NASA basically announced there's no doubt life exist on other planets Kepler 452-b

a reply to: neoholographic

You know, in the time it took you to type that you could've learned what evidence is, and why your argument is illogical.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

What????

You haven't said ONE THING that has anything to do with Science. Most of your post are inane ramblings about nothing. You hear ASININE COMMENTS coming from the head in the sand crowd like:

100% Certainty
Absolute Evidence
Guarantee

These things are just IDIOTIC and have nothing to do with Science. Somehow people thinks science has to be 100% certain about things before they can look at the available evidence and reach a conclusion as to what theories best describe the available evidence.

On something as big as an announcement of extraterrestrial life, yes science has to be 100 percent certain otherwise everyone involved looks foolish.

We haven't found so much as an alien microbe yet.

We probably will within the next 10-30 years but you can't just pretend tomorrow's headline already happened.

I know what I'm talking about too. I am studying astronomy/astrophysics with a skew towards astrobiology. My specialty is the study of exoplanets and habitability. Beyond that I am a sci fi fan and am interested in a lot of research towards making that stuff sci-reality with regards to the search for life.

Seriously, dial it back a little. While it is probable that life is plentiful in the universe we still have no evidence either direct or indirect that such life exists.

I suspect we will, and fairly soon (in most people's lifetime) because we are just about to unleash some powerful new tools in the search (beginning in 3 years).

But we're not there yet. When ARE there you won't have to argue that we are. Such evidence will be unassailable and undeniable.

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: 321Go
Is it a two-way radio for the inhabitants of K452b?

lol, i wish!!!

What was in the box?

a reply to: 321Go

DON'T OPEN THE BOX

originally posted by: JadeStar

On something as big as an announcement of extraterrestrial life, yes science has to be 100 percent certain otherwise everyone involved looks foolish.

That's a good point.

When science is developing a theory (such as the Big Bang Theory), science can say that theory may be "proven" by a preponderance of the evidence without having 100% proof.

However, saying whether of not life exists elsewhere in the universe is NOT a scientific theory. Stating that other life exists would be a statement of FACT, and to state a fact, as opposed to making theoretical claims, science would need 100% hard proof.

You can't apply the scientific method to answer the question of life elsewhere definitively. Science can, however, develop hypotheses and try to attain a preponderance of evidence for ET life, such as gathering circumstantial evidence for that life, but any claims that are made using that method would not constitute a definitive claim.

a reply to: 321Go

PAIN!

Are you human enough to endure the pain or will the Gom Jabbar claim you?

originally posted by: JadeStar

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

What????

You haven't said ONE THING that has anything to do with Science. Most of your post are inane ramblings about nothing. You hear ASININE COMMENTS coming from the head in the sand crowd like:

100% Certainty
Absolute Evidence
Guarantee

These things are just IDIOTIC and have nothing to do with Science. Somehow people thinks science has to be 100% certain about things before they can look at the available evidence and reach a conclusion as to what theories best describe the available evidence.

On something as big as an announcement of extraterrestrial life, yes science has to be 100 percent certain otherwise everyone involved looks foolish.

We haven't found so much as an alien microbe yet.

We probably will within the next 10-30 years but you can't just pretend tomorrow's headline already happened.

I know what I'm talking about too. I am studying astronomy/astrophysics with a skew towards astrobiology. My specialty is the study of exoplanets and habitability. Beyond that I am a sci fi fan and am interested in a lot of research towards making that stuff sci-reality with regards to the search for life.

Seriously, dial it back a little. While it is probable that life is plentiful in the universe we still have no evidence either direct or indirect that such life exists.

I suspect we will, and fairly soon (in most people's lifetime) because we are just about to unleash some powerful new tools in the search (beginning in 3 years).

But we're not there yet. When ARE there you won't have to argue that we are. Such evidence will be unassailable and undeniable.

This makes NO SENSE!

