Mysterious signals from 1000 light years away

(Thomas Lee Elifritz) wrote in message . com...
October 3, 2004

"George Dishman" wrote in message :

We can _predict_ how many are out there based on the
evidence of the _measured_ frequency of larger planets
in systems, the known limitations on our ability to
detect them and our ideas on planetary formation, but
the scientific method then suggest that we confirm
those ideas by actual measurement.

That is your absolute scientific method.

Not mine, it was around long before I was born. However,
I'm glad to see you understand it.

Other scientific methods suggest we look
at all the evidence, and that there is no single scientific method, and those
methods are allowed to evolve over time. I suppose that concept isn't
mentioned in
your federal rulebook of the scientific method.

We can of course look at all the evidence, and conclusions
are often reached by combining disparate pieces of evidence,
but that doesn't change the scientific method which is to
accept conclusions only where they are traceable to specific
measurements. While you may wish to relax that rule, you
have yet to convince anyone else that I have seen.

You will go far, by not making any predictions based on evidence which
itself is confirmed by empirical observation.

We can and do make predictions based on evidence
(in the form of observations), the is the purpose
of science, but you are making predictions based
on faith as you admit below. You are being asked
simply to identify the observations on which your
claims are based.

Prepare for greatness,
George.

The _evidence_ I am aware of which is supportive of the
hypothesis of extra-terrestrial life consists of the Viking
soil experiments (which were more likely to be the result of
inorganic chemistry), ALH84001 which is still controversial
and really tenuous and, IMHO the best so far, the recent
detection of methane in the Martian atmosphere. Now if
you want to put those together in some way that's fine, but
what people have been pointing out is that there is very
limited _evidence_ to consider, regardless of your method.

No, they have been claiming that there is *NO* evidence, which I
simply point out to be nonsense.

Well the way to prove that is to provide _one_ item
of evidence, it only takes one to disprove a claim of
there being none. However, it seems you cannot do that:

... can
you can add any _specific_ pieces of _evidence_ to that
list for me to consider?

They are too numerous to mention,

I'll have to take that as a "no" then.

I suggest you do a little basic research.

May I suggest : http://xxx.lanl.gov/ for starters.

I've already produced three more than you. Perhaps
you should take your own advice because so far you
have only proved everyone else to be right, you are
unable to produce a single item of evidence.

If you don't follow that, show the calculation by which
you obtained the value of "by the billions" and cite the
specific observational data on which it is based.

Hubble HDF and UDF - simple calculations indicate the number of
large galaxies in a WMAP estimated universe of 13.7 billion years
old is 1 billion, and I observe one Earthlike planet in one
average galaxy. The result follows.

The predicted number based on observations is of the
order of 10^12 galaxies in the observable universe.
You have observed a total of one Earthlike planet
therefore the result is 10^-12 per galaxy, unless of
course you want to cite the papers on
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ where you found reports of the
detection of the other hundred billion that everyone
else has missed.

Good attempt. Now, where is your evidence for the figure of
"one Earthlike planet in one average galaxy".

Earth to George, do you copy, over.

I not only copy, I can also count. One Earthlike planet
observed in a predicted number of 10^12 galaxies is not
an average of one Earthlike planet per average galaxy.

To clarify,
how do you know Earth isn't the only one that meets the
criteria for "Earthlike" in the whole of the Virgo cluster?
PLease state first your criteria for a planet to be
considered "Earthlike" and then cite the measurements from
which you obtained your figure of a mean of 1.0.

The point is, if you want to do science, which you clearly don't, then
you have to make the leap to prediction, and you have to have some
basis of 'faith' in the basic framework of 'scientific methods and
results'.

No, Thomas. The purpose of the scientific method is to
eliminate the errors caused by introducing faith and
ensure that everything can be shown to have been derived,
either directly or indirectly, from observation.

You do believe there is evidence of universality of physical
laws via spectroscopy, at least back a finite period of time,
don't you?

