or you don't. You may have ideas to say explain a phenomena, but without compelling evidence it's an idea not a faith based dogma.

If science were to be comparable to religion they would just say the universe dunnit and it needs no further investigation.

 

 

Totally agree, and so would all scientists. Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence.

 

 

Definitely no throwaway remark. He has written a book on it and has conducted tours speaking about it. The mathematical aspects of it will be beyond us. But there are observational aspects to the conclusion as well. He explains it in a lot more depth than I could here.

As for the potential of the idea to become established theory, who knows. Certainly not me. It appeals to me because I can get my head around it. Unlike in other aspects of the whole stramash.

Multi bloody dimensions in all directions including in directions we can't even see. Particles behaving in one way when you're observing, and an entirely different way when you're not observing them. Unlike all that shit, the Krauss idea I can see a basis for.

But obviously my feelings or opinions on it have no relevance. If somebody else come up with another idea that had a lot more evidence I would go for that, religion doesn't give up on the original hypothesis. Regardless of any new evidence.

 

  

I assure you it's not just you, everybody, Krauss included, finds this shit mind boggling the further down the rabbit hole you go. It's mystifying. And exactly why the earliest 'theories' were no more complex than super being in the sky dunnit. Which apparently some still cling to.
 

 

Yep, headache inducing, imagine the migraines of those in the field. I think part of the headache for us laymen is the concept of nothing. Can that even exist?

Regarding the Krauss idea I get my head around it by deciding to put nothing aside, and view it from a perspective that there always has to be something. Even if there's no space for it to be in, in our view.

What about all these multi dimensions there is strong mathematical evidence for? But no way to test.

But presume that were real, all around us there are dimensions we in our 3D universe cannot see.  So, when this inflation process from some primordial atom or whatever it was we label the big bang occurs it didn't come from nowhere, it always had a dimension we cannot see to exist in.

Given that there may be all this background all around us we cannot see I feel encouraged to conclude from there that before what we can see all existed, there was always some sort of simply natural background fabric.

Something for energy to spontaneously occur in. Maybe I just had an original thought. I just thought of dimensions sort of floating around like continental plates. Jostling at points.  Enough of this energy accumulates in a specific dimension/space/time location and you get what we call the big bang.

Or maybe not. LOL

 

Just a quick response from me just now but ironically guess what I found on my book shelf, Krauss' book a universe from nothing!

 

Obviously picked it up at a charity shop and forgot (I have too many books if that's such a thing). 

[Bigsmak]

8 hours ago, jambopilms said:

https://youtu.be/Iy7NzjCmUf0

 

I like these little snippets of info. Probably too dumbed down for the super brains on here.

 

Some really easy to watch info on loads of subjects on these channels.

 

 

You should 100% watch every single Kurzgesagt (in a nutshell) video. They are brilliant. 

[jambopilms]

12 minutes ago, Bigsmak said:

 

 

You should 100% watch every single Kurzgesagt (in a nutshell) video. They are brilliant. 

Yeah, I am working my way through them. The day the dinosaurs died and nuclear bomb in a city were a great watch.

[spud]

Great video from the Royal Istitution regarding the problems associated with finding alien life and the work of SETI.

[Cade]

 

 

[Ulysses]

[spud]

I’ve been told by a certain someone, to “dig deeper” to find the truth about aliens and their comings and goings, so I did and found this article, which I’m only going to summarise although I’ll provide a link if you like to follow it.

It’s by and I quote “truth seeking investigative journalist Kerry Cassidy who interviewed William Tompkins (Part One: https://youtu.be/Sb18kkVlRh4 and Part Two: https://youtu.be/oPMOjV9SMOoV), a skilled and experienced secret space program whistle blower. He has impressive credentials in the Aerospace industry, working with many companies including; Douglas Aircraft, Northrop, North American Aviation and two programs for NASA: the Saturn and Apollo Space programs.” Pretty Impressive, Eh? I’d say that he is a highly credible expert, especially because he worked on the NASA: the Saturn and Apollo Space programs.

Tomkins begins the interview by describing how some Nazis, including Adolf himself, escaped Germany in 1945 and fled to the South Pole. This led, in 1947, to the US sending an enormous battle group, second only in size to the group send the Normandy landings, with multiple warships and 400 aircraft to invade Antarctica under the code name “Operation Highjump”. However, within 20 minutes of arriving, this battle group was completely destroyed by Extra Terrestrial weapons. Tomkins explained that these weapons had already been used in the Battle of Los Angeles in 1942 by the Nordic group of Extra-Terrestrials called coincidentally, the Nordics, who Tomkins claims to have worked with. They used anti-gravity fields so as not to harm anyone from Los Angeles, though regretably, some people died from shrapnel. According to Tomkins this shows that they are a benevolent group and want to help humanity.