Science doesn't have to be 100% certain to say BASED ON THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE life Almost certainly exists or as Dr. Kaku said:

“Some scientists say that perhaps we are the only life forms in the universe. Give me a break! I mean, how many stars are there out there in the universe, anyway? The Hubble Space Telescope can see about a hundred billion galaxies — that’s the visible universe,” Kaku says on the alien TV special.

“Each galaxy consists of a hundred billion stars. Do the math. A hundred billion times a hundred billion is 10 sextillion. That’s one with 22 zeros after it. There definitely are aliens in outer space — they’re out there!”

When people make statements like 100% certain it has NOTHING to do with Science. When these statements are made it's usually about the uncertainty of the persons belief.

You can look at the available evidence and ask what theory most likely explains the evidence and then reach a conclusion based on the available evidence. THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME IN SCIENCE!

Also, if the evidence showed that most planets were Jupiter sized planets that are outside of the habitable zone and earth like planets are rare, the skeptics would be saying this is EVIDENCE that we're most likely alone in the universe.

So again, people need to learn how Science works. Scientist don't stick their heads in the sand and say I have to be 100% certain before I can come to a conclusion as to what evidence best fits the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.

Neo, you are so confused about definitions. Everyone knows what they are talking about, in definitive terms, except you.

For clarity, can you please state exactly what evidence you claim to be quoting? By evidence I mean scientific evidence.

originally posted by: neoholographic
What????

You haven't said ONE THING that has anything to do with Science. Most of your post are inane ramblings about nothing.

originally posted by: 321Go
Neo, you are so confused about definitions. Everyone knows what they are talking about, in definitive terms, except you.

For clarity, can you please state exactly what evidence you claim to be quoting? By evidence I mean scientific evidence.

You guys simply don't understand how Science works and it's obvious you guys have never been in an actual debate about Science outside of a message board.

When you use terms like 100% certain and Absolute evidence it's simply ASININE. These things have nothining to do with Science. In most cases, Science can confirm a theory based on experiments that are close to predictions of a theory. This doesn't mean there 100% certain, it just means based on the available evidence the predictions of the theory seem to be correct but that can get stronger over time or get weaker based on new theories and discoveries.

Yes, there's EVIDENCE that life exists outside of earth. If there wasn't, Hawking couldn't say Aliens almost certainly exist. Dr. Kaku couldn't say this.

“Some scientists say that perhaps we are the only life forms in the universe. Give me a break! I mean, how many stars are there out there in the universe, anyway? The Hubble Space Telescope can see about a hundred billion galaxies — that’s the visible universe,” Kaku says on the alien TV special.

“Each galaxy consists of a hundred billion stars. Do the math. A hundred billion times a hundred billion is 10 sextillion. That’s one with 22 zeros after it. There definitely are aliens in outer space — they’re out there!”

We've found exoplanets.
Earth like planets seem to be "QUITE COMMON."
Extremophiles in harsh conditions
Evidence for Panspermia
Water is more abundant than we thought
Building blocks of life found on comets and meteors

We just discovered Kepler 452-b

Earth sized planet
Orbits a G2 star like our sun
385 day year
In the habitable zone for around 6 billion years

NASA said this:

“Today, we’re pleased to announce the discovery of Kepler 452b: the first small planet in the habitable zone of a G type star like our sun,” said Kepler data analyst Jon Jenkins in a NASA teleconference this afternoon. “The Earth is a little less lonely, because there’s a new kid on the block who moved in right next door.”

This is EVIDENCE that life exists outside of earth.

There's no special ingredients or special conditions that can only be found on earth.

If you look at the flip side, things would be different.

If we didn't find extremophiles in harsh conditions
If we did't find a planet orbiting a G2 star like our sun with around 6 billion years in it's habitable zone
If we didn't find the building blocks of life on comets and meteors
If we found that Jupiter sized planets were QUITE COMMON and earth like planets were very rare and planets were more sparse

THIS WOULD BE EVIDENCE THAT WE'RE ALONE IN THE UNIVERSE.

