A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Research
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A quasar, too heavy to be true



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 2nd 18, 08:54 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 659
Default A quasar, too heavy to be true

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 9:19:09 AM UTC-7, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:

In article , Gary
Harnagel writes:

It is quite unreasonable to assume that in all the universe we are the
first. In fact, it is unreasonable to assume that a civilization like
ours didn't develop billions of years ago.

How does this in any way contradict any worldview?


The existence of a benevolent civilization billions of years older than
ours wouldn't change YOUR worldview? Come ON!


Not in the least. Why should it? I wouldn't be surprised. The Earth
is about 4.6 billion years old, the universe about three times as old.
Civilization developed here, so I wouldn't be surprised if it did
elsewhere, but I don't know how likely it is; perhaps there is some
difficult bottlenect. It would be an interesting event, yes, but it
wouldn't change my basic worldview.


It WOULD change that of 99% of the world's population just if an advanced
civilization wore confirmed to exist on a planet around Tabby's star.

The odds of spontaneous life could be arbitrarily close to zero.
That we are here (necessary for this discussion to take place) has zero
commentary on the odds of spontaneous life anywhere else.


That's likely to be quite irrelevant:

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


Panspermia is a hypothesis, by no means proven.


I think it's pretty solid given evidence for extra-solar comets and asteroid
impact.

It
seems to me that we should be arguing intelligent life developed long
ago in the universe until refuted by evidence to the contrary.


Why should we assume anything?


Because we're human. It's what we DO.

Also, there is no way to disprove the existence of extraterrestrial
intelligence.


But there IS a way to confirm it, which was the mission of Kepler and will
be the mission of the Webb telescope.

Yes, the universe is older than the Earth, but since civilization developed
only recently on Earth, it in no way follows that it must have developed
earlier elsewhere.


"Must" implies 100% probability. I prefer a strong "may" :-)

At only 0.1% the speed of light, generation ships could cross the
entire galaxy in a mere 0.1 billion years.


There is no evidence that this has happened.


Perhaps WE are the evidence :-)

  #2  
Old January 2nd 18, 09:05 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 38
Default A quasar, too heavy to be true

In article , Gary
Harnagel writes:

The existence of a benevolent civilization billions of years older than
ours wouldn't change YOUR worldview? Come ON!


Not in the least. Why should it? I wouldn't be surprised. The Earth
is about 4.6 billion years old, the universe about three times as old.
Civilization developed here, so I wouldn't be surprised if it did
elsewhere, but I don't know how likely it is; perhaps there is some
difficult bottlenect. It would be an interesting event, yes, but it
wouldn't change my basic worldview.


It WOULD change that of 99% of the world's population just if an advanced
civilization wore confirmed to exist on a planet around Tabby's star.


Why? How? What worldview is committed to the lack of extraterrestrial
civilization?

The odds of spontaneous life could be arbitrarily close to zero.
That we are here (necessary for this discussion to take place) has zero
commentary on the odds of spontaneous life anywhere else.

That's likely to be quite irrelevant:

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


Panspermia is a hypothesis, by no means proven.


I think it's pretty solid given evidence for extra-solar comets and asteroid
impact.


No life has been found there. Organic molecules, yes. But it is a huge
leap from there to panspermia. Suffice it to say that the most
scientists in the field are not convinced that panspermia is responsible
for life on Earth.

It
seems to me that we should be arguing intelligent life developed long
ago in the universe until refuted by evidence to the contrary.


Why should we assume anything?


Because we're human. It's what we DO.


Humans do many things; not all of them are correct.

Also, there is no way to disprove the existence of extraterrestrial
intelligence.


But there IS a way to confirm it, which was the mission of Kepler and will
be the mission of the Webb telescope.


Right (and contrary to what you wrote before): if you can find evidence
of extraterrestrial civilization, then you confirm it. The reverse is
not true: while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, neither
does it mean that one should assume that extraterrestrial civilization
until proven otherwise, since one can never prove it otherwise.

  #3  
Old January 3rd 18, 10:41 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 659
Default A quasar, too heavy to be true

On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 1:05:25 AM UTC-7, Phillip Helbig (undress
to reply) wrote:

In article , Gary
Harnagel writes:

The existence of a benevolent civilization billions of years older than
ours wouldn't change YOUR worldview? Come ON!

