beecee

More nonsense. Science seeks explanations of what we observe through observations and experiments. It's wrong to say that it has nothing to do with finding truth, rather seeking truth per se, is not its objective, if this truth or reality actually even exists. Science is based on empirical evidence: Religion is based on faith. Understand? One would then ask why you use and depend on science every single day of your life if it is based on not understanding. I mean saying that is not just circular, it is inane and obtuse to boot. You my friend would still be swinging in the trees if it wasn't for science and the scientific methodology.

Circular? I see it as a reasonable answer. What I find as particularly illogical and showing signs of an agenda is the following.... "Spacetime really exists and has been shown to exist with many observations including the Lense Thirring effect, gravitational lensing, and in more recent times gravitational waves. The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality".  Hermann Minkowski:

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201516/Vaccination ‘No Jab No Pay’ and other immunisation measures https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/babies/parents-who-refuse-to-vaccinate-will-be-docked-money-from-their-family-tax-benefit-from-today/news-story/9d091a5d6ec0b0f597a385adb9f25c7d AS PART of the changes for the new financial year, from today parents who refuse to vaccinate their children will be docked money from their family tax benefit. Under the Federal Government “No Jab, No Pay” program, Family Tax Benefit Part A payments will cop a fortnightly $28 reduction for each unvaccinated child. http://www.vaccinationawareness.com.au/Vaccine_Exemptions.html Vaccine Exemptions in Australia Vaccination is not compulsory in Australia, so the decision not to vaccinate yourself, or your child does not require government registration or justification. Since January 2016 however, families with a child (up to age 20) and currently registered with a Conscientious or Religious exemption (along with the partially vaccinated), were provided a time-limited period (1 January 2016 to 31 December 2017) to commence a free 'catch-up' with the current National Immunisation Program Schedule (NIPS), or be denied further government payments. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I know it may sound like "big brother" but the stark reality is that unvaccinated children are a danger to themselves and the community at large. There has also been talk re making vaccinations compulsory.

Some are actually just idiots and stirrers, specifically out to get a raise out of people for there own weird enjoyment. Others though are the real thing, ie, nutballs, fruitcakes, etc Let's hope not. Again with these anti vaxxer idiots, any parent in Australia that does not have their children vaccinated are refused enrollment into kindergartens, schools, etc and government child support payments are cancelled. Hit em in the hip pocket may knock some sense back into them.

Oh and after thinking a little bit, we can also add the discovery [albeit serendipitiously] of the CMBR, acceleration in the expansion rate, and of course the confirmation of BH's and colliding/merging BH's. Any more unsupported nonsense you would like to claim?

Well for a start and of the top of my head, the discoveries and further verifications of GR with the Lense Thirring effect, gravitational waves, and of course gravitational lensing. Any more nonsensical unsupported claims you would like to make? He can't and he won't....obviously it stands out like dog balls...a rabid agenda is afoot here.

They disobey the bible simply because it has been shown that this obscure book, written by obscure men, in an obscure age is filled with nonsensical fairy tale notions that are fit only for children to believe/accept. The rest of your preaching is ignored, and obviously probably also against the rules. And obviously and observationally science continues to march on in its goal of obtaining knowledge for humanity, while pushing the notion of some magical creating spaghetti monster into near oblivion.

You have your own ideas??? On what grounds do you base the validity of your ideas on as distinct to the overwhelming factual evidence that accounts for the validity and protection that vaccinations have been shown to give? PS; As an aside, in Australia, parents who refuse to vaccinate their children, can have them refused enrollment in kindergarten and school, and any child suport, unless there is a medically supported validated reason for non vaccination. In answer to your question, I'm not qualified, but hey! why not put it to your doctor/specialist? The biggest obvious advantage of vaccinations is obviously in that we have now seen the near eradication of diseases such as Polio and Smallpox.

He said, she said, did you ever actually do some research into this to verify the reputability of the claims, and the possibility of any journalistic sensationalistic writings? I actually no nothing about any such incident, but again see it as probably nothing but the usual conspiracy inspired nonsense akin to all the other nonsensical alternative accounts on any other momentous happenings, like 9/11, the faked Moon landings, etc. Do you also accept these unsupported drivelling accounts of history over evidence based accounts?