A person can then draw the conclusion based on the EVIDENCE that we're ALMOST CERTAINLY alone in the universe.

originally posted by: neoholographic
If we found that Jupiter sized planets were QUITE COMMON and earth like planets were very rare and planets were more sparse

THIS WOULD BE EVIDENCE THAT WE'RE ALONE IN THE UNIVERSE.

A person can then draw the conclusion based on the EVIDENCE that we're ALMOST CERTAINLY alone in the universe.

Wrong on both counts.

#1 Jupiter sized planets could have habitable moons. So that would not rule out potential abodes for life.

#2 Jupiter sized planets also are great at clearing up the neighborhood around a star. Kind handy not to have extinction level events every 500,000 years you know?

#3 You're an amateur and clearly do not understand how science works. You can not extrapolate your way using probability to a pronounce something as important as life in the universe as a certainty. No scientist in their right mind, Kaku included (who I met btw) would say that probability PROVES life is plentiful in the universe. All they can say is that it seems likely the universe is populated.

That's not a statement of fact. That's an educated guess awaiting an actual discovery of life.

We know next to nothing about most terrestrial and super-earth sized exoplanets. It might help to learn more (yourself included) before making such bold statements.

And please stop reposting the same thing over and over. We've all read it and know what it means.

But to borrow a popular meme: "It doesn't mean what you THINK it means."

What Jade said, and in addition, can you not see the failure in logic in these two sentences (used together by you):

"there's EVIDENCE that life exists outside of earth"
"Aliens almost certainly exist"

If there was evidence there would be no 'almost' in the second sentence.

originally posted by: JadeStar
...No scientist in their right mind, Kaku included (who I met btw) would say that probability PROVES life is plentiful in the universe. All they can say is that it seems likely the universe is populated.

Plus, it should be noted that when Dr. Kaku is on TV show, he is often NOT speaking as a clinical scientist, but as a person. He is not making scientific pronouncements, but stating his beliefs.

I'm sure Dr. Kaku could personally believe in life elsewhere, and he can share that personal belief on TV, but I bet when it comes to making a strict scientific determination of life elsewhere, he would probably use more cautious wording, as the majority of proper scientists would (and should).

I figure most scientists are like me. I personally believe in life elsewhere, but if I were a professional scientist (I'm not, BTW) trying to make a professional scientific determination of life elsewhere, I would say that there is evidence of life elsewhere, but no hard proof that would allow me to say that it does exist . My personal opinion may be that it almost surely exists, but that personal opinion should not cloud my professional determination.

a reply to: neoholographic

Did you seriously tell JadeStar she doesn't understand how science works?

Good god, man, they teach this stuff in 3rd grade, yet you can't seem to grasp it...

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Yes. He literally did. If I wasn't fuming over some # that happened earlier today, I'd be laughing my ass off right about now.

a reply to: JadeStar

First off, I met Dr. Kaku also and had a short but interesting conversation about his book the Physics of the Impossible.

Secondly, you just flat out lie about what Dr. Kaku and Hawking said and why they said it. Kaku didn't say probability proves anything. He talked about the EVIDENCE!

“Some scientists say that perhaps we are the only life forms in the universe. Give me a break! I mean, how many stars are there out there in the universe, anyway? The Hubble Space Telescope can see about a hundred billion galaxies — that’s the visible universe,” Kaku says on the alien TV special.

“Each galaxy consists of a hundred billion stars. Do the math. A hundred billion times a hundred billion is 10 sextillion. That’s one with 22 zeros after it. There definitely are aliens in outer space — they’re out there!”

What did he say here?

He talked about The Hubble Telescope and what it can see. THAT'S EVIDENCE HE'S BASING HIS CONCLUSION ON!!!

You can't know ANYTHING ABOUT SCIENCE if you don't understand that people are reaching these conclusions based on the EVIDENCE.

