Are we alone? Setting some limits to our uniqueness

April 28, 2016, University of Rochester
In 1961, astrophysicist Frank Drake developed an equation to estimate the number of advanced civilizations likely to exist in the Milky Way galaxy. The Drake equation (top row) has proven to be a durable framework for research, and space technology has advanced scientists' knowledge of several variables. But it is impossible to do anything more than guess at variables such as L, the probably longevity of other advanced civilizations.In new research, Adam Frank and Woodruff Sullivan offer a new equation (bottom row) to address a slightly different question: What is the number of advanced civilizations likely to have developed over the history of the observable universe? Frank and Sullivan's equation draws on Drake's, but eliminates the need for L. Credit: University of Rochester

Are humans unique and alone in the vast universe? This question—summed up in the famous Drake equation—has for a half-century been one of the most intractable and uncertain in science.

But a new paper shows that the recent discoveries of exoplanets combined with a broader approach to the question makes it possible to assign a new empirically valid probability to whether any other advanced technological civilizations have ever existed.

And it shows that unless the odds of advanced life evolving on a habitable planet are astonishingly low, then human kind is not the universe's first technological, or advanced, civilization.

The paper, published in Astrobiology, also shows for the first time just what "pessimism" or "optimism" mean when it comes to estimating the likelihood of advanced extraterrestrial life.

"The question of whether advanced civilizations exist elsewhere in the universe has always been vexed with three large uncertainties in the Drake equation," said Adam Frank, professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Rochester and co-author of the paper. "We've known for a long time approximately how many stars exist. We didn't know how many of those stars had planets that could potentially harbor life, how often life might evolve and lead to intelligent beings, and how long any civilizations might last before becoming extinct."

"Thanks to NASA's Kepler satellite and other searches, we now know that roughly one-fifth of stars have planets in "habitable zones," where temperatures could support life as we know it. So one of the three big uncertainties has now been constrained."

Frank said that the third big question—how long civilizations might survive—is still completely unknown. "The fact that humans have had rudimentary technology for roughly ten thousand years doesn't really tell us if other societies would last that long or perhaps much longer," he explained.

But Frank and his coauthor, Woodruff Sullivan of the astronomy department and astrobiology program at the University of Washington, found they could eliminate that term altogether by simply expanding the question.

"Rather than asking how many civilizations may exist now, we ask 'Are we the only technological species that has ever arisen?" said Sullivan. "This shifted focus eliminates the uncertainty of the civilization lifetime question and allows us to address what we call the 'cosmic archaeological question'—how often in the history of the universe has life evolved to an advanced state?"

That still leaves huge uncertainties in calculating the probability for advanced life to evolve on habitable planets. It's here that Frank and Sullivan flip the question around. Rather than guessing at the odds of advanced life developing, they calculate the odds against it occurring in order for humanity to be the only advanced civilization in the entire history of the observable universe. With that, Frank and Sullivan then calculated the line between a Universe where humanity has been the sole experiment in civilization and one where others have come before us.

"Of course, we have no idea how likely it is that an intelligent technological species will evolve on a given habitable planet," says Frank. But using our method we can tell exactly how low that probability would have to be for us to be the ONLY civilization the Universe has produced. We call that the pessimism line. If the actual probability is greater than the pessimism line, then a technological species and civilization has likely happened before."

Using this approach, Frank and Sullivan calculate how unlikely advanced life must be if there has never been another example among the universe's ten billion trillion stars, or even among our own Milky Way galaxy's hundred billion.

The result? By applying the new exoplanet data to the universe's 2 x 10 to the 22nd power stars, Frank and Sullivan find that human civilization is likely to be unique in the cosmos only if the odds of a civilization developing on a habitable planet are less than about one in 10 billion trillion, or one part in 10 to the 22th power.