No David, that is simply wrong. An otherwise great astronomer, Fred Hoyle, who was involved and pushing a "steady state" hypothesis was the person who in a derisive fashion applied the BB terminology. If you would care to check out history [which I suppose you won't] you will find that your whole "fairy tale" account of what happened, is just that....a fairy tale, you know, like Santa Claus, God and the Easter bunny. Of course this was before the CMBR was discovered, which then gave the BB the solidarity over the steady state. What we can learn [I hope!] from this, is that as reputable as Freddy Hoyle was, he could be said to have an agenda of sorts....or perhaps he was "disgusted"with the BB theory as it still left the door open for a who and how of the BB, and of course the usual "god of the gaps" methodology that probably LaMaitre probably had. What you will find if you happen to decide to familairise yourself with the facts, is that the Catholic church recognises both the BB and the theory of the evolution of life...You see, they had to to retain any semblance of logic and/or sensibility, as the evidence for both are overwhelming. But again, since the BB and the theory of evolution of life both say nothing about the actual beginning, they obviously are insidiously applying their "god of the gaps" short circuit. I hope that as helped your own lack of knowledge in that regard.....or perhaps you also have an agenda? With regard the the nonsense portrayed in the OP, I'm pretty sure any self respecting member of the human race, will see the absolute stupidity that he/she is stating in the OP, obviously on a science forum and obviously simply to get a raise out of people. The mind actually boggles at such inane stupidity that some would have you believe.

Umm, sure what I said is true....And I'm not talking about gravity...I'm talking about UFO's. Again around 95% are explained away by mundane means....mirages, illusions, abnormal and unusual weather anomalies, meteor showers, sprites, St Elmo's fire, cloud configurations, Iridium flares, militaristic "top secret" aircraft etc etc etc, not leaving out Venus and/or Jupiter. The UFO's that there are no know explanations for, are just that...unknown, or unidentified. Please don't jump to unsupported conclusions that unidentified or unexplained, means Alien controlled objects. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: Carl Sagan.

Actually its 95% of UFO sightings that are explained by a myriad of more mundane explanations, with around 5% remaining as unexplained, or unidentified. That's what the "Ü" in UFO means.

I bow to your mathematical prowess. Noting that the numbers involved are astronomical and that the stuff of life being everywhere. As I have said previously, time and distance are great barriers to inter-planetary contact and revelation. A nice article anyway imo.

Obviously it goes without saying, that if we were to find signs of basic bacterial/microbial life in our own solar system, that chances of life even beyond and at all stages, would be significantly increased.

Exactly! I was waiting for someone to do the maths. Let's though be even more conservative.....human or advanced lifeforms...> 0.001% My question/s [which obviously after checking I didn't make clear in the OP] again though is "if it's really unlikely then we might be alone, but if not, we may have company." [1] Wouldn't it raise far many more questions if we were alone? and [2] While accepting the premise of searching for life where we already have evidence it could arise as being favourable in the first instance, other possibilities and chances may exist with stars at different stages of their development/life.

Of course we do! Spacetime is observed to be warped, twisted, curved, and forming waves when mass/energy is involved.

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-kepler-supernova-explosion-survivors-left.html After the Kepler supernova explosion, no survivors were left behind: A new study argues that the explosion that Johannes Kepler observed in 1604 was caused by a merger of two stellar residues. The Kepler supernova, of which only the supernova remnant remains, took place in the constellation of Ophiuchus, in the plane of the Milky Way, 16,300 light years from the sun. An international team led by the researcher Pilar Ruiz Lapuente (UB-IECC y CSIC), in which IAC researcher Jonay González Hernández participated, has tried to find the possible surviving star of the binary system in which the explosion took place. In these systems, when at least one of the stars (with the highest mass) reaches the end of its life and becomes a white dwarf (WD), the other can begin to transfer matter up to a certain mass limit (equivalent to 1,44 solar masses, the so-called "Chandrasekhar limit"). This process leads to the central ignition of carbon in the white dwarf, producing an explosion that can multiply 100,000 times its original brightness. This phenomenon, brief and violent, is known as a supernova. Sometimes, these can be observed with the naked eye from Earth, as in the case of the Kepler supernova (SN 1604), observed and identified by the German astronomer Johannes Kepler in 1604. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-kepler-supernova-explosion-survivors-left.html#jCp >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< the paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aac9c4/meta No Surviving Companion in Kepler's Supernova: Abstract We have surveyed Kepler's supernova remnant in search of the companion star of the explosion. We have gone as deep as 2.6 L ? in all stars within 20% of the radius of the remnant. We use FLAMES at the VLT-UT2 telescope to obtain high-resolution spectra of the stellar candidates selected from Hubble Space Telescope (HST) images. The resulting set of stellar parameters suggests that these stars come from a rather ordinary mixture of field stars (mostly giants). A few of the stars seem to have low [Fe/H] (<?1) and they are consistent with being metal-poor giants. The radial velocities and rotational velocities vrot sin i are very well determined. There are no fast rotating stars because v rot sin i?<?20 km s?1 for all the candidates. The radial velocities from the spectra and the proper motions determined from HST images are compatible with those expected from the Besan?on model of the Galaxy. The strong limits placed on luminosity suggest that this supernova could have arisen either from the core-degenerate scenario or from the double-degenerate scenario.