In other places he talks about exoplanets that have been found and how the building blocks of life have been found in comets and meteorites. Again, EVIDENCE!!!!

The reason you couldn't make the same claim 40 or 50 years ago is because we have discovered more EVIDENCE.

It's just ASININE to say there's no evidence. If this EVIDENCE wasn't discovered there's no way that Hawking would say ALIENS ALMOST CERTAINLY EXIST.

If this EVIDENCE was found:

If we didn't find extremophiles in harsh conditions
If we did't find a planet orbiting a G2 star like our sun with around 6 billion years in it's habitable zone
If we didn't find the building blocks of life on comets and meteors
If we found that Jupiter sized planets were QUITE COMMON and earth like planets were very rare and planets were more sparse

You can come to the conclusion that we're alone in the universe based on the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.

I GUARANTEE if these things were discovered there's no way Hawking or Kaku would say these things because there's NO EVIDENCE to support it.

If there's no EVIDENCE of the building blocks of life found in space how would life form on these Jupiter sized planets? How would we have EVIDENCE that life can form on these planets if we don't have the EVIDENCE that life can survive in harsh conditions?

If earth like planets were rare, how would we know that life was even possible on Jupiter sized planets?

THE ONLY EVIDENCE OF LIFE WE HAVE FORMS ON EARTH SIZED PLANETS!!

YOU'RE MAKING NO SENSE AT ALL!!

This is why NASA made a point to mention that earth size planets are "QUITE COMMON." THIS IS EVIDENCE.

If Jupiter sized planets were quite common and earth sized planets were very rare we would have NO EVIDENCE that life can form on Jupiter sized planets but we do have EVIDENCE that life can form on earth sized planets and this is why NASA said this:

“Today, we’re pleased to announce the discovery of Kepler 452b: the first small planet in the habitable zone of a G type star like our sun,” said Kepler data analyst Jon Jenkins in a NASA teleconference this afternoon. “The Earth is a little less lonely, because there’s a new kid on the block who moved in right next door.”

So again, you made an ASININE COMMENT about 100% certainty and people are saying silly things like there's no evidence and this is just PURE NONSENSE!!

a reply to: neoholographic

Even after being told literally dozens of times exactly why you're wrong, you still just go on blathering about the same nonsense. Notice how none of the scientists or NASA whom you quote out of context ever uses the word evidence.... You're hopeless, dude.

I'm sorry 3rd grade science is such a hard thing for you...

I get it.

Neo must be using the Chewbacca defense.


"NOW THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!!!"

originally posted by: 321Go
What Jade said, and in addition, can you not see the failure in logic in these two sentences (used together by you):

"there's EVIDENCE that life exists outside of earth"
"Aliens almost certainly exist"

If there was evidence there would be no 'almost' in the second sentence.

Again, another ASININE comment.

Just because there's evidence it doesn't equate to 100% certainty. This has NOTHING to do with Science and it's shameful that you and Jade are spreading that GARBAGE!

For instance, there's Scientist who were certain that the Higgs Boson exists before it was discovered they even made friendly bets on it. They were certain because of the EVIDENCE. This doesn't have anything to do with the ASININE comment about 100% Certainty.

This is the case for much of Science.

a reply to: neoholographic

You are aware that at least two of the dozens of people you continue to pointlessly argue with are academics in advanced fields right? You're also aware that several of them are also researchers? At least one is employed by a university to do research, the other is actually IN THE FIELD that you claim to know more than them about.

Do you realize that any ground you had has collapsed from underneath you? You have presented absolutely nothing. Zip. Zero. Zilch. You spout comments about science, but have no basic understanding how science, research, or validation works. Your comments and remarks give plenty of EVIDENCE (see? I can do it too) that you don't even know how to do basic fundamental academic research to support a claim. Your use of the word asinine provides insight that you are trying to appear to know what you're talking about...similar to how people use the word "plethora" all the time to describe "a great many."

Take the hint. Exit this thread stage left. Dust yourself off and try again.