A New Estimate of Alien Life in Our Galaxy

originally posted by: Cravens
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

There is absolutly no point with debating with a fanatical religous person who believes everything they read in the bible. I think that is the reason why people left this thread.

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: Cravens
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

There is absolutly no point with debating with a fanatical religous person who believes everything they read in the bible. I think that is the reason why people left this thread.

It’s not even debating; it’s an exercise of willful ignorance of 1) the proven science; 2) the empirical evidence, coupled with a bridge troll-like propensity to nosedive a thread (as you mentioned — first time I’ve encountered the poster but I learned quickly).

The poster’s continued drivel about dark matter is just that. Not only is the poster, obviously, unfamiliar with the concept, he seems to think that his limited understanding subjugates the minds of others using dogma to equivocate his beliefs using...wait for it...his ‘belief’.

Duplicitous may be harsh, but something approaching such is an apt adjective.

originally posted by: Cravens

The poster’s continued drivel about dark matter is just that. Not only is the poster, obviously, unfamiliar with the concept, he seems to think that his limited understanding subjugates the minds of others using dogma to equivocate his beliefs using...wait for it...his ‘belief’.

Duplicitous may be harsh, but something approaching such is an apt adjective.

Yikes welcome to the debate. Where was my analysis incorrect regarding dark matter?

originally posted by: cooperton

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.

I'm going to presume you know nothing about HOW planets are detected you should visit this site.

I've implemented two of these methods using a smallish robotic telescope; Radial Velocity, and Photometry. The Photometery method can be done with a cell phone.

The data collected to implement these methods consist of luminosity and spectral data, how bright is it, and what color. This data is collected into an extremely large dataset that is subsequently "mined".

REGULAR variations in luminosity, and/or, spectral data indicate an orbiting object. The frequency of the 'anomaly' indicates it orbital distance. Indicators gained from spectral analysis can give estimations of the orbiting mass. IF we get lucky perhaps micro-lensing can be employed (I was beginning work on this method of detection).

So...im my own words; what data indicates they are planets orbiting a distant star? The regular, repetitious variations in a given star's Astrometric data. From that data I can tell you how many planets there are, how big they are, and how far from their star they orbit...give me more, "finer grained" data and I'll tell you about moons.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Cravens

The poster’s continued drivel about dark matter is just that. Not only is the poster, obviously, unfamiliar with the concept, he seems to think that his limited understanding subjugates the minds of others using dogma to equivocate his beliefs using...wait for it...his ‘belief’.

Duplicitous may be harsh, but something approaching such is an apt adjective.

Yikes welcome to the debate. Where was my analysis incorrect regarding dark matter?

Where was your analysis correct? From there we can work back...

And if you’re gonna quote me please, quote me in full. If anyone is guilty of extraneous content (misrepresenting the science, etc.) masquerading as an earnest attempt to engage in the proven science, it’s you; quoting me in full is the least you could do to keep the facade of an earnest discussion of facts.

And I read where you — not surprisingly — conflated the incompleteness of direct observation of dark matter to an indictment of equations (math) in astrophysics as a whole. In sum: they, according to you, have failed miserably with dark matter and that invalidates the remainder of physics — small and big — on the whole.

You’re wrong but I suspect you’ll ask me, again, where you’re wrong as opposed to proving you’re right.

Please don’t fail me

a reply to: Cravens

He is a fanatical religous person. I gurentee he believes the earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. He refuses to answer the question, but I would be suprises if I was wrong.

So, you might as well give up.

originally posted by: Jimy718

REGULAR variations in luminosity, and/or, spectral data indicate an orbiting object.
So...im my own words; what data indicates they are planets orbiting a distant star? The regular, repetitious variations in a given star's Astrometric data.

Thanks for a thoughtful post. How can these rhythms be differentiated from natural oscillations? Surely our own sun goes through patterns, it would be silly to think that stars don't also have natural oscillations which are independent of orbiting objects.

How precise are these oscillations? If they were orbiting exoplanets, I really wouldn't expect the oscillations to be consistent, because our solar plane, their solar plane, and the galactic plane are all shifting at unfathomable speeds every second of the day. How could this allow any sort of consistent orbital interference? It would be like having a solar eclipse every day.

originally posted by: Cravens

Where was your analysis correct? (regarding dark matter)

Dark matter and dark energy consist of 95% of the entirety of mass/energy in the universe which is required to fit calculations regarding the cosmos. It is undetectable mass that is required to make the equations work. This shows how off the equations are - they require an imaginary mass that hasn't been detected despite countless efforts to do so. It is showing there is something remarkably wrong with the current astronomical model.