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-scientists-exoplanets-life-earth.html the paper: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/8/eaar3302 The origin of RNA precursors on exoplanets Abstract Given that the macromolecular building blocks of life were likely produced photochemically in the presence of ultraviolet (UV) light, we identify some general constraints on which stars produce sufficient UV for this photochemistry. We estimate how much light is needed for the UV photochemistry by experimentally measuring the rate constant for the UV chemistry (“light chemistry”, needed for prebiotic synthesis) versus the rate constants for the bimolecular reactions that happen in the absence of the UV light (“dark chemistry”). We make these measurements for representative photochemical reactions involving and HS−. By balancing the rates for the light and dark chemistry, we delineate the “abiogenesis zones” around stars of different stellar types based on whether their UV fluxes are sufficient for building up this macromolecular prebiotic inventory. We find that the light chemistry is rapid enough to build up the prebiotic inventory for stars hotter than K5 (4400 K). We show how the abiogenesis zone overlaps with the liquid water habitable zone. Stars cooler than K5 may also drive the formation of these building blocks if they are very active. The HS− light chemistry is too slow to work even for early Earth. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My question/statement concerns the last paragraph from the article..... extract: According to recent estimates, there are as many as 700 million trillion terrestrial planets in the observable universe. "Getting some idea of what fraction have been, or might be, primed for life fascinates me," said Sutherland. "Of course, being primed for life is not everything and we still don't know how likely the origin of life is, even given favourable circumstances—if it's really unlikely then we might be alone, but if not, we may have company." OK, 700 million trillion, a large number by anyone's definition. So how likely or unlikely are the chances of abiogenisis? I have always been of the opinion that given the large astronomical numbers involved, and the stuff of life being everywhere we look, that it is far more likely than unlikely. In fact I have stated many times that if the examples of life we have were confined to this fart arse little blue orb, it would raise far many more questions then any knowledge/evidence leading to a positive answer. Let me give my own unsupported "guess work"estimates re life elsewhere. NOTE: Estimates purposely slanted towards a negative aspect. Basic bacterial microbial life > 99% More complicated life forms such as plants, > 50% Basic Animal life forms > 5% Advanced life forms analogous to humans > 0.1% What do others think.believe?

Fooling one's self is pretty easy. It's analogous to a hundred Mothers, each believing their own child is the most attractive and lovable.

Nonsensical pseudo rhetoric, nothing more, nothing less. Now if you were to present some empirical evidence to support any of your claims, it would not be viewed as a poor joke. But we won't, will we?

Obviously the overwhelming evidence shows your emotional rant to be just that. The incumbent theories that are "mainstream," are mainstream because the have run the gauntlet so to speak, and have come out the other side successfully. Why do you believe your own hypotheticals should be treated any different?

Oh, please stop playing the victim card. Learn to accept that your hypotheticals throughout your threads here, including your illusion re a fallacy with Einstein's theory, are invalid. If you don't like being informed of that, then you are in the wrong place.

Where I come from we call that "spitting the dummy" What has occurred is that your questions have been answered by experts that have without fear or favour shown and told you, you are wrong. But sometimes people with inflated egos and delusions of grandeur, are unable to accept that. You will not be doing any repeatable experiment..fact. You will not publish anything: Fact. You have not been personally attacked: fact. It is you who through ignorance and petty reactions in being told the way it is, have attacked others. As an amateur in this field, one of the first things I learnt, was before anyone sees any need to claim he has a theory that answers questions on the cosmos and reality, he must first know what the incumbent model is saying and is on about. On that obviously you have failed.

Yes, obviously, the ignorance shown in your many posts would confirm that. That's not what makes him a educator of some renown though. And I'm not and do not bow to him or anyone else. In my time on forums such as this, and what knowledge I have gained in reading many reputable books by reputable authors such as Sagan, I have learnt to respect such men of knowledge and wisdom, and as a bonus have a reasonable quality myself, in being able to sort the wheat from the chaff. That my friend is something you badly need to accomplish.

Relativity tells us that spacetime is a continious metric: The finite speed of light dictates that there is no universal now. Intervals of space and time vary depending on frames of references and associated properties such as speed and gravity and are not the same for different observers. Every person/individual in any frame of reference, will always see his or her time pass at one second per second, period. And yes, that is real and valid time. Everyone has his or her own interpretation of NOW, but there is no universal now that can be applied to any other frame of reference.