"One in 10 billion trillion is incredibly small," says Frank. "To me, this implies that other intelligent, technology producing species very likely have evolved before us. Think of it this way. Before our result you'd be considered a pessimist if you imagined the probability of evolving a civilization on a habitable planet were, say, one in a trillion. But even that guess, one chance in a trillion, implies that what has happened here on Earth with humanity has in fact happened about a 10 billion other times over cosmic history!"

For smaller volumes the numbers are less extreme. For example, another technological species likely has evolved on a habitable planet in our own Milky Way galaxy if the odds against it evolving on any one habitable planet are better than one chance in 60 billion.

But if those numbers seem to give ammunition to the "optimists" about the existence of alien civilizations, Sullivan points out that the full Drake equation—which calculates the odds that other civilizations are around today—may give solace to the pessimists.

In 1961, astrophysicist Frank Drake developed an equation to estimate the number of advanced civilizations likely to exist in the Milky Way galaxy. The Drake equation (top row) has proven to be a durable framework for research, and space technology has advanced scientists' knowledge of several variables. But it is impossible to do anything more than guess at variables such as L, the probably longevity of other advanced civilizations.

In new research, Adam Frank and Woodruff Sullivan offer a new equation (bottom row) to address a slightly different question: What is the number of advanced civilizations likely to have developed over the history of the observable universe? Frank and Sullivan's equation draws on Drake's, but eliminates the need for L.

Their argument hinges upon the recent discovery of how many planets exist and how many of those lie in what scientists call the "habitable zone" – planets in which liquid water, and therefore life, could exist. This allows Frank and Sullivan to define a number they call Nast.Nast is the product of N*, the total number of stars; fp, the fraction of those stars that form planets; and np, the average number of those planets in the habitable zones of their stars.

They then set out what they call the "Archaelogical-form" of the Drake equation, which defines A as the "number of technological species that have ever formed over the history of the observable Universe."

Their equation, A=Nast*fbt, describes A as the product of Nast – the number of in a given volume of the Universe – multiplied by fbt – the likelihood of a technological species arising on one of these planets. The volume considered could be, for example, the entire Universe, or just our Galaxy.



"The is more than 13 billion years old," said Sullivan. "That means that even if there have been a thousand civilizations in our own galaxy, if they live only as long as we have been around—roughly ten thousand years—then all of them are likely already extinct. And others won't evolve until we are long gone. For us to have much chance of success in finding another "contemporary" active technological civilization, on average they must last much longer than our present lifetime."

"Given the vast distances between stars and the fixed speed of light we might never really be able to have a conversation with another civilization anyway," said Frank. "If they were 20,000 light years away then every exchange would take 40,000 years to go back and forth."

But, as Frank and Sullivan point out, even if there aren't other civilizations in our galaxy to communicate with now, the new result still has a profound scientific and philosophical importance. "From a fundamental perspective the question is 'has it ever happened anywhere before?'" said Frank. Our result is the first time anyone has been able to set any empirical answer for that question and it is astonishingly likely that we are not the only time and place that an advance civilization has evolved."

According to Frank and Sullivan their result has a practical application as well. As humanity faces its crisis in sustainability and climate change we can wonder if other civilization-building species on other planets have gone through a similar bottleneck and made it to the other side. As Frank puts it "We don't even know if it's possible to have a high-tech that lasts more than a few centuries." With Frank and Sullivan's new result, scientists can begin using everything they know about planets and climate to begin modeling the interactions of an energy-intensive species with their home world knowing that a large sample of such cases has already existed in the cosmos. "Our results imply that our evolution has not been unique and has probably happened many times before. The other cases are likely to include many energy intensive civilizations dealing with their feedbacks onto their as their civilizations grow. That means we can begin exploring the problem using simulations to get a sense of what leads to long lived civilizations and what doesn't."

Explore further: Bayesian analysis rains on exoplanet life parade

More information: A. Frank et al, A New Empirical Constraint on the Prevalence of Technological Species in the Universe, Astrobiology (2016). DOI: 10.1089/ast.2015.1418

Related Stories

Bayesian analysis rains on exoplanet life parade

April 27, 2016

Is there life on other planets, somewhere in this enormous universe? That's probably the most compelling question we can ask. A lot of space science and space missions are pointed directly at that question.

