Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

We can find alien life within 25 years, claims astrophysicist


 Share

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

No what bothers me, which I clearly stated, was that you asked for evidence.  Evidence on a subject that is subjective, which means there is no evidence, just opinion or a guess based on personal perceptions.

What I believe @astrobeing is picking up on, is your use of the word "likely".  Likelihood is a state of probability. His theme is that without data we cannot derive any meaningful or useful guess at the probability of ET life.

To invoke Bernoulli's Law Of Large Numbers would suggest the probability tends toward zero based on a tiny sample. 

Intuition is usually only useful when it is based on  experience.

The opinions for ET life seem to mostly be influenced by the Gambler's Fallacy.

Astrobeing hasn't denied the possibility of ET life.  He is saying the odds for us to be here are unimaginably unlikely.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Trelane said:

Um....I'm not sure if this is relevant. Just one aspect of a larger equation though. Still need many factors that life on earth benefitted from though.

NASA Scientists Confirm Water Vapor on Europa

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/nasa-scientists-confirm-water-vapor-on-europa

Earthly comparison hints at shallow liquid water on Jupiter’s moon

https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/astronomy/shallow-liquid-water-europa/

I was surprised by this but then found I was confusing Europa with Titan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

No what bothers me, which I clearly stated, was that you asked for evidence.

Really? Asking if a belief is based on evidence bothers you?

16 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

Evidence on a subject that is subjective, which means there is no evidence, just opinion or a guess based on personal perceptions.

Then why does it bother you to say that a belief is not based on evidence if you think there's nothing wrong with that? Just say it's an opinion or a guess and don't scold people for asking.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, astrobeing said:

Really? Asking if a belief is based on evidence bothers you?

Then why does it bother you to say that a belief is not based on evidence if you think there's nothing wrong with that? Just say it's an opinion or a guess and don't scold people for asking.

It seems ike you just found a stick and decided you want to poke someone with it.  You ask the same question I already answered.  Why?      Because.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Trelane said:

Um....I'm not sure if this is relevant. Just one aspect of a larger equation though. Still need many factors that life on earth benefitted from though.

NASA Scientists Confirm Water Vapor on Europa

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/nasa-scientists-confirm-water-vapor-on-europa

Water vapor doesn't necessarily prove that there's water fifty miles below the ice. It could have sublimated from the ice in the sun or by heat effects caused by Jupiter's gravitation pull.

16 hours ago, Trelane said:

Earthly comparison hints at shallow liquid water on Jupiter’s moon

https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/astronomy/shallow-liquid-water-europa/

Again that's a theory ("hints") but we don't know anything for sure.

Believe me, I also thought we knew for certain that there was liquid water under the ice on Europa since I had been hearing about it for decades (especially in science fiction I've read), but when I looked around I was disappointed that I couldn't find anything that really proves it exists. We do know that at one time Europa did have liquid water under the ice since the cracks in the ice show that it had moved around before it had frozen but we haven't seen any cracks that look recent. We've seen water geysers but these could be caused by localized volcanic events melting the extremely thick ice -- they don't need liquid water to happen.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

It seems ike you just found a stick and decided you want to poke someone with it.  You ask the same question I already answered.  Why?      Because.

OK, your statements are not based on evidence. Once again I thank you for answering my question and I hope that you enjoy the rest of your week.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, astrobeing said:

The laws of statistics were developed by using the laws of mathematics. Saying it isn't mathematics changes nothing even in Spanish.

Mathematics is an exact art.

Statistics is not, but it uses math.

Statistics is based on the use of a number of what are considerd to be 'facts'. And there lies the problem: what is fact?

Here a site that somewhat explains what I try to convey:

https://www.datapine.com/blog/misleading-statistics-and-data/

 

  • Like 3
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

Mathematics is an exact art.

Statistics is not, but it uses math.

By saying that the Central Limit Theorem and the Law of Averages aren't exact you have demonstrated that you have never taken any statistics classes at the college level.

I can't believe I'm about to teach you what I learned in my first day of Statistics 401...

Statistics is built on proven mathematical rules of probability and will give you exactly correct answers. When I say "proven", I don't mean by casual empirical experience. I mean these rules have mathematical proofs. Like any other form of mathematics if you use it with wrong numbers you will get incorrect, indefinite, or misleading answers.

Saying that it's impossible to calculate exact probability will get you laughed out any university level statistics class.

31 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

Statistics is based on the use of a number of what are considerd to be 'facts'. And there lies the problem: what is fact?