Tomkins now jumps to the Moon Landings where he claims, the Nazis and his Draconian Reptile allies had already arrived and they “jeered and mocked” the three Earthmen. They even tried to ram the landing module as it tried to land! Now, according to Tomkins, these Draconian Reptiles are malevolent types who regularly sacrifice humans and eat them, while they also drink their blood. Oh, and they are 9 foot tall and live to between 3000 and 4000 years as well.

Tomkins goes on to report that the Nordics and some humans are part of a force called the “Solar Warden” and they are engaged in a battle above us with the Reptiles as we speak. Anyway, when the Nordics win, they are going to let humans into a lot of secrets. But, you have to be wealthy and pay them.

Tomkins also stated that the moon is hollow and has many stations and is a command centre for the Nordics who look after the Earth.

Despite them looking after the Earth, the Queen and her family and a load of other people are Draconian Reptiles and Princess Diana was going to spill the beans so they bumped her off.

I really can’t be arsed recounting more of this pish. So here’s a link if you want to read more

http://www.astoundingelements.com/

There are also many more stories in Astounding Elements including the latest Q anon messages, which just seem to be numbers, ramblings about the collapse of the world economies and a gardening section. Enjoy.

[Cade]

Whooooooops!

 

 

[JFK-1]

Suppose it's pretty impressive that it remained upright and still got airborne after that peculiar display. But I doubt I would have had much faith in the trajectory after the weird sideways slide. I think they're saying an engine shut down at launch.

[Cade]

One of the 5 engines popped right on launch, lowering the thrust-to-weight ratio from 1.25 to 1.

Which means it only had enough thrust to hover until it burned enough fuel to lose weight and then it was able to climb.

[151]

On 25/08/2021 at 05:46, spud said:

I’ve been told by a certain someone, to “dig deeper” to find the truth about aliens and their comings and goings, so I did and found this article, which I’m only going to summarise although I’ll provide a link if you like to follow it.

 

It’s by and I quote “truth seeking investigative journalist Kerry Cassidy who interviewed William Tompkins (Part One: https://youtu.be/Sb18kkVlRh4 and Part Two: https://youtu.be/oPMOjV9SMOoV), a skilled and experienced secret space program whistle blower. He has impressive credentials in the Aerospace industry, working with many companies including; Douglas Aircraft, Northrop, North American Aviation and two programs for NASA: the Saturn and Apollo Space programs.” Pretty Impressive, Eh? I’d say that he is a highly credible expert, especially because he worked on the NASA: the Saturn and Apollo Space programs.

 

Tomkins begins the interview by describing how some Nazis, including Adolf himself, escaped Germany in 1945 and fled to the South Pole. This led, in 1947, to the US sending an enormous battle group, second only in size to the group send the Normandy landings, with multiple warships and 400 aircraft to invade Antarctica under the code name “Operation Highjump”. However, within 20 minutes of arriving, this battle group was completely destroyed by Extra Terrestrial weapons. Tomkins explained that these weapons had already been used in the Battle of Los Angeles in 1942 by the Nordic group of Extra-Terrestrials called coincidentally, the Nordics, who Tomkins claims to have worked with. They used anti-gravity fields so as not to harm anyone from Los Angeles, though regretably, some people died from shrapnel. According to Tomkins this shows that they are a benevolent group and want to help humanity.

 

Tomkins now jumps to the Moon Landings where he claims, the Nazis and his Draconian Reptile allies had already arrived and they “jeered and mocked” the three Earthmen. They even tried to ram the landing module as it tried to land! Now, according to Tomkins, these Draconian Reptiles are malevolent types who regularly sacrifice humans and eat them, while they also drink their blood. Oh, and they are 9 foot tall and live to between 3000 and 4000 years as well.

 

Tomkins goes on to report that the Nordics and some humans are part of a force called the “Solar Warden” and they are engaged in a battle above us with the Reptiles as we speak. Anyway, when the Nordics win, they are going to let humans into a lot of secrets. But, you have to be wealthy and pay them.

 

Tomkins also stated that the moon is hollow and has many stations and is a command centre for the Nordics who look after the Earth.

 

Despite them looking after the Earth, the Queen and her family and a load of other people are Draconian Reptiles and Princess Diana was going to spill the beans so they bumped her off.

 

 

 

I really can’t be arsed recounting more of this pish. So here’s a link if you want to read more

 

http://www.astoundingelements.com/

 

There are also many more stories in Astounding Elements including the latest Q anon messages, which just seem to be numbers, ramblings about the collapse of the world economies and a gardening section. Enjoy.