Mysterious signals from 1000 light years away

"Thomas Lee Elifritz" wrote in message
...
October 4, 2004

George G. Dishman wrote:
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 is based on the hypothesis that there exist
"laws of nature" which are repeatable and, yes, we
take that on faith if you like, but that is very
different from the sense in which you use the word
below.

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.

On the contrary, faith is something invoked to
describe a belief which is held without evidence.

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

And I provided some of them,

Perhaps you offered something before I joined the
thread but when I gave you three items suggestive
of extraterrestrial life (not intelligent), and
asked if you could add to that, you could not.

and pointed out that the totality of
evidence would be very difficult to supply in this restricted forum,

I am not asking for "the totality", just one single
item which provides evidence of the existence of
extraterrestrial life, that's all.

thus I provided you with a useful internet link to enable you to peruse
some of the evidence.

No, you just provided the lanl link that I use
often anyway with no references to a single paper.

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.

And you have shown you can do none of those.

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.

OK.

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.

No, the number of earthlike planets which have been
observed remains at one, Earth. Perhaps you need to
be reminded of what you said above:

"I observe one Earthlike planet in one average galaxy."

Where are the reports of these observations?




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?

Large numbers have been counted to the point where the
figure can be estimated and bounded statistically. We
will be able to do the same for "Earthlike planets"
once we observe some small number. The more we observe,
the tighter the constraints we can place on any estimate.

A single observation, which is biased by the fact that we
live on it, doesn't mean there is "one per average galaxy".

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?

No, and neither have you, which means you cannot use
that information to justify your claim of knowing
that there an average of one Earthlike planet per
galaxy. Sorry Thomas, it is abundantly clear you
just picked that figure because you know of Earth
and we are in a galaxy. Clearly you don't understand
that this does NOT imply that there is one such
planet per galaxy averaged over the observable
universe.

We have entered a new era in science, which you have
utterly and absolutely failed to recognize.

Oh I know it's the age of the crank, I was hoping
you would avoid becoming part of it.

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.

There are many methods available for doing science,
but what is known as "The Scientific Method" is a very
specific phrase. You can find lots of pages on it but
here's one to start with:

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics...www/node5.html


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.

Ok, my mistake, you still don't know. Start with the
page above. When you understand it, produce the
_observations_ that lead you to your conclusions.

George