The "use" (<--- very important) of any form of mathematics demands that correct data be used and that the human using the mathematics understands what the results mean. When I put data into an equation (which was derived from second order differential equations) to determine the rate of oxidation of a metal within an electrical field, that demands that I put the correct data into the equation and understand what the value means. If I enter incorrect data and get a wrong answer, does that mean that calculus isn't an "exact art"? Of course not.

39 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

Here a site that somewhat explains what I try to convey:

https://www.datapine.com/blog/misleading-statistics-and-data/

These are cases of misusing or misrepresenting the use of statistics and have nothing to do with the laws of statistics themselves which are just as provably correct as anything in algebra and calculus. People have used the equation for compound interest to cheat investors out of their money therefore by your logic algebra isn't an exact art and isn't mathematics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2022 at 8:58 AM, astrobeing said:


Water vapor doesn't necessarily prove that there's water fifty miles below the ice. It could have sublimated from the ice in the sun or by heat effects caused by Jupiter's gravitation pull.

Hi Astro, I have to disagree on your first point. The chances of water evaporating from the surface and creating geysers, which have evidently been detected, are about zero. Could the gravitational forces of Jupiter be squeezing water out of Europe, even if frozen to the core? Uhm, I would have my doubts. 

On 9/22/2022 at 8:58 AM, astrobeing said:

Again that's a theory ("hints") but we don't know anything for sure.

Believe me, I also thought we knew for certain that there was liquid water under the ice on Europa since I had been hearing about it for decades (especially in science fiction I've read), but when I looked around I was disappointed that I couldn't find anything that really proves it exists. We do know that at one time Europa did have liquid water under the ice since the cracks in the ice show that it had moved around before it had frozen but we haven't seen any cracks that look recent. We've seen water geysers but these could be caused by localized volcanic events melting the extremely thick ice -- they don't need liquid water to happen.

Cheers,

Badeskov

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, badeskov said:

Hi Astro, I have to disagree on your first point. The chances of water evaporating from the surface and creating geysers, which have evidently been detected, are about zero.

No, sublimation won't cause geysers but it would easily explain the presence of water vapor on the surface.

14 hours ago, badeskov said:

Could the gravitational forces of Jupiter be squeezing water out of Europe, even if frozen to the core? Uhm, I would have my doubts.

It's difficult to imagine the incredible pressures that the moon is under being close to Jupiter. That along with localized volcanic activity could explain the geysers. I mean it obvious take a lot of energy to get water through fifty miles of ice and that's certainly enough energy to turn a lot of ice into water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2022 at 5:11 PM, Golden Duck said:

What I believe @astrobeing is picking up on, is your use of the word "likely".  Likelihood is a state of probability. His theme is that without data we cannot derive any meaningful or useful guess at the probability of ET life.

To invoke Bernoulli's Law Of Large Numbers would suggest the probability tends toward zero based on a tiny sample. 

Intuition is usually only useful when it is based on  experience.

The opinions for ET life seem to mostly be influenced by the Gambler's Fallacy.

Astrobeing hasn't denied the possibility of ET life.  He is saying the odds for us to be here are unimaginably unlikely.

From the way I read it, this guy is the only one getting irate in an argument where nobody suggested they believe in little green men visiting earth or have proof life exists anywhere else.  They're mainly just hoping and giving it a possibility.  If you want to be open to either possibilities (exists/doesn't exist), which he claims, considering there is no evidence either way, then you don't pick a side, which he is doing. 

In actual fact, if you really want to get picky about it, there is evidence leaning one way, it could exist because we are the proof.  Unless you want to believe in some bogie religious story from thousands of years ago written by goat herders.  Maybe that's what it's all about, another bible thumper.

Edited by Black Red Devil
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

From the way I read it, this guy is the only one getting irate in an argument where nobody suggested they believe in little green men visiting earth or have proof life exists anywhere else.  They're mainly just hoping and giving it a possibility.  If you want to be open to either possibilities (exists/doesn't exists) considering there is no evidence either way, then you don't pick a side which he is doing. 

In actual fact, if you really want to get picky about it, there is evidence leaning one way, it could exist because we are the proof.  Unless you want to believe in some bogie religious story from thousands of years ago written by goat herders.  Maybe that's what it's all about, another bible thumper.