"So, if more mass is added to the visible matter, the equations work, objects remain in their paths, and everything makes sense, mathematically."

NASA

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Jimy718

REGULAR variations in luminosity, and/or, spectral data indicate an orbiting object.
So...im my own words; what data indicates they are planets orbiting a distant star? The regular, repetitious variations in a given star's Astrometric data.

Thanks for a thoughtful post. How can these rhythms be differentiated from natural oscillations? Surely our own sun goes through patterns, it would be silly to think that stars don't also have natural oscillations which are independent of orbiting objects.
How precise are these oscillations? If they were orbiting exoplanets, I really wouldn't expect the oscillations to be consistent, because our solar plane, their solar plane, and the galactic plane are all shifting at unfathomable speeds every second of the day. How could this allow any sort of consistent orbital interference? It would be like having a solar eclipse every day.

Yes, stars do have natural 'oscillations'. Earth's Sun has what is termed the Sun spot Cycle; it is about 11 years. During this time the solar activity cycles from a low point to a high one. These kinds of solar activity are well known, though I don't remember see anything like this for other stars, just Sol. However, "variable stars" (stars with quite a lot of solar activity) are also known, and their activity is also known. These sorts of "things" can be filtered out of the raw data, though at a cost; not seeing some possible planets/objects.

The period of a planet is VERY regular, like a heart-beat; one of the 'things' that indicates it is a planet. Other changes/events/etc. appear mostly as random events, and look more like noise...in relation to planet hunting.

In some cases it actually IS a solar eclipse, though on a regular basis, not necessarily every day (could be hours to 10's of years). When using the Photometry method we look for a 'dimming' of the star...the planet passing in front. The star is far too small for a total eclipse, so we only get a very weak partial one.

Also; understand, that while all of the astronomical objects (Earth, Sol, all the stars and galaxies) are moving at unimaginable speeds, they move rather slowly relative to each other, so these 'planes' remain relatively stable over the short term (100's - 1000's of years). So that probably won't even show up in the astrometric data.

Tell me; do you need to see the Woodpecker, if you hear the seemingly constant tap-tap-tap at a 'tell-tail' rhythm?

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

He is a fanatical religous person. I gurentee he believes the earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. He refuses to answer the question, but I would be suprises if I was wrong.

So, you might as well give up.

You might as well better inform yourself about astrophysics — you’re barely illiterate beyond what the internet tells you — and stick to the science you know and understand (the lil science it appears you know).

Blast away all you like at him, but I’ve proven without doubt or with interference of dogmatic double-speak, the evidence of exoplanets.

You and he are just different sides of the same coin. A coin not minted by enlightenment.

originally posted by: Cravens

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

He is a fanatical religous person. I gurentee he believes the earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. He refuses to answer the question, but I would be suprises if I was wrong.

So, you might as well give up.

You might as well better inform yourself about astrophysics — you’re barely illiterate beyond what the internet tells you — and stick to the science you know and understand (the lil science it appears you know).

Blast away all you like at him, but I’ve proven without doubt or with interference of dogmatic double-speak, the evidence of exoplanets.

You and he are just different sides of the same coin. A coin not minted by enlightenment.

What?

originally posted by: Jimy718


The period of a planet is VERY regular, like a heart-beat; one of the 'things' that indicates it is a planet. Other changes/events/etc. appear mostly as random events, and look more like noise...in relation to planet hunting...
Also; understand, that while all of the astronomical objects (Earth, Sol, all the stars and galaxies) are moving at unimaginable speeds, they move rather slowly relative to each other, so these 'planes' remain relatively stable over the short term (100's - 1000's of years). So that probably won't even show up in the astrometric data.

Tell me; do you need to see the Woodpecker, if you hear the seemingly constant tap-tap-tap at a 'tell-tail' rhythm?

The relative velocity may be slower than the total velocity, but that still would suggest a noticeable change of alignments. Which if it is like you say, a predictable rhythm akin to a heartbeat, then I don't see how these numbers could be constant. For these reasons I suppose they are natural oscillations of the star, and not an exoplanet. Do you see how unlikely it would be that they would stay in perfect alignment along their respective solar planes? Don't get me wrong I still believe in aliens, but I suppose they are extra-dimensional, rather than extra-terrestrial.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Jimy718


The period of a planet is VERY regular, like a heart-beat; one of the 'things' that indicates it is a planet. Other changes/events/etc. appear mostly as random events, and look more like noise...in relation to planet hunting...
Also; understand, that while all of the astronomical objects (Earth, Sol, all the stars and galaxies) are moving at unimaginable speeds, they move rather slowly relative to each other, so these 'planes' remain relatively stable over the short term (100's - 1000's of years). So that probably won't even show up in the astrometric data.

