A New Estimate of Alien Life in Our Galaxy

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: face23785

ETA: And that still doesn't explain how you thought stars twinkle because they're oscillating.

A twinkle is a textbook oscillation. The bright and dim moments oscillate between one another. You're arguing semantics because you are avoiding the fact that these theories require dark energy and matter to exist because their equations are off by 95%

I'm not arguing semantics at all. I'm pointing out that stars don't actually twinkle. They only appear to because of the atmosphere. Claiming that's in any way related to the oscillations used to detect exoplanets is just silly.

originally posted by: face23785

I'm not arguing semantics at all. I'm pointing out that stars don't actually twinkle.They only appear to because of the atmosphere. Claiming that's in any way related to the oscillations used to detect exoplanets is just silly.

Twinkling is an oscillation... Whether it is intrinsic to the star or part of atmospheric distortion is irrelevant. Regardless, my point was that our equations regarding the universe are so wrong that they need to insert 95% more matter and energy that is totally undetectable in order to make the equations work. It's laughable.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: face23785

I'm not arguing semantics at all. I'm pointing out that stars don't actually twinkle.They only appear to because of the atmosphere. Claiming that's in any way related to the oscillations used to detect exoplanets is just silly.

Not gonna fall for your sidetracking. Our equations regarding the universe are so wrong that they need to insert 95% more matter and energy that is totally undetectable in order to make the equations work.

That's actually sidetracking. The thread is about alien life and, by extension, exoplanets. Dark matter really has nothing to do with it. I agree that the evidence for dark matter is sketchy. That doesn't disprove the detection of exoplanets though. If you think they're related, you don't understand the concepts used.

originally posted by: face23785

That's actually sidetracking. The thread is about alien life and, by extension, exoplanets. Dark matter really has nothing to do with it. I agree that the evidence for dark matter is sketchy. That doesn't disprove the detection of exoplanets though. If you think they're related, you don't understand the concepts used.

If our estimations about the universe are off by a factor of 20x, then our entire model of the universe is convoluted. The assumptions that stars are distant suns for example, could be entirely wrong also. This would make it relevant to exoplanet detection. If stars aren't suns, then we can't apply our planetary model to them.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: face23785

That's actually sidetracking. The thread is about alien life and, by extension, exoplanets. Dark matter really has nothing to do with it. I agree that the evidence for dark matter is sketchy. That doesn't disprove the detection of exoplanets though. If you think they're related, you don't understand the concepts used.

If our estimations about the universe are off by a factor of 20x, then our entire model of the universe is convoluted. The assumptions that stars are distant suns for example, could be entirely wrong also. This would make it relevant to exoplanet detection. If stars aren't suns, then we can't apply our planetary model to them.

Yeah that's not how that works. Just because one set of equations in one sector of science are wrong doesn't necessarily mean another set in another sector are. Dark matter is not related to things like the doppler effect, which is one of the methods used to detect exoplanets. If you read up on it, you will come to the logical conclusion that exoplanets are real and have been detected. You're grossly oversimplifying things here, which is understandable since you're a layman. That's not an insult, so don't take it personally.

Also, you apparently didn't see my post on the last page which shows there are indeed photos of exoplanets.

a reply to: cooperton

Also, at least one rogue planet has been directly imaged.

Planets outside our system are a verified scientific fact.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: cooperton

Also, at least one rogue planet has been directly imaged.

Planets outside our system are a verified scientific fact.

Honestly, you are wasting your time! No matter What you throw at him, he will not listen. The only book that satisfies him is the bible.

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: cooperton

Also, at least one rogue planet has been directly imaged.

Planets outside our system are a verified scientific fact.

Honestly, you are wasting your time! No matter What you throw at him, he will not listen. The only book that satisfies him is the bible.

I have no issue with his religious beliefs. He just can't come in here talking about how he's all about logic and deduction and pretending there's no real evidence for exoplanets and not expect to get rebuked.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: cooperton

Also, at least one rogue planet has been directly imaged.

Planets outside our system are a verified scientific fact.

This infrared detection doesn't prove it is an exoplanet. Just because they see an anomaly and assume it is a planet doesn't magically make it a planet. You have to face that it requires your belief to extrapolate from the raw data.

Just because one set of equations in one sector of science are wrong doesn't necessarily mean another set in another sector are.

It does though. If estimations on celestial mass is wrong, then so are the distances. If our view of the cosmos is wrong at its core, then so are the assumptions drawn out of it. Think about it, if there are billions of solar systems with planets whizzing around suns/stars that are also orbiting a galactic radius at unfathomable speeds, how is it that these stellar objects maintain such a perfect placement in our night's sky? All stars have maintained their orbits so precisely that the celestial sphere has remain unchanged in the past known history. It is so much like clockwork that the Mayans were able to predict millenium-long cycles. This is not the chaotic cosmos that the mainstream scientists want you to think, instead all evidence points to a clockwork cosmos.

Look up "the axis of evil", it shows that our solar system is perfectly aligned with the microwave background. The materialist reductionist solution that we are fed by the secular/atheist white coats is remarkably deceptive and not based in real empirical data.

a reply to: cooperton

Yeah that is a whole bunch of pseudoscience and plain lies. You don't understand what you're trying to talk about here. I suggest you study up.