@astrobeing ("AB") is not giving any indication that he may be "another bible thumper."  What you may be characterising as "irate" is, in reality, pedantry.  You can not make a useful estimation on probability without data.  His "adversaries" in this thread have not spoken in terms of possibility but in terms of probability and likelihood. 

You may correct me if I'm wrong but I am certain you can not quote AB denying the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe.  He has not as you say "picked a side".  In actual fact , "AB" has repeatedly made reference to the series of unlikely events that led to life developing right here.

To pre-empt the defence of "playing word games" or the misnomered "playing semantics" - this forum demands the use of traditional use semantic logic to parse the posts in a discussion. It's only polite to do so to mitigate prejudice and projecting emotion corrupting one's perception.  It takes humility to understand someone else.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

@astrobeing ("AB") is not giving any indication that he may be "another bible thumper."  What you may be characterising as "irate" is, in reality, pedantry.  You can not make a useful estimation on probability without data.  His "adversaries" in this thread have not spoken in terms of possibility but in terms of probability and likelihood. 

You may correct me if I'm wrong but I am certain you can not quote AB denying the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe.  He has not as you say "picked a side".  In actual fact , "AB" has repeatedly made reference to the series of unlikely events that led to life developing right here.

THIS, is picking sides.

"In fact it's even possible that it's more likely that there would be no life anywhere in the universe and our Earth beat tremendous odds."

 

7 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

To pre-empt the defence of "playing word games" or the misnomered "playing semantics" - this forum demands the use of traditional use semantic logic to parse the posts in a discussion. It's only polite to do so to mitigate prejudice and projecting emotion corrupting one's perception.  It takes humility to understand someone else.

The only one (here) projecting emotions is one who veehemently insists on their personal opinions and doesn't accept other views under the umbrella of evidence which is a false argument in this case because nobody is claiming evidence of existence, just hope and possibilities. Trying to be forceful in your viewpoints is what I would call being impolite.  Basically, you don't respond to half a dozen posters if you don't have a strong argument you want to convince everyone about.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

THIS, is picking sides.

"In fact it's even possible that it's more likely that there would be no life anywhere in the universe and our Earth beat tremendous odds."

 

The only one (here) projecting emotions is one who veehemently insists on their personal opinions and doesn't accept other views under the umbrella of evidence which is a false argument in this case because nobody is claiming evidence of existence, just hope and possibilities. Trying to be forceful in your viewpoints is what I would call being impolite.  Basically, you don't respond to half a dozen posters if you don't have a strong argument you want to convince everyone about.

You are demonstrating that you ignored the beginning of a statement "In fact it's even possible that ...".  Proposing alternative possibilities is not picking a side.

What you are calling personal opinions is an adherence to established methods in statistics.  AB was querying the technical misuse of terms asserting likelihood or probability.  The semantic difference between probability and possibility is perhaps to subtle or nuanced for some contributors; but, the fact there is a difference is a strong argument.  Querying semantics in a forum that is dependant on semantics is reasonable.

Incidentally, the baseless speculation of religiosity in a pejorative way is unnecessary and reflects an emotive projection of prejudice.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

You are demonstrating that you ignored the beginning of a statement "In fact it's even possible that ...".  Proposing alternative possibilities is not picking a side.

What you are calling personal opinions is an adherence to established methods in statistics.  AB was querying the technical misuse of terms asserting likelihood or probability.  The semantic difference between probability and possibility is perhaps to subtle or nuanced for some contributors; but, the fact there is a difference is a strong argument.  Querying semantics in a forum that is dependant on semantics is reasonable.

Incidentally, the baseless speculation of religiosity in a pejorative way is unnecessary and reflects an emotive projection of prejudice. 

No, the part picking sides is what comes after the part you highlighted "its more likely". Good try though. 

It''s not speculation to believe one with such beliefs maybe got his 'inspiration' from a dogma that billions in the world follow. That's fine, as long as they don 't get shoved down ones throat  Talking about emotive, why are you so defensive about another ones posts?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

No, the part picking sides is what comes after the part you highlighted "its more likely". Good try though. 

It''s not speculation to believe one with such beliefs maybe got his 'inspiration' from a dogma that billions in the world follow. That's fine, as long as they don 't get shoved down ones throat  Talking about emotive, why are you so defensive about another ones posts?

Perhaps refresh yourself on how sentence structure works.  You don't get to split things and then blame the author.

You engaged me, and I'm answering.  If I think you are wrong in your perceptions and incompetent in your semantic logic, you essentially invited me to tell you so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/19/2022 at 3:09 AM, Piney said:

Rare Earth Hypothesis. I'm in agreement with it when It comes to technological life. 

