A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Rewriting the Drake Equation



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 25th 16, 10:43 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Rewriting the Drake Equation

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...ical-civi.html

Merry Christmas. Happy Chanukah.
  #2  
Old December 26th 16, 01:32 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Sylvia Else
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,063
Default Rewriting the Drake Equation

On 26/12/2016 8:43 AM, William Mook wrote:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...ical-civi.html

Merry Christmas. Happy Chanukah.


Since we have absolutely no idea how likely it is that life will appear
when conditions permit, let alone intelligent life, there is no basis
for any conclusion about the likelihood of technological civilisations.

Sylvia.
  #3  
Old December 28th 16, 01:18 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Rewriting the Drake Equation

On Monday, December 26, 2016 at 1:32:40 PM UTC+13, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 26/12/2016 8:43 AM, William Mook wrote:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...ical-civi.html

Merry Christmas. Happy Chanukah.


Since we have absolutely no idea how likely it is that life will appear
when conditions permit, let alone intelligent life, there is no basis
for any conclusion about the likelihood of technological civilisations.

Sylvia.


Joyant Narlikar and Fred Hoyle argue that the 'Big Bang' theory is motivated by religious not scientific considerations. Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven proposed the theory in the 1940s and in 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism, and promoted the theory much to the Chagrin of Hubble, Hoyle, and others.

According to the QSSC (quasi-steady state cosmology) life is far too complex to develop over the 4 billion year history of life on Earth. This has sound theoretical basis. The rate at which information is incorporated into DNA due to natural selection, is too slow to account for the complexity of the cellular processes we know. There may be other explanations for this apparent complexity, however, the unfortunate fact remains that there's 1.5 gigabyte of data in DNA and we are limited to 0.29 bits (0.03625 bytes) per GENERATION. So, with a plant or animal with say a 120 day reproductive cycle we require 41.38 billion generations to produce 1.5 gigabytes of data. This is 13.825 billion years at 120 days per generation. Far longer if we have periods of hibernation which is common in the cosmos.

This suggests very strongly that the panspermia hypothesis proposed by Anaxagoras in the 5th century, and others throughout the ages;

http://www.panspermia.org

These others include; Jöns Jacob Berzelius (1834), Hermann E. Richter (1865), Lord Kelvin (1871), Hermann von Helmholtz (1879) and the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius (1903).

Fred Hoyle (1915–2001) and Chandra Wickramasinghe (born 1939) support panspermia. In 1974 they showed that dust in interstellar space was largely organic (containing carbon). Hoyle and Wickramasinghe also showed that life forms continue to enter the Earth's atmosphere, and are responsible for epidemic outbreaks, new diseases, and the genetic novelty that forces macroevolution on Earth.

Stephen Hawking in 2009 voiced his support for panspermia stating that in his opinion that "Life could spread from planet to planet or from stellar system to stellar system, carried on meteors."

Three series of astrobiology experiments have been conducted outside the International Space Station between 2008 and 2015 (EXPOSE) where a wide variety of biomolecules, microorganisms, and their spores were exposed to the solar flux and vacuum of space for about 1.5 years. Many organisms survived in an inactive state for considerable lengths of time. Samples sheltered by simulated meteorite material provide experimental confirmation of lithopanspermia.

Many experiments in laboratories and in low Earth orbit show that ejection, entry and impact is survivable for many organisms. In 2015, "remains of biotic life" were found in 4.1 billion-year-old rocks in Western Australia, when the young Earth was about 400 million years old. The Earth was far too young to have life that complex. Life arising that quickly means that life is common in the cosmos and infected the early Earth.

  #4  
Old December 30th 16, 02:05 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 278
Default Rewriting the Drake Equation

On 12/27/2016 7:18 PM, William Mook wrote:
On Monday, December 26, 2016 at 1:32:40 PM UTC+13, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 26/12/2016 8:43 AM, William Mook wrote:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...ical-civi.html

Merry Christmas. Happy Chanukah.


Since we have absolutely no idea how likely it is that life will appear
when conditions permit, let alone intelligent life, there is no basis
for any conclusion about the likelihood of technological civilisations.

Sylvia.


Joyant Narlikar and Fred Hoyle argue that the 'Big Bang' theory is motivated by religious not scientific considerations. Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven proposed the theory in the 1940s and in 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism, and promoted the theory much to the Chagrin of Hubble, Hoyle, and others.