I believe that certain specific measurements have placed
tight constraints on the possible variation of the laws
(for example the variation of the fine structure constant).
I couldn't cite that evidence but I am sure there are
people in this group who could. The key here is that I only
believe it because there are specific measurements that
support that hypothesis. You are reaching a conclusion
without even being able to state on which particular
observations you are basing your claim. That is
unscientific.

Only to your absolutist and obsolete perspective of science.

Thanks for the compliment. Now you too know what
"the scientific method" means.

George

October 4, 2004

George G. Dishman wrote:

(Thomas Lee Elifritz) wrote in message . com...


October 3, 2004

"George Dishman" wrote in message :


We can _predict_ how many are out there based on the
evidence of the _measured_ frequency of larger planets
in systems, the known limitations on our ability to
detect them and our ideas on planetary formation, but
the scientific method then suggest that we confirm
those ideas by actual measurement.


That is your absolute scientific method.


Not mine, it was around long before I was born. However,
I'm glad to see you understand it.



Other scientific methods suggest we look
at all the evidence, and that there is no single scientific method, and those
methods are allowed to evolve over time. I suppose that concept isn't


mentioned in


your federal rulebook of the scientific method.


We can of course look at all the evidence, and conclusions
are often reached by combining disparate pieces of evidence,
but that doesn't change the scientific method which is to
accept conclusions only where they are traceable to specific
measurements. While you may wish to relax that rule, you
have yet to convince anyone else that I have seen.


You will go far, by not making any predictions based on evidence which
itself is confirmed by empirical observation.



We can and do make predictions based on evidence
(in the form of observations), the is the purpose
of science,

It's one of the purposes of science, but it certainly isn't *THE*
purpose of science. But thank-you for providing us with further evidence
of the absolute inflexibility in your scientific thinking.

but you are making predictions based
on faith as you admit below.

Yes, I have faith that if I repeat observations previously performed, I
will get something in the way of evidence from them, and if I make
predictions based upon theory based upon evidence, observational and
otherwise, I will produce further evidence. Science and faith are not
incompatible, just as creation and evolution are not incompatible, just
as particles and waves are not incompatible. It's duality stupid. It
just requires that you create for yourself a wider and evolving
perspective when you obtain new forms of evidence, beyond determinism
and reductionism, which you obviously are incapable of.

You are being asked
simply to identify the observations on which your
claims are based.

And I provided some of them, and pointed out that the totality of
evidence would be very difficult to supply in this restricted forum,
thus I provided you with a useful internet link to enable you to peruse
some of the evidence.

Prepare for greatness,
George.



The _evidence_ I am aware of which is supportive of the
hypothesis of extra-terrestrial life consists of the Viking
soil experiments (which were more likely to be the result of
inorganic chemistry), ALH84001 which is still controversial
and really tenuous and, IMHO the best so far, the recent
detection of methane in the Martian atmosphere. Now if
you want to put those together in some way that's fine, but
what people have been pointing out is that there is very
limited _evidence_ to consider, regardless of your method.


No, they have been claiming that there is *NO* evidence, which I
simply point out to be nonsense.



Well the way to prove that is to provide _one_ item
of evidence, it only takes one to disprove a claim of
there being none. However, it seems you cannot do that:

Idiots demand proof, mathematicians prove, scientists provide evidence.

I've already produced three more than you. Perhaps
you should take your own advice because so far you
have only proved everyone else to be right, you are
unable to produce a single item of evidence.



If you don't follow that, show the calculation by which
you obtained the value of "by the billions" and cite the
specific observational data on which it is based.


Hubble HDF and UDF - simple calculations indicate the number of
large galaxies in a WMAP estimated universe of 13.7 billion years
old is 1 billion, and I observe one Earthlike planet in one
average galaxy. The result follows.



The predicted number based on observations is of the
order of 10^12 galaxies in the observable universe.

Actually it's quite a bit greater than that, according to some new
computational simulations based upon new evidence.

You have observed a total of one Earthlike planet
therefore the result is 10^-12 per galaxy, unless of
course you want to cite the papers on
http://xxx.lanl.gov/ where you found reports of the
detection of the other hundred billion that everyone
else has missed.