Interesting arguments on both sides of the fence. I suppose I am of the mind that what happens in one place can happen in another, maybe even on a large scale. As a civilisation, I think we haven't been observing long enough, although our tech is extending our range of observation and the unfathomable size of the Universe makes it nigh on impossible to draw any conclusions unless absolute contact is established.

From the religious perspective of a God creating the Earth and all its wonders, it would seem a cruel torment to have us be the only life in a vast existence. We could be one of a myriad of 'created' habitable planets, spread out over the Creator's construct. We could also be the first or the last.

If you had the power to create an entire existence, would you place just one habitable sphere inside it as an experiment to see how it fares and if it can populate the existence...or would you seed it with many, greatly distanced and wait to see if they advance enough to make contact?

Either way, in my thinking, the Universe has always and always will exist or it is finite, with a beginning and an end. Both ways gives me a headache as I cannot conceive of an eternal existence just as much as something coming out of nothing.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: cooperton

Yeah that is a whole bunch of pseudoscience and plain lies. You don't understand what you're trying to talk about here. I suggest you study up.

Look up at the stars. Look at a time lapse of the celestial sphere. It spins around the axis of the north star. It's like clockwork.

The cosmic microwave background aligns with the axis of our solar system. This is called "the axis of evil". Look it up.

Do you suppose this is pseudoscience simply because it threatens your dogmatism?

a reply to: cooperton

Let me ask you. How old do you think the earth is?

originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: cooperton

Let me ask you. How old do you think the earth is?

Before I answer that, I want to clear something up. Are you admitting there's no substantial evidence for exoplanets, so now you wish to move to another topic?

originally posted by: fromtheskydown
Interesting arguments on both sides of the fence. I suppose I am of the mind that what happens in one place can happen in another, maybe even on a large scale. As a civilisation, I think we haven't been observing long enough, although our tech is extending our range of observation and the unfathomable size of the Universe makes it nigh on impossible to draw any conclusions unless absolute contact is established.

From the religious perspective of a God creating the Earth and all its wonders, it would seem a cruel torment to have us be the only life in a vast existence. We could be one of a myriad of 'created' habitable planets, spread out over the Creator's construct. We could also be the first or the last.

If you had the power to create an entire existence, would you place just one habitable sphere inside it as an experiment to see how it fares and if it can populate the existence...or would you seed it with many, greatly distanced and wait to see if they advance enough to make contact?

Either way, in my thinking, the Universe has always and always will exist or it is finite, with a beginning and an end. Both ways gives me a headache as I cannot conceive of an eternal existence just as much as something coming out of nothing.

Well said. Given that relativity requires the incorporation of a 4th dimension, I don't see how we can any longer explain things coming to be form a random chaotic 3-dimensional perspective. We're raised in a school system that teaches such things though, and it is hard to unlearn. As surely as a shadow does not create the light, matter did not create consciousness. We are the ideal vessel for a conscious Spirit to inhabit, and this perfect equilibrium zone we inhabit is surely also a construct of this same conscious Spirit

a reply to: cooperton

Before I answer that, I want to clear something up. Are you admitting there's no substantial evidence for exoplanets, so now you wish to move to another topic?

Er no, because you are wrong, but your answer to this question I have asked will say a lot.

How old is planet earth?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Jay-morris
But we clearly have evidence of of exoplanets. Are you saying the only evidence should be a clear photo?

What is the clear evidence to support the existence of exoplanets? Show and tell.

You should be careful what you ask for..A catalog of over 5000 exoplanets

Although, I am fairly sure you will think these to be a bunch of made up, random, numbers that "science" wants us to believe...thing is though, I can collect these SAME numbers on my own with only a little technology...a computer and a robotic telescope.

So, you should go and check out that site, it has a worlds of information about what IS and what might be out there.

a reply to: cooperton
Without trying to create too much topic drift and delving into religion and metaphysics, the separation between physical matter and human-level consciousness [or any other] is yet another headache subject, as I struggle with the concept of inorganic matter bringing forth organic matter and a self-aware life form, capable of abstract thought.

If life is prevalent, will it be on our level of consciousness, below it or above it and could a vastly different level of consciousness and way of thinking totally prevent any form of communication?

originally posted by: Jimy718

You should be careful what you ask for..A catalog of over 5000 exoplanets

Although, I am fairly sure you will think these to be a bunch of made up, random, numbers that "science" wants us to believe...thing is though, I can collect these SAME numbers on my own with only a little technology...a computer and a robotic telescope.

So, you should go and check out that site, it has a worlds of information about what IS and what might be out there.

in your own words, what part of the data proves that they are planets orbiting around a distant sun? Start with just one of any of those supposed planets on that list.

"Could rocks be the key to the origin of life?"

PBS Nova documentary: "Life's Rocky Start"

a reply to: cooperton

Fair enough. You did nothing of what was asked. I tap out to obtuse, dogmatic rhetoric. The science is legit. Your rhetoric, well, it’s yours.

Ontologically-unrepentant Science: 1
Whatever you brought: 0

Exoplanets are real. Sorry. Themz da breakz