According to the QSSC (quasi-steady state cosmology) life is far too complex to develop over the 4 billion year history of life on Earth. This has sound theoretical basis. The rate at which information is incorporated into DNA due to natural selection, is too slow to account for the complexity of the cellular processes we know. There may be other explanations for this apparent complexity, however, the unfortunate fact remains that there's 1.5 gigabyte of data in DNA and we are limited to 0.29 bits (0.03625 bytes) per GENERATION. So, with a plant or animal with say a 120 day reproductive cycle we require 41.38 billion generations to produce 1.5 gigabytes of data. This is 13.825 billion years at 120 days per generation. Far longer if we have periods of hibernation which is common in the cosmos.

This suggests very strongly that the panspermia hypothesis proposed by Anaxagoras in the 5th century, and others throughout the ages;

http://www.panspermia.org




Then it takes too long 'out there' too. The universe transitioned to
matter domination, or ideal conditions for life, at just about
the same time life first evolved on Earth.

The concepts of self organizing systems, or complexity theory, hold
that the ideal conditions for spontaneous order is once the
Second Law has done it's job well, or chaos.

So given ideal conditions and enough time life is more likely
to evolve than not, the question should be why...didn't it
evolve given ideal conditions and time.

Spontaneous order, or new life, is not only an inherent property
of the universe as a result, but a quick look at how life has
evolved on Earth clearly shows evolution increases the complexity
of life...exponentially fast once reaching multicellar.

There's no reason to believe we are a fluke, or the result
of some God like race of aliens. The Earth holds all it needs
to explain what we observe, and then some.

The universe must be teeming with life, or will be soon enough.
But give the distances and time spans, coming across alien
life is still exceedingly unlikely.



These others include; Jöns Jacob Berzelius (1834), Hermann E. Richter (1865), Lord Kelvin (1871), Hermann von Helmholtz (1879) and the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius (1903).

Fred Hoyle (1915–2001) and Chandra Wickramasinghe (born 1939) support panspermia. In 1974 they showed that dust in interstellar space was largely organic (containing carbon). Hoyle and Wickramasinghe also showed that life forms continue to enter the Earth's atmosphere, and are responsible for epidemic outbreaks, new diseases, and the genetic novelty that forces macroevolution on Earth.

Stephen Hawking in 2009 voiced his support for panspermia stating that in his opinion that "Life could spread from planet to planet or from stellar system to stellar system, carried on meteors."

Three series of astrobiology experiments have been conducted outside the International Space Station between 2008 and 2015 (EXPOSE) where a wide variety of biomolecules, microorganisms, and their spores were exposed to the solar flux and vacuum of space for about 1.5 years. Many organisms survived in an inactive state for considerable lengths of time. Samples sheltered by simulated meteorite material provide experimental confirmation of lithopanspermia.

Many experiments in laboratories and in low Earth orbit show that ejection, entry and impact is survivable for many organisms. In 2015, "remains of biotic life" were found in 4.1 billion-year-old rocks in Western Australia, when the young Earth was about 400 million years old. The Earth was far too young to have life that complex. Life arising that quickly means that life is common in the cosmos and infected the early Earth.


  #5  
Old December 30th 16, 10:07 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Rewriting the Drake Equation

On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 2:06:38 PM UTC+13, Jonathan wrote:
On 12/27/2016 7:18 PM, William Mook wrote:
On Monday, December 26, 2016 at 1:32:40 PM UTC+13, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 26/12/2016 8:43 AM, William Mook wrote:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...ical-civi.html

Merry Christmas. Happy Chanukah.


Since we have absolutely no idea how likely it is that life will appear
when conditions permit, let alone intelligent life, there is no basis
for any conclusion about the likelihood of technological civilisations..

Sylvia.


Joyant Narlikar and Fred Hoyle argue that the 'Big Bang' theory is motivated by religious not scientific considerations. Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven proposed the theory in the 1940s and in 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism, and promoted the theory much to the Chagrin of Hubble, Hoyle, and others.

According to the QSSC (quasi-steady state cosmology) life is far too complex to develop over the 4 billion year history of life on Earth. This has sound theoretical basis. The rate at which information is incorporated into DNA due to natural selection, is too slow to account for the complexity of the cellular processes we know. There may be other explanations for this apparent complexity, however, the unfortunate fact remains that there's 1.5 gigabyte of data in DNA and we are limited to 0.29 bits (0.03625 bytes) per GENERATION. So, with a plant or animal with say a 120 day reproductive cycle we require 41.38 billion generations to produce 1.5 gigabytes of data. This is 13.825 billion years at 120 days per generation. Far longer if we have periods of hibernation which is common in the cosmos.

