Strange Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 Well obviously i dont KNOW. Then why state it as a fact? But considering what humans have done in such a short time, and how relatively stupid we are How do you know we are relatively stupid? What are you making the comparison with? you can extrapolate 3.5b years we would probably be ethereal beings that run on pure instinct and exacting knowledge of the cosmos (with the tools to harness every system of known energy). You mean you can make wild guesses.
Scotty99 Posted February 20, 2016 Author Posted February 20, 2016 Stupid?! I will assume you're speaking for yourself, and not trying to insult the membership. I didn't. I posed it as a possibility of why you aren't seeing extraterrestrial civilizations, and I supported it with known facts. You're the one wandering into the weeds with this latest fallacy-filled guesswork. Its not ok to say that if other life existed in the universe its possible they arent exactly the same as us? Actual question.
swansont Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 If you paid a SECOND of interest you would realize im not saying this article is about geocentrism, its about the earth being SPECIAL and the COPERNICAN principle being wrong. In the same breath you have to allow geocentrim, because of how different the earth is from the 700 quintillion terrestrial exoplanets they studied. If you had paid a second of interest to the article you might realize that "700 quintillion terrestrial exoplanets they studied" is incorrect. That's an extrapolation based on what has been found much closer to earth. They even mention they are making assumptions about planets that haven't been discovered yet ("predict that ≈ 1/3 of the terrestrial planets in the local Universe are orbiting stars in a metallicity range for which such planets have yet to be been detected ") (emphasis added) You also might note the umber of times they say "mild violation of the Copernican/mediocrity principle " (again, emphasis added)
Strange Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 Its not ok to say that if other life existed in the universe its possible they arent exactly the same as us? Actual question. But that isn't what you said.
Robittybob1 Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 Its not ok to say that if other life existed in the universe its possible they arent exactly the same as us? Actual question. Ask the question without the double negative in it please.
Scotty99 Posted February 20, 2016 Author Posted February 20, 2016 If you had paid a second of interest to the article you might realize that "700 quintillion terrestrial exoplanets they studied" is incorrect. That's an extrapolation based on what has been found much closer to earth. They even mention they are making assumptions about planets that haven't been discovered yet ("predict that ≈ 1/3 of the terrestrial planets in the local Universe are orbiting stars in a metallicity range for which such planets have yet to be been detected ") (emphasis added) You also might note the umber of times they say "mild violation of the Copernican/mediocrity principle " (again, emphasis added) No i paid a lot of attention. You all seem to dismiss the fact that the study is based on what we KNOW. So in that, you are all denying all of the work that has been done. I purposely put the 700 QUINTILLION because i knew id get comments like this, and its a pretty number. If you say the sim isnt valid, you say known science isnt valid. I never said this was an exacting study, but an interesting one.
Strange Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 No i paid a lot of attention. Have you actually read the paper?
Phi for All Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 But that isn't what you said. He's using strawmen as goalposts, then he moves them. Clever. Not.
Scotty99 Posted February 20, 2016 Author Posted February 20, 2016 But that isn't what you said. I said: How can you assume another civilization would have the same tendencies as ours? And then in reference to phi's "You're the one wandering into the weeds with this latest fallacy-filled guesswork." Its not ok to say that if other life existed in the universe its possible they arent exactly the same as us? Where did i misstep on this one?
Strange Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 He's using strawmen as goalposts, then he moves them. Clever. Not. But not surprising given his neo-Creationist credentials.
Scotty99 Posted February 20, 2016 Author Posted February 20, 2016 Have you actually read the paper? I know you don't expect an actual response, but ill give you one. In fact ive read the PDF over multiple times, some of it i understand, some of it i dont. TBH it wasn't even necessary because i took away from it the same as the scientific american article, there is a possibility earth is special.
Strange Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 TBH it wasn't even necessary because i took away from it the same as the scientific american article, there is a possibility earth is special. So you cherry picked the bits you liked.
Scotty99 Posted February 20, 2016 Author Posted February 20, 2016 So you cherry picked the bits you liked. This reply assumes you feel they messed up in some way, right? I mean, unless i missed something, the scientific american article was accurate in saying there is a possibility (within an order of magnitude) that the earth is special.
swansont Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 I know you don't expect an actual response, but ill give you one. In fact ive read the PDF over multiple times, some of it i understand, some of it i dont. TBH it wasn't even necessary because i took away from it the same as the scientific american article, there is a possibility earth is special. The SciAm article was pretty explicit in pointing out that currently the detection of planets is skewed toward large planets close to the star they are orbiting. IOW, we are less able to detect earth-like planets in orbits similar to ours. "Because the telescope looks for subtle dimming in a star’s light from planets crossing in front of it, Kepler has an easier time spotting massive planets orbiting close to their stars. Thus, the catalogue of planets Kepler has found lean heavily toward these types, and smaller, farther-out planets are underrepresented, leaving our knowledge of planetary systems incomplete." They also acknowledge the local sampling problem, which could introduce a bias.
Strange Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 This reply assumes you feel they messed up in some way, right? No. I am just pointing out that you are being selective in your interpretation of their results.
Phi for All Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 I mean, unless i missed something, the scientific american article was accurate in saying there is a possibility (within an order of magnitude) that the earth is special. An order of magnitude on the possibility? That makes no sense. How do you measure the possibility of special?
Scotty99 Posted February 20, 2016 Author Posted February 20, 2016 An order of magnitude on the possibility? That makes no sense. How do you measure the possibility of special? First off im not going to dig my foot into strange (im not that guy) And yes you're question has validity, from the article: The scientists also have similar concerns about the galactic and cosmological inputs of their model but nonetheless they suspect that their final numbers are accurate to within an order of magnitude. I wouldn't have to post such things had you read the article.
Strange Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 I wouldn't have to post such things had you read the article. Or if you were capable of accurately reporting what the article said. (BTW You do realise that "within an order of magnitude" means the results could be 10 times too large or small. Which is a pretty enormous margin of error.)
Scotty99 Posted February 20, 2016 Author Posted February 20, 2016 Or if you were capable of accurately reporting what the article said. (BTW You do realise that "within an order of magnitude" means the results could be 10 times too large or small. Which is a pretty enormous margin of error.) I left you alone, why even come back to the thread? Are you bored? Assuming i don't know what order of magnitude entails is quite insulting.
Robittybob1 Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 I left you alone, why even come back to the thread? Are you bored? Assuming i don't know what order of magnitude entails is quite insulting. Well do you think an order of magnitude is a large margin of error?
imatfaal Posted February 20, 2016 Posted February 20, 2016 ! Moderator Note Scotty This is a science forum and we react strongly when confronted with trollish arguments and when anti-science formulations are parroted in lieu of argument - you are being given the benefit of the doubt at present. That is to say we are hoping you are here to dispute not proselytise, to argue not troll, and to join all of us in learning/teaching. Your posting style is insulting and argumentative - we do not accept such tactics. Calm yourself and moderate your interactions with other members This thread is going nowhere - it was a flat-earth troll at its inception and has mutated into misrepresentation of a paper. I am locking the thread -- if members wish to discuss the Article referenced in a non-sensational manner and without the preconceptions that the OP brought to this discussion then a new thread can be opened. Thread Locked. If you feel this moderation is unfair please report this post - Do not make threads or posts to complain or argue the point. 2
Recommended Posts