Globular clusters could host interstellar civilizations

January 6, 2016

Globular star clusters are extraordinary in almost every way. They're densely packed, holding a million stars in a ball only about 100 light-years across on average. They're old, dating back almost to the birth of the Milky ...

At last, how many alien civilizations are there?

December 3, 2012

During the space age, 1961 was a special year: the Russian cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first man to orbit Earth, while the American astronomer Frank Drake developed the now famous Drake Equation. This equation estimates ...

Recommended for you

Astronomers discover giant relic of disrupted Tadpole galaxy

November 19, 2018

A team of astronomers from Israel, the U.S. and Russia have identified a disrupted galaxy resembling a giant tadpole, complete with an elliptical head and a long, straight tail, about 300 million light years away from Earth. ...

Gravitationally lensed quasars

November 19, 2018

The path of light is bent by mass, an effect predicted by Einstein's theory of gravity, and when a massive galaxy or cluster lies along our line-of-sight to a more distant galaxy its matter will act as a lens to image the ...

173 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dogbert
2.3 / 5 (25) Apr 28, 2016
It is certainly fun to play with figures, but the fact is, we have found life only in our solar system and only on earth. The article attempts to set probabilities for intelligent life and civilizations when we cannot assign a probability to life happening anywhere.

With one data point: "life exists on earth", it is impossible to assign probabilities. We simply lack the data.

If we find life somewhere else, then we can begin to think about intelligent life somewhere else with something other than wishful imaginings.
rderkis
2.4 / 5 (19) Apr 28, 2016
I love it! :-)
If we have not found evidence of intelligence in the universe by now, there is a reason.
Clocking with lasers was talked about on here and we are not vary advanced race yet. If a truly advanced race wanted to isolate us or just hide from us for whatever reason, it would be quite easy for them.
julianpenrod
1.4 / 5 (19) Apr 28, 2016
Drake's equation is treated as such a feat. The large number of deliberately obscure looking terms can lead many to think it is necessarily sophisticated. The fact is, it is a simple conditional probability formula over a collection of independent variables. Indeed, assuming those variables to be independent may be a major flaw in the equation. And, for a condition at any one moment, the value for the rate of star formation and the length of time a civilization may send radio signals into space can be unnecessary.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (17) Apr 28, 2016
@dogbert: There are many cases where one sample can constrain probability models. Here is an example where the one sample of Earth is used to study the selection bias in our observations of terrestrial planets. http://arxiv.org/...04v3.pdf .

The cut off radius of superEarths, 1.2 Earth radii, is consistent with what an unbiased categorization study finds: http://www.planet...ets.html
dogbert
1.8 / 5 (17) Apr 28, 2016
torbjorn_b_g_larson,

Earth like planets presume life exists I those planets and has for an extended period. Without life giving us an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere, we would not find earth to be "earth like".

Unless we find life elsewhere, we cannot assign probabilities that human habitable planets exist.

We simply lack sufficient data.
rkolter
4.6 / 5 (11) Apr 28, 2016
The Drake Equation was never meant to produce a yes or no answer - it will always produce a probability, and that probability will always be tweaked by the beliefs of the person who sets the values of the variables. You can use the Drake Equation to show we are the only likely intelligent life, or that we are in a bustling neighborhood of intelligent life.

What this article shows, is that first, there is new evidence that can limit the ranges some variables can take, and second that you can look at the equation as a probability of there ever having been intelligent life in the lifetime of the universe, which allows us to avoid one of the variables we truly can't put limits on yet - the average age of a civilization.