Tell me; do you need to see the Woodpecker, if you hear the seemingly constant tap-tap-tap at a 'tell-tail' rhythm?

The relative velocity may be slower than the total velocity, but that still would suggest a noticeable change of alignments. Which if it is like you say, a predictable rhythm akin to a heartbeat, then I don't see how these numbers could be constant.

I having quite a lot of difficulty understanding your logic here...

Firstly; yes these 'alignments' do change, and seemingly quite drastically, but in this sense you are probably thinking in Terrestrial terms and NOT on the galactic or cosmic levels.

Secondly; IF these 'numbers' were NOT CONSTANT then there would be NO predictions or indications of a stable orbit, just the randomness of a star's surface...BUT, remember this would ONLY APPLY to Photometry.

For these reasons I suppose they are natural oscillations of the star, and not an exoplanet. Do you see how unlikely it would be that they would stay in perfect alignment along their respective solar planes? Don't get me wrong I still believe in aliens, but I suppose they are extra-dimensional, rather than extra-terrestrial.

No, actually I see quite the opposite!

I see your alignments changing, at very slow rates, rates so slow that they can have no affect on current measurements. These things change so slowly that observations I make over a 10 year period are unaffected by these changes, and I don't expect anything to be 'perfect'.

What "proves" an orbiting planet is the constant, predictable changes in a star's astrometric data. Changes in luminosity caused by solar activity, and passing stellar bodies are for the most part random events. Changes in a star's Radial Velocity can only be caused by a near-by (large enough) gravity or mass (i.e. Planet). By the way; changes to a star's RV are seen as changes in the velocity in which it is either moving toward Earth, or away, these can not be caused by the star itself.

There is no theoretical "alternate reality" (please don't call this a "dimension" it isn't!), there is however a hypothesis that attempts to describe additional Universes...still not the same.

originally posted by: Jimy718

The relative velocity may be slower than the total velocity, but that still would suggest a noticeable change of alignments. Which if it is like you say, a predictable rhythm akin to a heartbeat, then I don't see how these numbers could be constant.

I having quite a lot of difficulty understanding your logic here...

Firstly; yes these 'alignments' do change, and seemingly quite drastically, but in this sense you are probably thinking in Terrestrial terms and NOT on the galactic or cosmic levels.

No, actually I see quite the opposite!

I see your alignments changing, at very slow rates, rates so slow that they can have no affect on current measurements. These things change so slowly that observations I make over a 10 year period are unaffected by these changes, and I don't expect anything to be 'perfect'.

Given that the galactic arm is spinning at 350miles per second, over 10 years this means the star would theoretically have traveled 110,390,000,000 miles. How do you suppose our orientation with that star and its orbit would remain constant after such a vast distance traveled? Even the slightest angular tweak should have a noticeable change on the data. So this wouldn't match the data that you say has remained constant over the past 10 years

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: fromtheskydown

I'm speculating...that the closest civilization capable of two way communication calculation, is possibly 17,000 light years away --- Is way too much of a stretch.

I would tend to say...that there are much closer civilizations --- capable of two way communication --- than 17,000 light years away.

Not if one big bad boy is going around, killing them all, and going silent.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Jimy718

The relative velocity may be slower than the total velocity, but that still would suggest a noticeable change of alignments. Which if it is like you say, a predictable rhythm akin to a heartbeat, then I don't see how these numbers could be constant.

I having quite a lot of difficulty understanding your logic here...

Firstly; yes these 'alignments' do change, and seemingly quite drastically, but in this sense you are probably thinking in Terrestrial terms and NOT on the galactic or cosmic levels.

No, actually I see quite the opposite!

I see your alignments changing, at very slow rates, rates so slow that they can have no affect on current measurements. These things change so slowly that observations I make over a 10 year period are unaffected by these changes, and I don't expect anything to be 'perfect'.

Given that the galactic arm is spinning at 350miles per second, over 10 years this means the star would theoretically have traveled 110,390,000,000 miles. How do you suppose our orientation with that star and its orbit would remain constant after such a vast distance traveled? Even the slightest angular tweak should have a noticeable change on the data. So this wouldn't match the data that you say has remained constant over the past 10 years

You do realize that Sol is a member of that very same Galactic Arm; right? So, Sol and Earth are traveling at the same "average" speed as everything else. That's not quite true however; Tau Ceti for instance, in approaching Earth at a rate of 10 miles/second...Tau Ceti has 4 known planets two in habitable zone.