Not in the least. Why should it? I wouldn't be surprised. The Earth
is about 4.6 billion years old, the universe about three times as old.
Civilization developed here, so I wouldn't be surprised if it did
elsewhere, but I don't know how likely it is; perhaps there is some
difficult bottlenect. It would be an interesting event, yes, but it
wouldn't change my basic worldview.


It WOULD change that of 99% of the world's population just if an advanced
civilization wore confirmed to exist on a planet around Tabby's star.


Why? How? What worldview is committed to the lack of extraterrestrial
civilization?


I was mostly thinking of born-again Christians. Their belief system
seems to be very geocentric, but there are many more Christians that
share that worldview. And then their are Muslims ... well, they (as
well as some Christians) might denounce the evidence. And then there
are those that would start new religions based upon the aliens ....

Panspermia is a hypothesis, by no means proven.


I think it's pretty solid given evidence for extra-solar comets and asteroid
impact.


No life has been found there. Organic molecules, yes. But it is a huge
leap from there to panspermia. Suffice it to say that the most
scientists in the field are not convinced that panspermia is responsible
for life on Earth.


Okay, I don't particularly vote for that one either :-)

It seems to me that we should be arguing intelligent life developed
long ago in the universe until refuted by evidence to the contrary.

Why should we assume anything?


Because we're human. It's what we DO.


Humans do many things; not all of them are correct.


But we still do them :-)

Also, there is no way to disprove the existence of extraterrestrial
intelligence.


But there IS a way to confirm it, which was the mission of Kepler and will
be the mission of the Webb telescope.


Right (and contrary to what you wrote before): if you can find evidence
of extraterrestrial civilization, then you confirm it. The reverse is
not true: while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, neither
does it mean that one should assume that extraterrestrial civilization
until proven otherwise, since one can never prove it otherwise.


Well, that depends upon your psychology. A scientist is trained to be
skeptical, and skepticism argues for your viewpoint. But ... is
skepticism the "right" position in all areas of inquiry? It has led to
hidebound resistance in the past. Each of us has developed a model of
the universe over our lifetimes that's hard for us to modify because
it's based upon what we have seen and experienced. I'm not sure why,
but mine has been undergoing some major revisions in, um, vision over
the last few years.

  #4  
Old January 3rd 18, 10:51 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 38
Default A quasar, too heavy to be true

In article , Gary
Harnagel writes:

It WOULD change that of 99% of the world's population just if an advanced
civilization wore confirmed to exist on a planet around Tabby's star.


Why? How? What worldview is committed to the lack of extraterrestrial
civilization?


I was mostly thinking of born-again Christians. Their belief system
seems to be very geocentric, but there are many more Christians that
share that worldview. And then their are Muslims ... well, they (as
well as some Christians) might denounce the evidence. And then there
are those that would start new religions based upon the aliens ....


Has evolution shattered their worldview? Modern cosmology? Geology?
By definition, faith can't be perturbed by knowledge. On the other
hand, while of course many religions are geocentric (in more than one
sense), they don't necessarily exclude extraterrestrial life. It is
also not necessary that Jesus be crucified on every world. Not all
beings need salvation. Think of the angels. Perhaps angels are
extraterrestrial beings. I've heard born-again creatures say that UFOs
are manned by demons. So even here, I don't think that the discovery of
extraterrestrial intelligence would shatter any worldviews.

Right (and contrary to what you wrote before): if you can find evidence
of extraterrestrial civilization, then you confirm it. The reverse is
not true: while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, neither
does it mean that one should assume that extraterrestrial civilization
until proven otherwise, since one can never prove it otherwise.


Well, that depends upon your psychology.


It depends on logic.

A scientist is trained to be
skeptical, and skepticism argues for your viewpoint.


Skepticism argues that one should not believe anything without good
evidence.

But ... is
skepticism the "right" position in all areas of inquiry? It has led to
hidebound resistance in the past. Each of us has developed a model of
the universe over our lifetimes that's hard for us to modify because
it's based upon what we have seen and experienced. I'm not sure why,
but mine has been undergoing some major revisions in, um, vision over
the last few years.


Any skepticism which leads to hidebound resistance is not what is
normally understood under skepticism.

  #5  
Old January 4th 18, 11:34 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 659
Default A quasar, too heavy to be true

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 2:51:47 AM UTC-7, Phillip Helbig
(undress to reply) wrote:

In article , Gary
Harnagel writes:

It WOULD change that of 99% of the world's population just if an
advanced civilization wore confirmed to exist on a planet around
Tabby's star.

Why? How? What worldview is committed to the lack of extraterrestrial
civilization?