I liked the article; but any article about trying to nail down the Drake Equation should be discussed while in a good sense of humor. :)
antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (19) Apr 28, 2016
So, if an advanced alien civilization emits a radio signal into space and we don't hear it. Then, do they exist?
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (15) Apr 28, 2016
The Drake Equation was never meant to produce a yes or no answer - it will always produce a probability,

The Drake equations was meant to be a humorous way to present an agenda for a meeting at the Green Bank conference. It was never meant to be a totally exhaustive formula that encapsulates all relevant factors.
Most notably it only deals with surface-based life on temperate planets (the ne and fl factors). Neither of which are limitations that have a lot of rationale behind it. With the fi factor also being complete conjecture.

Any formula that has one variable that is complete guesswork is uselsess. The Drake equation has at least two and possibly three such factors. It suggests some 'computability' when the source of error is beyond ludicrous.

Why people still take it serious when its history is well known and recorded is beyond me.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (18) Apr 28, 2016
Why people still take it serious when its history is well known and recorded is beyond me
@AA_P
hope.

they want to find something else out there

rkolter
3.8 / 5 (10) Apr 28, 2016
Antialias_Physorg and Oog are case studies about why I added this line to my comment.

I liked the article; but any article about trying to nail down the Drake Equation should be discussed while in a good sense of humor. :)

obama_socks
2.4 / 5 (23) Apr 28, 2016
There are 10 word counts for "Drake" in the article itself, out of 23 on the page; 9 of which are part of comments and 3 are included in alternate threads. What motivated the authors to include the Drake Equation as part of their question of possible life elsewhere in the Universe is merely a distraction and a hindrance wrt serious discourse. Perhaps they did it for laughs.
In the final analysis, humanity is most certainly NOT the sole experiment for intelligent life in the Universe. Without getting into too much detail, and avoiding the dreaded spiritual aspect which is anathema to our resident atheists, I consider the notion that Earth is the only planet harboring life, whether intelligent or not, as strictly Anthropocentric in its context, and must NOT be taken seriously. The Universe has existed, along with all its unseen components for much more than the token 13.8 billion years - and in many forms and levels. Many other civilizations have arisen & perished long before man
Benni
2.8 / 5 (29) Apr 28, 2016
The Universe has existed, along with all its unseen components for much more than the token 13.8 billion years - and in many forms and levels. Many other civilizations have arisen & perished long before man


..........and just you wait, within a few months after the James Webb Telescope has been launched into orbit around the Sun, the infrared sensitivity of that telescope will quickly debunk the 13.8 B in a heartbeat when it begins detection of mature galaxies whose redshifts will be measured in the hundreds or even into the thousands.

Already several mature galaxies have been measured at z>10. Such redshift places those galaxies right dead in the middle of the Primordial Cloud where no such galaxies should exist according to standard theory of cosmology.

The Integral by which redshift is calculated will need to be recalculated when the JWT begins observing mature galaxies exactly on the cusp of redshift that equal 13.8 of the limit within the Integral.

obama_socks
2.4 / 5 (23) Apr 28, 2016
I concur. The 13.8 figure has always been debatable but is a "placeholder" for scientists to masticate upon until something better comes along. The problem with the figure is that astrophysics is dependent on it as a measure for which many other measurements are dependent on. e.g., they will expect to find stars/galaxies/dust limited only to 13.8 and no further. What do they expect to find then - a wall? And it continues down the line. Kids grow up thinking that 13.8 is the bottom line where everything else that came before 13.8by could not have happened.
I hope to be able to watch the launch of the J.W. in person and celebrate that same night.
However, there is another problem that we must face. Those older ones of long ago (over 13.8 are no longer there (in our own timescale). We will be seeing "a ghost", just as much as all other objects that existed billions of years ago are ghosts of what once was. It's disturbing b/c our SS might be next to be dragged into a BH with no warning
Benni
2.8 / 5 (29) Apr 28, 2016
The 13.8 figure has always been debatable but is a "placeholder" for scientists to masticate upon until something better comes along.