This alignment you harp on simply isn't an obstacle; for photometry (the only method that could be affected by position) all we need is for the planet to pass across the disk of it's own Star, there is quite a lot of movement that will allow Photometry to still occur!

As for the others; Radial Velocity only depends on the star's already known RV property (we look for changes in that RV), none of the others require the planet to be in an orbit that crosses the disk as viewed from Earth.

So...alignment has little to no affect on the data analysis...regular "changes" in the data, that can't be attributed to anything else are planets. Random data, such as solar flares, random astronomical bodies, etc. are simply random events.

I would recommend that you go to your local community college and take an Astronomy course.

originally posted by: Jimy718

I would recommend that you go to your local community college and take an Astronomy course.

Can you just tell me this overwhelming evidence regarding exoplanets? I'm sincerely interested. I am in part being argumentative just to test the empirical evidence. But most importantly I want to know, since you seem well-versed on the topic, what is the most compelling evidence regarding their existence.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Jimy718

I would recommend that you go to your local community college and take an Astronomy course.

Can you just tell me this overwhelming evidence regarding exoplanets? I'm sincerely interested. I am in part being argumentative just to test the empirical evidence. But most importantly I want to know, since you seem well-versed on the topic, what is the most compelling evidence regarding their existence.

See how you completly ignored his reply? You do this all the time. You ignore facts all the time. Why do you do this? Well, we know why you do this don't we.

You come on here trying to make out this is nothing to do eith your religon, but you know that it is, but why do you not admit it?

So, I will ask again, and hopefully I can get an honest answer.

How old do you think the earth is?

originally posted by: Jimy718

You do realize that Sol is a member of that very same Galactic Arm; right? So, Sol and Earth are traveling at the same "average" speed as everything else.

Even if we assume that they maintain the same relative positions in the galactic arm, there is still Earth's inclination that needs to be considered. If the earth's angle goes north and south 23 degrees, for a total of 46 degrees of change each year, then how would this angle also not contribute to a changed angle of viewing that star? It most certainly would, if it were in fact an exoplanet, but if it weren't an exoplanet, and instead was some sort of natural oscillation of the star, then there would be no apparent change throughout the years. At distances that are light-years apart, even the slightest angulation change would result in a vastly different perspective. Because you say there is no apparent change, and it goes consistently like a heartbeat, I do not see how it would be concluded as an exoplanet.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Jimy718

I would recommend that you go to your local community college and take an Astronomy course.

Can you just tell me this overwhelming evidence regarding exoplanets? I'm sincerely interested. I am in part being argumentative just to test the empirical evidence. But most importantly I want to know, since you seem well-versed on the topic, what is the most compelling evidence regarding their existence.

I thought I already did...anyway; exoplanet.eu one of the best sources of exoplanet information.

Please note: I am a retired hardware/software engineer, not an Astronomer. IF you truly want to learn I would suggest two things;
1. Stop arguing. You cannot test empirical evidence by challenging it that way.
2. Find an actual Astronomer. An Astronomer is "well-versed" in things Astronomical, a Software Engineer isn't (Astronomy isn't a collection of algorithms).

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Jimy718

You do realize that Sol is a member of that very same Galactic Arm; right? So, Sol and Earth are traveling at the same "average" speed as everything else.

Even if we assume that they maintain the same relative positions in the galactic arm, there is still Earth's inclination that needs to be considered. If the earth's angle goes north and south 23 degrees, for a total of 46 degrees of change each year, then how would this angle also not contribute to a changed angle of viewing that star? It most certainly would, if it were in fact an exoplanet, but if it weren't an exoplanet, and instead was some sort of natural oscillation of the star, then there would be no apparent change throughout the years. At distances that are light-years apart, even the slightest angulation change would result in a vastly different perspective. Because you say there is no apparent change, and it goes consistently like a heartbeat, I do not see how it would be concluded as an exoplanet.

" instead was some sort of natural oscillation of the star"... Just what sort of "natural oscillations" do think there are? From the little that I know, and from looking at raw data from stars; I don't see many "kinds" of 'natural oscillation' that Stars go through. Yes there are a few BUT, they are all asymmetrical ! Meaning that they DO NOT occur with precise timing. Planets on the other hand are like clockwork, the appearance of a planet (however it manifests) is a very predictable event. ALL other fluctuations in a stars Astrometry are vastly more chaotic/random...which, by the way, is how we can tell the difference. A planet is regular, everything else is random.

Oh and by the way; Once can observe a planet crossing the disk of its star for nearly 180 degrees, so that 43 degree change over a year is meaningless...in many cases. Further, these alignments you think are so critical; have no affect on most methods of planet detection.