It used to make sense to me that if there are Trillions of Galaxies, the odds are that at least some must contain intelligent life.  In reality, it isn't the number of galaxies...it is the probability in any one galaxy of everything happening just right.  The odds might very well be 100 trillion to 1, that in any given universe,  a planet like Earth might exist with intelligent life.

Especially when you have to calculate the odds of so many different factors happening...like the Asteroid that killed the Dinosaurs.  If that hadn't happened we wouldn't really be Earth we would just be Lizard Planet.  So, if we calculated the likely hood of finding another Lizard Planet, then we would also have to calculate the odds of something destroying the Lizard Planet to the point of reconfiguration of evolution.

Edited by joc
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Perhaps refresh yourself on how sentence structure works.  You don't get to split things and then blame the author.

 

What??! :blink: :lol:  You're the one doing the splitting, in fact you made sure yoiu only selected the part that suited your argument.

5 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

 

You engaged me, and I'm answering.  If I think you are wrong in your perceptions and incompetent in your semantic logic, you essentially invited me to tell you so.

Huh? Wrong in perceptions and incompetent in semantic logics?  LOL, I asked you a simple question and no, you didn't answer it.

Mate, whatever you're drinking I hope it's good.

Edited by Black Red Devil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

What??! :blink: :lol:  You're the one doing the splitting, in fact you made sure yoiu only selected the part that suited your argument.

Huh? Wrong in perceptions and incompetent in semantic logics?  LOL, I asked you a simple question and no, you didn't answer it.

Mate, whatever you're drinking I hope it's good.

As you said nice try.  An alternative possibility that something else could be more probable, is not picking a side.  Whatever was in place of the ellipsis did not change the fact that an alternative possibility was being proposed. You demonstrated you ignored this earlier.

You introduced religion for no need.  You are entering conversations with prejudice or lack of comprehension. 

You said I was emotive and overly defensive, I wasn't.  I was responding to you engaging with me.  Reasonable people don't usually expect an answer form a rhetorical and loaded question.

Enjoy your fantasy of me drinking.  That you can't conduct a conversation in anything other than a pejorative way says enough about you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

As you said nice try.  An alternative possibility that something else could be more probable, is not picking a side.  Whatever was in place of the ellipsis did not change the fact that an alternative possibility was being proposed. You demonstrated you ignored this earlier.

 

You can twirl around the evidence I gave you and look like a fool as much as you want.  The fact that an alternative possibility was being proposed shows picking sides. 

41 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

You introduced religion for no need.  You are entering conversations with prejudice or lack of comprehension.

Already explained.  Twirling around the argument again trying to prove a point.  Laughable attempt.

41 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

You said I was emotive and overly defensive, I wasn't.  I was responding to you engaging with me.  Reasonable people don't usually expect an answer form a rhetorical and loaded question.

Wow, a loaded question.  Asking you why you're so defensive about someone elses responses LOL.  Sounds totally emotive to me.

41 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Enjoy your fantasy of me drinking.  That you can't conduct a conversation in anything other than a pejorative way says enough about you.

Pejorative way?  Your opinion, which means absolutely nothing to me.  But rationalising, maybe I might come across that way because I'm curious to know why regular posters in this forum get defensive, emotional, obnoxious and counteroffensive every time someone else has a different opinion than theirs and is prepared to go the extra mile in defending such principles even when they're not even part of the initial discussion.  Not that I'll hold my breath waiting for an intelligent response from you. 

:wub: Ahh, the fantasy of you drinking is electric. 

Edited by Black Red Devil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Black Red Devil said:

You can twirl around the evidence I gave you and look like a fool as much as you want.  The fact that an alternative possibility was being proposed shows picking sides. 

Already explained.  Twirling around the argument again trying to prove a point.  Laughable attempt.

Wow, a loaded question.  Asking you why you're so defensive about someone elses responses LOL.  Sounds totally emotive to me.

Pejorative way?  Your opinion, which means absolutely nothing to me.  But rationalising, maybe I might come across that way because I'm curious to know why regular posters in this forum get defensive, emotional, obnoxious and counteroffensive every time someone else has a different opinion than theirs and is prepared to go the extra mile in defending such principles even when they're not even part of the initial discussion.  Not that I'll hold my breath waiting for an intelligent response from you. 

:wub: Ahh, the fantasy of you drinking is electric. 

