Mysterious signals from 1000 light years away

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...
October 2, 2004

Paul Lawler wrote:

Thanks for the ad hominem attacks... now show us the bodies (or spacecraft,
either will do).

By analogy, your claim of supreme ignorance, also implies that there is also
*NO* evidence of (or for, it doesn't matter) Earthlike planets,

There isn't, expect possible for those orbiting
PSR 1257+12 if you class B and C as 'Earthlike'.

http://www.obspm.fr/encycl/1257+12.html

so you sit back
and *DEMAND* that we show you these non-existant Earthlike planets, thus
conveniently exempting yourself from the work of actually designing and
building the instruments necessary to detect these non-existant Earthlike
planets,

On the contrary, the fact that there is currently no
evidence is what justifies building the instruments to
obtain it.

which we surely know must actually exist by the billions, from the
totality of scientific evidence.

.... which we can infer probably exist in numbers which
have not been measured but can be estimated from ...

Your particular perversion of scientific methods appears to be widespread in
the scientific community, ....

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.

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.

Oh, and don't just say "If you take a big enough volume,
there must be a billion in it.", let's see a result in
the form of Earthlike planets per system or per galaxy
or per cubic mega-parsec, whatever you like.

George

October 2, 2004

George Dishman wrote:

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. 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.

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.

Oh, and don't just say "If you take a big enough volume,
there must be a billion in it.", let's see a result in
the form of Earthlike planets per system or per galaxy
or per cubic mega-parsec, whatever you like.

Whatever ...

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

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

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...
October 2, 2004

George Dishman wrote:

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.

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.

There may well be more that I don't know about, but can
you can add any _specific_ pieces of _evidence_ to that
list for me to consider?

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.

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

Oh, and don't just say "If you take a big enough volume,
there must be a billion in it.", let's see a result in
the form of Earthlike planets per system or per galaxy
or per cubic mega-parsec, whatever you like.

Whatever ...

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.

George

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...
October 2, 2004

George Dishman wrote:

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.

Actually I wrote more than that:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...
By analogy, your claim of supreme ignorance, also implies that there is also
*NO* evidence of (or for, it doesn't matter) Earthlike planets,

There isn't, expect possible for those orbiting
PSR 1257+12 if you class B and C as 'Earthlike'.

http://www.obspm.fr/encycl/1257+12.html

So where is your evidence for (of) Earthlike planets,
or do you now accept that, while they probably exist,
what I cited is the only current _evidence_?

George

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote in

That is your absolute scientific method. 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.

Would those be the "conditional" scientific methods instead of the absolute
one. This comes as a shock to me, and may also surprise you, but I've
never consulted the federal rulebook. But I'll order one from Amazon.com
right away,

Oh, and don't just say "If you take a big enough volume,
there must be a billion in it.", let's see a result in
the form of Earthlike planets per system or per galaxy
or per cubic mega-parsec, whatever you like.

Whatever ...

Whatever ...? That's your best argument? Whatever?

Would those be the "conditional" scientific methods instead of the absolute
one. This comes as a shock to me, and may also surprise you, but I've
never consulted the federal rulebook. But I'll order one from Amazon.com
right away,

You do that!
Rulz rule matter.
How else, she said, play together?

Whatever ...

Whatever ...? That's your best argument? Whatever?

Whatever, for now, at least;
Now, don't forget the family Feast
Of Lobster shells.
Bring your mallet,
Spread your pallet on the esplanade --
Music on the half-shell,
Washed up on the lovely, strange shore.
Sex sells, blows my sails...
Hell, whatever.
A flexible starting point,
Zero in on me,
Nail my tail.
We'll figure out the rest later.
X & Y, but where's the Z?
Come, now, sit hear on my knee.
Tell me story...


_______
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

October 2, 2003

Paul Lawler wrote:

Would those be the "conditional" scientific methods instead of the absolute

The conditional evidence implies that ET is most probably infinitely smarter
than you, and mobile. Thus, I suggest you start referring to your best modeling
of the best available evidence, instead of sticking your head up your ass,
because even if ET is fooling around with your mind, you wouldn't be able to
recognize it, and you certainly wouldn't be able to 'see' it. The show me the
bodies and crashed ufos argument is so lame as to be laughable. "If aliens have
visited us, where is the picnic garbage and ufo exhaust" - typical amateur
astronomer logic.

Whatever ...

Whatever ...? That's your best argument? Whatever?

When arguing with an idiot like you, yes.

However, since you snipped it :

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.

Of course, some humans claim intelligence, but you convincingly fail to
demonstrate it.

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

The conditional evidence implies that ET is most probably infinitely smarter
than you, and mobile. Thus, I suggest you start referring to your best modeling
of the best available evidence,

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

Kewl site!
O, thanks, too.

_______
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

The conditional evidence implies that ET is most probably infinitely
smarter than you, and mobile. Thus, I suggest you start referring to
your best modeling of the best available evidence, instead of sticking
your head up your ass

When arguing with an idiot like you, yes.

Of course, some humans claim intelligence, but you convincingly fail
to demonstrate it.

Your meltdown into multiple ad hominem attacks only serves to underline
your failure to produce EVIDENCE instead of speculation.

October 3, 2004

Paul Lawler wrote:

Your meltdown into multiple ad hominem attacks only serves to underline
your failure to produce EVIDENCE instead of speculation.

Your denial of the evidence only serves to demonstrate your success at
producing unfounded skepticism instead of performing critical scientific
analyses.

Whatever did I expect, your a rank amateur astronomer.

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