This suggests very strongly that the panspermia hypothesis proposed by Anaxagoras in the 5th century, and others throughout the ages;

http://www.panspermia.org




Then it takes too long 'out there' too. The universe transitioned to
matter domination, or ideal conditions for life, at just about
the same time life first evolved on Earth.



Well, your understanding of Big Bang Cosmology is slightly incorrect. Matter dominated the cosmos only 70,000 years after the Big Bang according to the Big Bang Cosmology. Now this was mostly hydrogen with some helium. The heavier elements are produced in stars according to current theory.

The first stars appeared 400 million years after the Big Bang according to current Cosmology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrono...f_the_universe

That was 13.3 billion years ago. Short lived O type super-giant stars begin creating heavy elements in only 30 million years according to the current theory. So, stars and planets with heavy materials like those on Earth have been around since nearly the beginning of time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supergiant

That was 13.27 billion years ago. The formation and evolution of the solar system began 4.6 billion years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Format...e_Solar_System

That means there was a period of time of 8.67 billion years before the solar system formed, that could give rise to carbon based life forms like the ones we are. This gives us more time than that available on Earth. About 3x the time - which is just enough.

Yet, according to some, this still doesn't give life enough time to evolve to the complexity we see today. So, that's the problem Burbridge, Narlikar and Hoyle see. They believe the incredible complexity of life is proof that the cosmos is far older than Big Bang allows. They believe at least 100 billion years are required, if not more.

The cosmos according to them, is certainly accelerating at a rate that puts everything at a single point 13.7 billion years ago, but they think observational evidence shows that the cosmos is continually created and stars accelerate steadily from one another in the manner observed.

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.o...t/448/1933/191


The concepts of self organizing systems, or complexity theory, hold
that the ideal conditions for spontaneous order is once the
Second Law has done it's job well, or chaos.


This word salad has no meaning to me. I am familiar with complexity theory, and the second law of thermodynamics, yet I find the collection of words above virtually sense free. Its as if you said one plus one is blue. It makes no sense whatever.

So given ideal conditions and enough time life is more likely
to evolve than not,


Evolution of self-replicating systems must occur. It does occur in every system that replicates in an environment where there is selective pressure applied to the system.

So this discussion of likelihoods makes no sense. The creation of self-replicating molecular systems is not an issue, they have been synthesized in the lab. Its called artificial life. The type of life we are is mimicked by 'wet' artificial life using adenosine, guanine, cytosine, and tyrosine. AGCT - A always bonds with G and C always with T, and they are put together in sequences of three - forming a codon - and biologists have worked out how primitive deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) strands could form in a primordial soup and replicate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_life

the question should be why...didn't it
evolve given ideal conditions and time.


Evolution of self-replicating systems is not the issue. The issue is the COMPLEXITY of the systems WE SEE AROUND US. Particularly the error correcting processes and the enzymatic switches that turn off replication when errors are detected, that provide for extremely stable information filtering.

The DNA that is the basis of all living systems has 1.5 gigabytes of data in it (12 gigabits). In a system without an information filter of the type just described, random changes in the DNA would result in information loss as rapid as information gain. Yet, today we see a balance heavily toward gain with 0.29 bits PER GENERATION. Now the rub comes that with only 0.29 bits PER GENERATION and many years per generation, this requires over 100 billion years even for a short lived species to accumulate the necessary DATA we see in their DNA *AFTER THE FILTERS ARE IN PLACE* The information filtering system HAD to take longer than this to evolve, indicating a cosmos of far greater than 100 billion years - perhaps 1 trillion years or more!

https://www.dnalc.org/resources/3d/0...-advanced.html

Then, when we look at the complexity of the EXPRESSION of DNA information, things become even more amazing;

Transcription of DNA to RNA

https://www.dnalc.org/view/15510-Tra...narration.html

Translation of RNA to Protein

https://www.dnalc.org/view/16933-3D-...o-Protein.html

Proteins dance in weird and wonderful ways to give 'life' to each cell, each protein helping other proteins in a carefully orchestrated dance;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_zD3NxSsD8

The 1.5 gigabyte DNA occurs in the context of a cell. Outside the cell the DNA doesn't really function well. It requires a host of enzymes to replicate and express. Those protiens in isolation are useless as well, without the mechanism of the cell around them to help them along.