Your posts have demonstrated 've demonstrated nothing other than raise an apprehension that you might suffer Dunning-Kruger. or lack competency in comprehension.  You've misread a sentence and embarrassed yourself and nor start with rubber-glue antics.  What really is laughable is you haven't demonstrated how to reasonably parse what was written to support your misconceptions.

I've you keep inviting me to give you my opinion I'll give it.  If it's worth nothing to you'd behave differently.

Yeah you are pejorative.  You projected religiosity and alcohol as affecting the the conversation.  Your behaviour shows you prefer to discuss the individual rather than what was written.

Either way you are confusing your ambitions with your abilities.  Your perceptions and judgments are wrong.  If you find that offensive you can change that by emancipating yourself from your prejudice and projection.

All your LOL and emoticons.  They're totally not emotive too I guess.

I can't wait for your reply it's as if Oscar Wilde himself has joined the forum.

Edited by Golden Duck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Your posts have demonstrated 've demonstrated nothing other than raise an apprehension that you might suffer Dunning-Kruger. or lack competency in comprehension.  You've misread a sentence and embarrassed yourself and nor start with rubber-glue antics.  What really is laughable is you haven't demonstrated how to reasonably parse what was written to support your misconceptions.

I've you keep inviting me to give you my opinion I'll give it.  If it's worth nothing to you'd behave differently.

 

"How to reasonably parse", "Whatever was in place of the ellipsis", LOL and I'm suffering from Dunning Kruger syndrome?  Who talks like that??! What an irrational buffoon.  The whole quoted post doesn't even make sense, it's just a conglomerate mess of allusions of what I said without specifics.

41 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Yeah you are pejorative.  You projected religiosity and alcohol as affecting the the conversation.  Your behaviour shows you prefer to discuss the individual rather than what was written.

Again?  I've explained this three times to you. Knock, knock, anyone there?

41 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Either way you are confusing your ambitions with your abilities.  Your perceptions and judgments are wrong.  If you find that offensive you can change that by emancipating yourself from your prejudice and projection.

All your LOL and emoticons.  Their totally not emotive too I guess.

I can't wait for your reply it's Oscar Wilde himself has joined the forum.

Emancipitaing myself from my prejudice and projection.  :lol: My perceptions and judgements aren't wrong, yours are and I don't find anything from you offensive, just entertaining.

BTW corrections by Oscar Wilde himself, "They're totally not emotive too (?) I guess" & "it's Oscar Wilde himself who has joined the forum."

You might need some Kruger Dunning enlightenment to correct those grammatical errors.

 

Edited by Black Red Devil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Black Red Devil said:

"How to reasonably parse", "Whatever was in place of the ellipsis", LOL and I'm suffering from Dunning Kruger syndrome?  Who talks like that??! What an irrational buffoon.  The whole quoted post doesn't even make sense, it's just a conglomerate mess of allusions of what I said without specifics.

Again?  I've explained this three times to you. Knock, knock, anyone there?

Emancipitaing myself from my prejudice and projection.  :lol: My perceptions and judgements aren't wrong, yours are and I don't find anything from you offensive, just entertaining.

BTW corrections by Oscar Wilde himself, "They're totally not emotive too (?) I guess" & "it's Oscar Wilde himself who has joined the forum."

You might need some Kruger Dunning enlightenment to correct those grammatical errors.

 

The typos have been corrected, have your cheap win. 

To keep saying you're not wrong simply won't change that misconceptions are misconceptions.

Remember you are the one that felt the need to announce that the opinion of some anonymous guy means nothing to you.  This is understood by every reasonable person.  I hope your utterance served its purpose of easing your insecurity. 

You're insistence on discussing personality and rubber-glue antics is meaningless and adds nothing to the discussion of possibilities versus probabilities. 

Edited by Golden Duck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Black Red Devil said:

From the way I read it, this guy is the only one getting irate in an argument where nobody suggested they believe in little green men visiting earth or have proof life exists anywhere else

I think @astrobeing is just arguing the fact of statistics being applied without adequate information.  His  point seems to be that without having found any life anywhere, we don't have the necessary information to plug into an equation that demands exact information.  Accordingly, I think that it is a bit absurd for an astrophysicist to make a claim that we will find ET in any kind of time frame work.  What is the astrophysicist basing his thinking on.  Nothing?  Exactly.  Because we don't really have any data to suggest that ET exists at all anywhere since we haven't found any.

I think most of this thread has been a case of:

I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.