Apparently they have, because the quoted number is starting to get quite
a bit bigger. Perhaps there is something behind the optical curtain that
we don't fully understand.




Good attempt. Now, where is your evidence for the figure of
"one Earthlike planet in one average galaxy".


Earth to George, do you copy, over.



I not only copy, I can also count. One Earthlike planet
observed in a predicted number of 10^12 galaxies is not
an average of one Earthlike planet per average galaxy.

How do you know there are 10^12 galaxies, have you observed them all?
Have you observed the evolution of physical laws back to the initial
singularity? Have you observed the singularity? How can you be sure the
singularity exists? We have entered a new era in science, which you have
utterly and absolutely failed to recognize.

To clarify,
how do you know Earth isn't the only one that meets the
criteria for "Earthlike" in the whole of the Virgo cluster?
PLease state first your criteria for a planet to be
considered "Earthlike" and then cite the measurements from
which you obtained your figure of a mean of 1.0.


The point is, if you want to do science, which you clearly don't, then
you have to make the leap to prediction, and you have to have some
basis of 'faith' in the basic framework of 'scientific methods and
results'.



No, Thomas. The purpose of the scientific method is to
eliminate the errors caused by introducing faith and
ensure that everything can be shown to have been derived,
either directly or indirectly, from observation.

That is one of them, but you seem to think that there is only one single
, that scientific methods are absolute, and that scientific methods do
not evolve, as if it was created by some kind of legislation.




You do believe there is evidence of universality of physical
laws via spectroscopy, at least back a finite period of time,
don't you?


I believe that certain specific measurements have placed
tight constraints on the possible variation of the laws
(for example the variation of the fine structure constant).
I couldn't cite that evidence but I am sure there are
people in this group who could. The key here is that I only
believe it because there are specific measurements that
support that hypothesis. You are reaching a conclusion
without even being able to state on which particular
observations you are basing your claim. That is
unscientific.


Only to your absolutist and obsolete perspective of science.



Thanks for the compliment. Now you too know what
"the scientific method" means.

It's meaningless.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

October 4, 2004

Dan Bloomquist wrote in message :

And, so what if there are other civilizations out there. If they follow
the same vector of mankind's propensity, they will be extinct long
before this 'contact' will have meaning.

And what observational evidence do you provide of other machine and
tool manufacturing lifeforms subsequently going extinct?

Speculating and extrapolating again are you?

Good for you. You're learning.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

October 4, 2004

Paul Lawler wrote in message :

And the existance of any evidence is never going to be a proof
anyway.

Perhaps not to an imaginative sort like yourself... but that's how the
scientific method generally works.

What doesn't matter is what you think how *THE* scientific method
works, what matters is how other people (not you, you choose not to
participate) can obtain evidence, and convert that evidence into
useful results, which can be used by other people (not you, you choose
not to participate) as further evidence, ad infinitum.

You are worse than an absolutist, you are a 'normalist'.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:dDe8d.2043 but you are making predictions based
on faith as you admit below.

Yes, I have faith that if I repeat observations previously performed, I
will get something in the way of evidence from them, and if I make
predictions based upon theory based upon evidence, observational and
otherwise, I will produce further evidence. Science and faith are not
incompatible,
So, in what way does your "faith" change the outcome of your observations?

just as creation and evolution are not incompatible,
For a sufficiently relaxed definition of creation.


No, Thomas. The purpose of the scientific method is to
eliminate the errors caused by introducing faith and
ensure that everything can be shown to have been derived,
either directly or indirectly, from observation.

That is one of them, but you seem to think that there is only one single
, that scientific methods are absolute, and that scientific methods do
not evolve, as if it was created by some kind of legislation.
Ok, the scientific method evolves. Yes. Now, can you show that
introducing faith improves the method? Like, by demonstrating
that with your addition one can derive better theories (less complex,
more explanatory and/or predictive power)?

Lots of Greetings!
Volker

October 4, 2004

Volker Hetzer wrote:

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:dDe8d.2043 but you are making predictions based


on faith as you admit below.