So, the data contained in the DNA is likely a tiny tiny fraction of the data contained in the cell. There may be a hundred billion to a trillion bits of information or more. We don't really know yet, since we're still learning about how the cells in living systems work.

If what some biologists say is true, and that the DNA constitutes only 1% or less of the information contained in a living cell, then the cosmos has to be more than 1 trillion years old to account for the accumulation of information by efficient filtering of random evolutionary change. WIthout the filters, it would take much longer.

Spontaneous order, or new life, is not only an inherent property
of the universe as a result, but a quick look at how life has
evolved on Earth clearly shows evolution increases the complexity
of life...exponentially fast once reaching multicellar.


Your understanding of information theory is as flawed as your understanding of Big Bang cosmology. Sorry. The 0.29 bits per generation comes about because of the filtering processes in living cells that select for useful change. Without those filters to switch off replication and expression of nonsense sequences, and retain sensible sequences, in the context of the information already existing, random change would be well - random. It would tend to degrade a signal, not build it up.

There's no reason to believe we are a fluke,


This is more nonsense having nothing at all to do with what was said originally. There is at least enough information in the cells of any living system we have a sample of to require at least 100 billion years of evolution - even under the most favourable assumptions. Less favourable assumptions demand 1 trillion years of life or more, on a cosmic scale. This according to some experts, demand a steady state cosmos of extreme age, and panspermia for life as complex as we find it on Earth.

or the result
of some God like race of aliens.


You still have the problem of how God or god like aliens, evolved in the first place. So, this is a sort of silly notion - it resolves nothing of the problem DISCUSSED HERE.

The Earth holds all it needs
to explain what we observe,


No it doesn't that's the point. There's not enough time in 4.6 billion years for the complex celluar systems we see to evolve by the evolutionary processes we see. And note, the evolutionary processes we see are highly refined to filter noise out of the system and retain information that is useful for the cells. Evolution would proceed more slowly before these filters were in place, if at all.

and then some.


Nope. You have no appreciation or real understanding of this topic.

The universe must be teeming with life,


Yes, but how did the complexity we see in the life around us come about in 4.6 billion years if you buy we evolved independently of any life beyond Earth, or 13.7 billion years if you buy Big Bang cosmology?

or will be soon enough.


Well, you can see then that a technical species has the capacity to extend life beyond the confines of Earth. If life naturally develops an interplanetary movement capacity and later an interstellar movement capacity and even an intergalactic movement capacity, then that life form, in a lifeless cosmos, will engulf the cosmos in some factor of the light crossing time.

But give the distances and time spans, coming across alien
life is still exceedingly unlikely.


We don't know that. The first stars like the Sun and planets like the Earth, containing heavier elements, are nearly as old as the cosmos in current theory, and vastly older still if Burbridge, Narlikar and Hoyle are right. In any case, life may be far older than the age of the solar system.

So, in this context, the vast explosion of life across the cosmos you have been given to imagine, may have already occurred and we are merely the latest nuance of life that has adapted to the conditions on our world. There may be life aplenty in the solar system even, and beyond across interstellar and intergalactic space already, with life adapting to any condition it finds itself - including the surface of our world.

What you imagine is what you have been given to imagine by the education system you were trained in, that the universe is devoid of life, we are alone in the cosmos, and we will never express life beyond our world.

These are the pessimists.

The optimists are fewer, but they believe life must express itself beyond our world -and that we could do it. If we do not do it, then we leave it to others at some distant point in space and time to do it.

These are the optimists, like yourself perhaps.

The steady stead cosmology folks believe given the demonstrated complexity of life, and certain other information, such as the production of amino acids in interstellar clouds, and the presence of particles that appear to be the size of bacteria in those clouds as well as other observations, that life is far older than the solar system, and the rapid rise of bacterial mats on the early Earth are clear indicators that panspermia dominates the cosmos. We then are merely the latest detail in a very old tree of life that already spans the cosmos and contains vast complexities beyond our ability to comprehend or perceive even.

If this is true, we may find competitors as we leave our world and our evolution as a space faring species may be attenuated modified or cut short by this cosmic ecology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVsVgAqV9WI


These others include; Jöns Jacob Berzelius (1834), Hermann E. Richter (1865), Lord Kelvin (1871), Hermann von Helmholtz (1879) and the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius (1903).