I was mostly thinking of born-again Christians. Their belief system
seems to be very geocentric, but there are many more Christians that
share that worldview. And then their are Muslims ... well, they (as
well as some Christians) might denounce the evidence. And then there
are those that would start new religions based upon the aliens ....


Has evolution shattered their worldview?


No. They just don't believe it.

Modern cosmology? Geology?


No, they just don't believe them.

By definition, faith can't be perturbed by knowledge. On the other
hand, while of course many religions are geocentric (in more than one
sense), they don't necessarily exclude extraterrestrial life. It is
also not necessary that Jesus be crucified on every world. Not all
beings need salvation. Think of the angels. Perhaps angels are
extraterrestrial beings. I've heard born-again creatures say that UFOs
are manned by demons. So even here, I don't think that the discovery of
extraterrestrial intelligence would shatter any worldviews.


I guess I underestimated the ability of some people to fool themselves :-(

Right (and contrary to what you wrote before): if you can find evidence
of extraterrestrial civilization, then you confirm it. The reverse is
not true: while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, neither
does it mean that one should assume that extraterrestrial civilization
until proven otherwise, since one can never prove it otherwise.


Well, that depends upon your psychology.


It depends on logic.

A scientist is trained to be
skeptical, and skepticism argues for your viewpoint.


Skepticism argues that one should not believe anything without good
evidence.


So why believe that God doesn't exist without good evidence?

But ... is
skepticism the "right" position in all areas of inquiry? It has led to
hidebound resistance in the past. Each of us has developed a model of
the universe over our lifetimes that's hard for us to modify because
it's based upon what we have seen and experienced. I'm not sure why,
but mine has been undergoing some major revisions in, um, vision over
the last few years.


Any skepticism which leads to hidebound resistance is not what is
normally understood under skepticism.


But it has happened in the scientific community many times.

[Moderator's note: Followups should address astronomy, or at least
science. -P.H.]

  #6  
Old January 4th 18, 11:44 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 38
Default A quasar, too heavy to be true

In article , Gary
Harnagel writes:

A scientist is trained to be
skeptical, and skepticism argues for your viewpoint.


Skepticism argues that one should not believe anything without good
evidence.


So why believe that God doesn't exist without good evidence?


Because, as a matter of principle, one can only prove the existence of
something, not its lack of existence. For the same reason, we don't
assume "guilty until proven innocent". This is a basic principle of
science. One can say "why not believe X unless there is evidence to the
contrary" but another can say "why not believe the absence of X without
evidence to the contrary". If both statements are valid, no progress
can be made. For the same reason that "innocent until proven guilty" is
the rule, the burden of proof is on someone who believes something, not
on someone who doesn't believe something. This is a basic principle of
science. Why not believe that there are 157 elements unless there is
evidence to the contrary? Why not believe that there are 30 planets in
the Solar System? Science just doesn't work that way.

[Moderator's note: Followups should address astronomy, or at least
science. -P.H.]


Indeed. :-)

  #7  
Old January 5th 18, 10:19 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Richard D. Saam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 240
Default A quasar, too heavy to be true

On 1/3/18 3:41 AM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 1:05:25 AM UTC-7, Phillip Helbig (undress
to reply) wrote:

In article , Gary
Harnagel writes:

Why? How? What worldview is committed to the lack of extraterrestrial
civilization?


I was mostly thinking of born-again Christians. Their belief system
seems to be very geocentric, but there are many more Christians that
share that worldview. And then their are Muslims ... well, they (as
well as some Christians) might denounce the evidence. And then there
are those that would start new religions based upon the aliens ....

Brother Guy Consolmagno SJ. the Pope's astronomer will baptize an alien
which inherently suggests a willingness to accept that they exist.

http://religionnews.com/2014/12/03/m...-given-chance/

Richard D Saam

 




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
A quasar, too heavy to be true jacobnavia Research 43 January 25th 18 05:34 PM
Could Delta IV Heavy use the same technique as Falcon Heavy Alan Erskine[_3_] Space Shuttle 1 May 20th 11 07:56 AM
Whoa, it can't be true, it can't be true, William Shatner knows,he'll protect us LIBERATOR[_3_] History 2 March 24th 09 06:28 PM
Heavy H = Lots of Heavy Compounds G=EMC^2 Glazier Misc 3 November 12th 05 07:12 PM
Delta IV Heavy: Heavy Enough for Mars Damon Hill Policy 1 December 22nd 04 08:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:16 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.