Yes, I have faith that if I repeat observations previously performed, I
will get something in the way of evidence from them, and if I make
predictions based upon theory based upon evidence, observational and
otherwise, I will produce further evidence. Science and faith are not
incompatible,


So, in what way does your "faith" change the outcome of your observations?

It allows me to design better experiments.

just as creation and evolution are not incompatible,


For a sufficiently relaxed definition of creation.


No, Thomas. The purpose of the scientific method is to
eliminate the errors caused by introducing faith and
ensure that everything can be shown to have been derived,
either directly or indirectly, from observation.



That is one of them, but you seem to think that there is only one single
, that scientific methods are absolute, and that scientific methods do
not evolve, as if it was created by some kind of legislation.


Ok, the scientific method evolves. Yes. Now, can you show that
introducing faith improves the method?

I allows me to greatly speed up the process, because I don't have to
verify every observation ever made, and I don't have to necessarily make
observations where I have faith in the outcome, and I can focus on
producing useful results. On the other hand, I have great confidence,
faith, really, that if I construct the devices to enable me to observe
things or perform things that I can't yet observe, but know must exist
or be possible based upon the totality of evidence in all it's myriad of
forms, then I won't be wasting my time. In this regard, the skeptics are
almost always demonstrated to be wrong in the end.

Like, by demonstrating
that with your addition one can derive better theories (less complex,
more explanatory and/or predictive power)?

I just did that. In addition to the principle of unification,
complementary principles like duality, which work very well all across
physics, there are also multiplicities to consider. Get with the
program, you are falling behind. These are exciting times, you can
either choose to participate, or choose not to participate.

You won't get anywhere by sitting on your ass in front of a computer
screen and posting idiotic comments on the usenet like : "There is *NO*
evidence". Evidence is everywhere, you need to convert that evidence
into useful results. If your result is not useful to me, that is my
problem, not yours. Skepticism does not sort out the crackpot theories
and incorrect theories from the useful ones, evidence does. When a
theory is no longer useful, you modify it, you don't necessarily throw
it out completely.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

[ vacuous parrot act ]

I don't get it.

Yes. You should have started and ended there.

Alas, where?
Here?

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A

Yes. You should have started and ended there.

Alas, where?
Here?

~sounds hollow ~

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote in
:

There you go again, associating facts with evidence, you idiot..

Oh... pardon me for associating facts with evidence.

So far, by the way, N is still equal to 1, unless you have evidence (which
you insist or associating with conjecture) or facts to the contrary.

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news
October 4, 2004

Volker Hetzer wrote:

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:dDe8d.2043 but you are making predictions based


on faith as you admit below.


Yes, I have faith that if I repeat observations previously performed, I
will get something in the way of evidence from them, and if I make
predictions based upon theory based upon evidence, observational and
otherwise, I will produce further evidence. Science and faith are not
incompatible,


So, in what way does your "faith" change the outcome of your observations?

It allows me to design better experiments.
Can you give an example?


Ok, the scientific method evolves. Yes. Now, can you show that
introducing faith improves the method?

I allows me to greatly speed up the process, because I don't have to
verify every observation ever made,
Who said you have to?

and I don't have to necessarily make
observations where I have faith in the outcome,
You work unreliably.

and I can focus on
producing useful results.
You introdice the subjective notion of "usefulness" which has nothing
to do with correctness.

On the other hand, I have great confidence,
faith, really, that if I construct the devices to enable me to observe
things or perform things that I can't yet observe, but know must exist
or be possible based upon the totality of evidence in all it's myriad of
forms, then I won't be wasting my time.
So, if a normal scientist constructs them without any faith, simply in order
to find out whether something's there, what's the difference?

In this regard, the skeptics are
almost always demonstrated to be wrong in the end.
How much is "almost always"? So far no dowsers, faith healers and
mediums have passed any sort of verifiable test that didn't give an
opportunity to cheat.


Like, by demonstrating
that with your addition one can derive better theories (less complex,
more explanatory and/or predictive power)?

I just did that.
Well, no. You just said that you would deliver shoddy work derived
cheaper or faster than a scientist's work.

Lots of Greetings!
Volker