Fred Hoyle (1915–2001) and Chandra Wickramasinghe (born 1939) support panspermia. In 1974 they showed that dust in interstellar space was largely organic (containing carbon). Hoyle and Wickramasinghe also showed that life forms continue to enter the Earth's atmosphere, and are responsible for epidemic outbreaks, new diseases, and the genetic novelty that forces macroevolution on Earth.

Stephen Hawking in 2009 voiced his support for panspermia stating that in his opinion that "Life could spread from planet to planet or from stellar system to stellar system, carried on meteors."

Three series of astrobiology experiments have been conducted outside the International Space Station between 2008 and 2015 (EXPOSE) where a wide variety of biomolecules, microorganisms, and their spores were exposed to the solar flux and vacuum of space for about 1.5 years. Many organisms survived in an inactive state for considerable lengths of time. Samples sheltered by simulated meteorite material provide experimental confirmation of lithopanspermia.

Many experiments in laboratories and in low Earth orbit show that ejection, entry and impact is survivable for many organisms. In 2015, "remains of biotic life" were found in 4.1 billion-year-old rocks in Western Australia, when the young Earth was about 400 million years old. The Earth was far too young to have life that complex. Life arising that quickly means that life is common in the cosmos and infected the early Earth.


  #6  
Old December 31st 16, 07:01 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 278
Default Rewriting the Drake Equation

On 12/30/2016 4:07 AM, William Mook wrote:

On Friday, December 30, 2016 at 2:06:38 PM UTC+13, Jonathan wrote:
On 12/27/2016 7:18 PM, William Mook wrote:
On Monday, December 26, 2016 at 1:32:40 PM UTC+13, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 26/12/2016 8:43 AM, William Mook wrote:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...ical-civi.html

Merry Christmas. Happy Chanukah.


Since we have absolutely no idea how likely it is that life will appear
when conditions permit, let alone intelligent life, there is no basis
for any conclusion about the likelihood of technological civilisations.

Sylvia.

Joyant Narlikar and Fred Hoyle argue that the 'Big Bang' theory is motivated by religious not scientific considerations. Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven proposed the theory in the 1940s and in 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism, and promoted the theory much to the Chagrin of Hubble, Hoyle, and others.

According to the QSSC (quasi-steady state cosmology) life is far too complex to develop over the 4 billion year history of life on Earth. This has sound theoretical basis. The rate at which information is incorporated into DNA due to natural selection, is too slow to account for the complexity of the cellular processes we know. There may be other explanations for this apparent complexity, however, the unfortunate fact remains that there's 1.5 gigabyte of data in DNA and we are limited to 0.29 bits (0.03625 bytes) per GENERATION. So, with a plant or animal with say a 120 day reproductive cycle we require 41.38 billion generations to produce 1.5 gigabytes of data. This is 13.825 billion years at 120 days per generation. Far longer if we have periods of hibernation which is common in the cosmos.

This suggests very strongly that the panspermia hypothesis proposed by Anaxagoras in the 5th century, and others throughout the ages;

http://www.panspermia.org




Then it takes too long 'out there' too. The universe transitioned to
matter domination, or ideal conditions for life, at just about
the same time life first evolved on Earth.



Well, your understanding of Big Bang Cosmology is slightly incorrect. Matter dominated the cosmos only 70,000 years after the Big Bang according to the Big Bang Cosmology. Now this was mostly hydrogen with some helium. The heavier elements are produced in stars according to current theory.

The first stars appeared 400 million years after the Big Bang according to current Cosmology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrono...f_the_universe

That was 13.3 billion years ago. Short lived O type super-giant stars begin creating heavy elements in only 30 million years according to the current theory. So, stars and planets with heavy materials like those on Earth have been around since nearly the beginning of time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supergiant

That was 13.27 billion years ago. The formation and evolution of the solar system began 4.6 billion years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Format...e_Solar_System






Not according to the founder of inflationary theory, and one
of the founders of the Big Bang theory. The universe became
ideal for life about the time it transitioned to dark
energy domination, which coincided, or emerged, with
matter domination. Just because plenty of matter existed
earlier is irrelevant, just as it's irrelevant there's
plenty of soil around before an old growth forest
becomes fully organized.


