by Xanthippe 38 Replies latest jw friends
"This exchange made me chuckle...."
Perhaps you should explain what you found funny? He asked for a source and I suggested a book by a well known astronomer who is a former assistant of Dr. Hubble, the very man who proposed the Big Bang theory. Where's the humor?
Also this is your second post of you stating nonsense with no attempt to point out any flaw in my logic or an attempt make any type of sensible argument. I have no interest in trolls and will be ignoring you from here on.
I'm pretty certain we are not alone.
The basis for the existence of life in this planet and it's evolution revolves around the fact that this planet has the proper conditions for it ( distance from sun, atmosphere, etc). It is because of these factors that there is life here and not in, let's say, Jupiter.
Now, estimates say that there are 2 to 3 trillion (3 000 000 000 000 ) planets in our galaxy. Yes that is 12 zeros!! Some recent estimates point to the number of galaxies in the universe as being 500 000 000 000. You do the math!!
What are the changes that a percentage ( even if incredibly small) of this colossal amount of planets are also at the right distance from their sun and also have reliable atmosphere? My gambling mind says the chances are very good. In fact, there are likely thousands of planets with the same conditions.
IMO, it is reasonable to think that the same processes that made life come to exist in this planet, also did the same in those planets.
Space Madness - Snare&Racket asked you for the paper your crazy assertions were taken from. You know, something that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or presented at a conference of leading cosmologists, that sort of thing.
You replied that you read it in a book. If you can't see the humour then that is even funnier.
Science doesn't progress by people writing pop-pseudoscience and then making grandiose pronouncements lke "the big band has been disproven."
If the authors of your favourite books do the experiments and publish their results, and are able to defend their conclusions from the best criticisms of the worlds leading physicists and cosmologists, then maybe one day they should write about it in a popular science book.
Just like the Intelligent Design charlatans they have done the opposite. Fist they publish a book that deserves to be placed in the science ficton section, and then they whinge that real scientists won't give them a fair hearing.
This is the third time I have asked you to introduce yourself. Are you an ex-JW? Did you really sign up for an acount in order to advocate whacky ideas and get offended and personal when people don't thank you for your wisdom?
Poe's Law, performance art.
Space Madness,
Only certain members are allowed to know stuff here. Only certain theories by approved Scientists are allowed. Our scientific Governing Body do not like you. Please stop trying to know stuff and junk.
DD
Great thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Keep it going guys.....
I cant understand why many are disagreeig with space madness' chemical knowledge, the arguments in my view are unsubstantiated.
Space Madness - I agree with your knowlege of atoms. So glad I didn't waste time checking links of atomic models.
I was answering a post on this thread i.e. why the scientific method is irrelevant in the question of god yet relevant to the question of alien life. It was space madness that started denouncing science and equations. He is attacking NOT MY science and NOT MY equations.
ELectron Microscopes have allowed us to SEE and MANIPULATE atoms.... Not our eyes....obviously......Feel free to define 'see' for hours on your own. I also would say we have SEEN black holes via radio telescopes and SEEN planes by radar, but you can argue all those points by yourself for as long as you wish.
I hope your chemistry professor does not see this thread or your refrencing of a half century old ,,,book!...... long ago explained away.
if the use of a book and SM's comments don't seem unreasonable, go read the scientific method, read up on critical appraisal of scientific evidence, then read recent papers on red shift and the big bang theory , then take a look at what the book from half a century ago says that SM is referencing...
Then you may see why it is a bit silly.....
science is a job, it takes years doing is as a job, over a decade to be a mere amateur..... It is not that opinions are outlawed, but opinions are the lowest form of evidence...
When we talk about the likelihood of aliens existing, we tend to think about how many millions and millions of planets there are and figure, well, the odds are at least one of them nearby has green people on it we can talk to. But what we tend to totally discount is time.
Think about it; Earth was round for four billion years before humans appeared. Maybe there was a thriving alien civilization nearby, and maybe they mastered space travel and gave us a visit. And maybe all they found here were a bunch of big, dumb lizards. So it's not just that two intelligent, space-faring civilizations would have to arise physically close to one another, but they would have to overlap chronologically, too.
The Earth is relatively young compared to the rest of the universe, which has theoretically been spinning around in operatic blackness for billions of years. Statistically speaking, any number of the trillions of celestial bodies out there would have produced intelligent life millennia ago -- if they haven't mastered the science of awesome spaceships by now, they probably never will. And our window to do the same is equivalent to a tiny coiled butt hair on the epic universal timeline of existence.
So there is a very real possibility that our historic first visit to another galaxy might yield nothing but a bunch of big-headed skeletons and about a zillion gallons of wasted rocket fuel.
Or, Alien civilizations may not be trying to talk to us for the same reason that we don't spend a whole lot of time trying to talk to goldfish -- we really don't have anything worthwhile to say to each other.
Take care,
Ismael
"No one has ever seen an atom."
Mmmmmm, yeah, we have. Even atomic bonds.
http://io9.com/the-first-image-ever-of-a-hydrogen-atoms-orbital-struc-509684901
http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/31/scientists-capture-images-of-molecules-forming-atomic-bonds/
http://m.sciencemag.org/content/337/6100/1326.abstract
Take care,
Ismael