A quintessential introduction to dark energy
By Paul J. Steinhardt
Director, Princeton Center for Theoretical Physics


(excerpts)


3. Fine-tuning, cosmic coincidence, and the quintessential solution


The fine-tuning and cosmic coincidence problems are vexing.
They are often posed as a paradox: why should the acceleration
begin just as humans evolve? In desperation, some cosmologists
and physicists have given renewed attention to
anthropic models (Weinberg 2000). But many continue to seek
a dynamical explanation which does not require the
fine-tuning of initial conditions or mass parameters and
which is decidedly non-anthropic. A dynamical approach
would seem to demand some sort of quintessence solution, since
it would have to entail some interaction between
the dark energy and the matter{radiation background


In this scenario, the coincidence problem is beautifully addressed.
Why did the Universe begin to accelerate just as humans started
to evolve? Cosmic acceleration and human evolution are both linked
to the onset of matter domination. The k-essence component has
the property that it only behaves as a negative pressure
component after matter{radiation equality, so that it can
only overtake the matter density and induce cosmic acceleration
after the matter has dominated the Universe for some period, at
about the present epoch. And, of course, human
evolution is linked to matter domination because the
formation of planets, stars, galaxies and large-scale structure
only occurs after the beginning of the
matter-dominated epoch.


http://physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/steinhardt.pdf






That means there was a period of time of 8.67 billion years before the solar system formed, that could give rise to carbon based life forms like the ones we are. This gives us more time than that available on Earth. About 3x the time - which is just enough.

Yet, according to some, this still doesn't give life enough time to evolve to the complexity we see today. So, that's the problem Burbridge, Narlikar and Hoyle see. They believe the incredible complexity of life is proof that the cosmos is far older than Big Bang allows. They believe at least 100 billion years are required, if not more.

The cosmos according to them, is certainly accelerating at a rate that puts everything at a single point 13.7 billion years ago, but they think observational evidence shows that the cosmos is continually created and stars accelerate steadily from one another in the manner observed.

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.o...t/448/1933/191


The concepts of self organizing systems, or complexity theory, hold
that the ideal conditions for spontaneous order is once the
Second Law has done it's job well, or chaos.


This word salad has no meaning to me. I am familiar with complexity theory, and the second law of thermodynamics, yet I find the collection of words above virtually sense free. Its as if you said one plus one is blue. It makes no sense whatever.




You need to brush up on random boolean networks. The initial
state is a random network, or zero order (chaos), as in
once the Second Law has entirely destroyed any organization.

It's then that a random disturbance can spontaneously
generate cyclic order, or self organization.

For instance a vast interstellar cloud of gas and dust
(zero order) randomly disturbed by some event such as
a supernova, and the compression initiates star and solar
system formation.

  #7  
Old December 31st 16, 09:49 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Rewriting the Drake Equation


of the founders of the Big Bang theory. The universe became
ideal for life about the time it transitioned to dark
energy domination, which coincided, or emerged, with
matter domination.

YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE FINE YUMED BIG BANG UNIVERSE WHERE A COLLECTION OF COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANTS LIE IN A RANGE THAT PERMIT MATTER AS WE KNOW IT TO EXIST AND HENCE LIFE AS WE KNOW IT TO EXIST BASED ON THE AMAZING DANCE OF CARBON BASED MATTER THAT OCCURS IN CELLS.

YOU SEEM SLIGHTLY CONFUSED ABOUT THE DETAILS HERE. THE CONSTANTS ARE FIXED DURING EARLY INFLATIONARY EXPANSION IN SUCH A WAY THAT MATTER AS WE KNOW IT IS POSSIBLE. IT STILL TAKES 70,000 YEARS OF EXPANSION FOR MATTER TO DOMINATE THEN ANOTHER 400,000,000 YEARS FOR STARS AND NUCLEOSYNTHESIS TO OCCUR. IT TAKES 30,000,000 YEARS FOR O TYPE STARS TO MAKE ELEMENTS MORE COMPLICATED THAN HELIUM AND SUPERNOVAE OF THESE MASSIVE STARS TO MAKE ANYTHING MORE COMPLEX THAN IRON.

LAWRENCE HENDERSON IN 1913 FIRST POSTULATED THIS IDEA. DICKE EXPANDED UPON IT IN 1961. DICKE RECEIVED THE NATIONAL MEDAL IN SCIENCE FOR HIS MANY CONTRIBUTIONS. FIVKE WORKED WITH ONE OF MY MENTORS JOHN KRAUS AT MIT LINCOLN LAB DURING WORLD EAR TWO. SO I HAD THE GREAT GOOD FORTUNE TO MEET THIS INGENIOUS FELLOW ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. HIS VIEW IS THAT THE FINE TUNING WAS A FRUITFUL MYSTERY OF PRESENT THEORY. IT WAS A PLACE FOR PHYSICISTS TO LOOK TO COME TO A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING BY SOLVING THE MYSTERY. HE APPRECIATED AS MANY DO NOT THE SHORTCOMINGS OF PRESENT THEORY AND WHAT WE DO NOT KNOW. HE DECRIED THE PRESENT TENDENCY OF SCIENCE REPORTING THAT SUGGESTS WE KNOW MORE THAN WE DO. THAT LEADS TO BAD PUBLIC POLICY AND ULTIMATELY BAD SCIENCE.

FRED HOYLE ALSO ARGUED THAT THE BIG BANG REQUIRED CONSTANTS TO BE FINELY TUNED. HOWEVER TO HOYLE THIS SUGGESTED THE BIG BANG WAS BOGUS. IT COULDNT BE THAT FINE TUNED ACCORDING TO HIM.

TOUR CHARACTERISATION OF HOYLE AS THE INVENTOR OF THE BIG BANG IS FUNNY. HOYLE COINED THE TERM BIG BANG AS A DERISIVE MONIKER FOR LEMAITRES THEORY. TO HIS GREAT UNHAPPINESS DUMBASSES REPORTED HE INVENTED THE THEORY AND FOOLS THAT LISTEN TO DUMBASSES ARE IMPRESSED BY HOYLE THINKING HE INVENTED SOMETHING IMPORTANT.

HOYLE WAS INVITED TWICE TO COLLOQUIA AT ODU DURING MY TENURE THERE. SO I HAD THE GREAT GOOD FORTUNE TO HEAR HIM LECTURE ON THESE TOPICS.

DICKE WAS PUT UP FOR A NOBEL PRIZE AND HE QUIETLY TOLD THE COMMITTEE HE DIDNT WANT THE PUBLICITY CITING HOYLES EXPERIENCE. THEY SUBMITTED HIS NAME ANYWAY FOR THE INVENTION OF THE MASER AND WHEN ASKED TO COMMENT HE SAID HE TEAD ABOUT IT IN POPULAR SCIENCE AND BUILT A BETTER ONE. I DONT KNOW IF THAT WAS TRUE BUT THE NOBEL COMMITTEE REALISED DICKE MIGHT BE AN EMBARRASSMENT SO WITHDREW HIS NAME.


Just because plenty of matter existed
earlier is irrelevant,

MY TIME LINE IS ACCURATE IF YOU ACCEPT BIG BANG IS REAL. THE CONSTANTS ARE FINE TUNED IN THE FIRST FEW MICROSECONDS. MATTER COALESCES FORM THE INTENSE ENERGIES AFTER 70,900 YEARS. IT TAKES 400,000,000 YEARS FOR STARS TO APPEAR. IT TAKES ANOTHER 30,000,000 YEARS FOR NUCLEOSYNTHESIS TOOCCUR CREATING CARBON AND OTHER ELEMENTS ESSENTIAL TO LIFE AS WE KNOW IT. EARTH FORMED 4.6 BILLION YEARS AGO. THE FIRST EARTHLIKE PLANETS WERE POSSIBKE OVER 8 BILLION YEARS BEFORE THAT. IF YOU BUY THE BIG BANG.

just as it's irrelevant there's
plenty of soil before an old growth forest
becomes fully organized.

TIMING IS RELEVANT TO WHAT IS POSSIBLE. THE VERY COMPKEX PROCESSES THAT GO ON IN THE CELL REQUIRE THE EVOLUTION INCORPORATE THAT INFORMATION SOMEHOW WITHIN IT. WITH A FRACTION OF A BIT PER GENERATION THERE ISNT ENOUGH TIME IN THE BIG BANG COSMOLOGY TO ACCOUNT FOR THE COMPLEXITY WE SEE. DUMBASSES ARGUE GOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD FROM THIS. SCIENTISTS ACCEPT THE MYSTERY AND UNDERSTAND WE STILL HAVE MUCH TO LEARN ABOUT LIFE AND THE COSMOS.

RESEARCHERS I KNOW BELIVE A) LIFE MAY HAVE EMERGENT PROPERTIES THAT DO NOT REQUIRE EVOLUTIONARY ACCUMULATION OF INFORMATION FOR TGEIR RXISTENCE AND B) TGE BIG BANG THEORY IS WRONG AND A STEADY STATE COSMOLOGY IS MORE LIKELY CORRECT.








to the onset of matter domination. The k-essence component has
the property that it only behaves as a negative pressure
component after matter{radiation equality, so that it can
only overtake the matter density and induce cosmic acceleration
after the matter has dominated the Universe for some period, at
about the present epoch. And, of course, human
evolution is linked to matter domination because the
formation of planets, stars, galaxies and large-scale structure
only occurs after the beginning of the
matter-dominated epoch.


http://physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/steinhardt.pdf






That means there was a period of time of 8.67 billion years before the solar system formed, that could give rise to carbon based life forms like the ones we are. This gives us more time than that available on Earth. About 3x the time - which is just enough.

Yet, according to some, this still doesn't give life enough time to evolve to the complexity we see today. So, that's the problem Burbridge, Narlikar and Hoyle see. They believe the incredible complexity of life is proof that the cosmos is far older than Big Bang allows. They believe at least 100 billion years are required, if not more.

The cosmos according to them, is certainly accelerating at a rate that puts everything at a single point 13.7 billion years ago, but they think observational evidence shows that the cosmos is continually created and stars accelerate steadily from one another in the manner observed.

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.o...t/448/1933/191


The concepts of self organizing systems, or complexity theory, hold
that the ideal conditions for spontaneous order is once the
Second Law has done it's job well, or chaos.


This word salad has no meaning to me. I am familiar with complexity theory, and the second law of thermodynamics, yet I find the collection of words above virtually sense free. Its as if you said one plus one is blue. It makes no sense whatever.




You need to brush up on random boolean networks. The initial
state is a random network, or zero order (chaos), as in
once the Second Law has entirely destroyed any organization.

It's then that a random disturbance can spontaneously
generate cyclic order, or self organization.

For instance a vast interstellar cloud of gas and dust
(zero order) randomly disturbed by some event such as
a supernova, and the compression initiates star and solar
system formation.
  #8  
Old January 1st 17, 03:35 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 278
Default Rewriting the Drake Equation

On 12/31/2016 3:49 PM, William Mook wrote:

of the founders of the Big Bang theory. The universe became
ideal for life about the time it transitioned to dark
energy domination, which coincided, or emerged, with
matter domination.





Funny how you deleted my cite from one of the
most respected cosmologists on the planet.

You obviously only agree with the facts that
fit your preconceived bias, and dismiss anything
that doesn't support your opinion.

Nothing 'scientific' about such a method.

The fact is everything in the universe evolves
even the fundamental constants. As Steinhardt
says only a dynamical or attractor solution
can solve the fine tuning problem, or show
when the universe became ideal for life.

The universe as a whole become ideal for life
roughly 4 billion years ago, when it became
a dark energy dominated universe once matter
became sufficiently organized to produce
an emergent property such as dark energy.

Your ideas are dated to be generous, grossly
biased to be more accurate.



  #9  
Old January 1st 17, 11:54 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Rewriting the Drake Equation

Jonathan wrote:

On 12/31/2016 3:49 PM, William Mook wrote:

of the founders of the Big Bang theory. The universe became
ideal for life about the time it transitioned to dark
energy domination, which coincided, or emerged, with
matter domination.


Funny how you deleted my cite from one of the
most respected cosmologists on the planet.

You obviously only agree with the facts that
fit your preconceived bias, and dismiss anything
that doesn't support your opinion.


Welcome to the Magnificent Mind of Mook...


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #10  
Old January 2nd 17, 02:33 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Rewriting the Drake Equation

iPhone app for google groups don't quote what I'm replying to. So don't take it personally.

Your other points reflect a profound ignorance of cosmology. My comments stem from my work with John Kraus Paul Horowitz and Walt Mitchell in graduate school so they're not biases but training in current cosmology.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Drake Equation: How can ne*fl*fi be large? Jason Hsu SETI 1 March 11th 09 11:05 AM
Drake equation Fons Misc 1 May 17th 07 04:58 PM
Drake Equation Variables Pat Flannery History 124 April 15th 07 06:49 PM
Drake's Equation Rich SETI 1 October 8th 03 07:18 PM
Free Aug.26 CA conf. w/Drake,Ward,Grinspoon re Drake Equation Revisited Jason H. SETI 2 August 26th 03 10:03 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.