The James Webb Telescope will eviscerate the 13.8, this has become the big buzz for which Astro-physicists are presently preparing themselves with observations from the JWT.

z= 1.....7.7 B lyrs
z=2......10.3 B lyrs
z=3......11.5 B lyrs
z=4......12.1 B lyrs
z=5......12.5 B lyrs
z=6......12.7 B lyrs
z=7......12.9 B lyrs
z=8.......13.01 B lyrs
z=9.......13.11 B lyrs
z=10.....13.18 B lyrs

As you can see, the closer you get to 13.8 B lyrs, the smaller increments between z becomes. For example just to get to z=1 the time traveled in light years is 7.7 B. But the incremental change from z=9 to z=10 is only 0.07 B lyrs.

Plug 50 into a calculator & see what happens by the time you reach z=50. Yeah, you're stacking galaxies right on top of one another before you even get to 13.8 because there's no more space beyond the 13.8 Limit.
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (35) Apr 28, 2016
Be aware of "obama_socks", just like schizophrenic "Benni", both make many unsupportable claims, they can't do basic arithmetic & despite being here since 2011-12 haven't learned basic Physics Eg Radiative Transfer (RT).

These nicks along with antigoracle can't be trusted in anything written, they'll weave their way into your psyches, mislead, muddy the waters, obfuscate & all round waste everyone's time, example here:-

http://phys.org/n...ers.html

If people mistakenly claim Science or mis-speak they should address it when alerted, respond maturely, man up & apologise. I do this, Eg crossing terms, genus, maths misplaced decimal or suffix etc.

Definitely no unsupportable claims, if someone doesnt understand my comments I will address it head even if they bark uneducated childish complaint eg Benni & bschott

Still waiting for obama_socks "verifiable evidences" & Benni to prove his uni degrees etc ?

Lets improve the forum please ?
Benni
2.8 / 5 (29) Apr 28, 2016
Lets improve the forum please ?
..........Muttering Mike, for some reason the Moderators have never seen fit to agree with you for your proposal for my removal from the Commentary. It's got something to do with some math they are not allowing you privy to.
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (31) Apr 28, 2016
Benni with yet more idle egotistical claim
.. for some reason the Moderators have never seen fit to agree with you for your proposal for my removal from the Commentary
What proposal ?

How did moderators "communicate" explicitly as to "not" agreeing, how ?

I suggest you be banned, your posts mostly irrational, unhelpful, misleading & with many unsupportable claims. I've never contacted moderators directly on you in particular.

This forum started as a means to collate subsets of interesting science releases gleaned from several peer reviewed journals, unfortunately it has leaned more towards commercial aspects re advertising re clicks thus generated.

Nothing to do with 'agreement' as you vainly & egotistically claim, your posts aren't worth it :/

Benni with immense ignorance claims
It's got something to do with some math they are not allowing you privy to
Really then prove it ?

What "something" & "some" you don't write like any sort of engineer !
Benni
2.9 / 5 (31) Apr 28, 2016
Benni with yet more idle egotistical claim


Why don't you just address your Comments to the contents of the article? Why do you persist making me the SUBJECT as I explain the science of "redshift". You by comparison have spent ALL your Commentary on a bitch trail about unrelated issues having nothing to do with the article, or anything about science.
obama_socks
2.3 / 5 (24) Apr 28, 2016
Lets improve the forum please ?
..........Muttering Mike, for some reason the Moderators have never seen fit to agree with you for your proposal for my removal from the Commentary. It's got something to do with some math they are not allowing you privy to.
- Benni

Ignore Mike Massen. Understand that he is still smarting from his verbal whipping from Otto, Stumpy and uncle Ira a few months back. He was almost crying in one thread which I saved as a reminder of how badly Otto/Stumpy is able to intimidate with all kinds of accusations of dissa and datta. I took pity on him and gave him FIVES to offset the pain a little bit. But StumpyRump must have gotten into Mike Massen's head and now Mike is doing the Stump...demanding SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE.
Sorry Mike Massen. I don't play that game.
obama_socks
2.3 / 5 (22) Apr 28, 2016
@Benni
I want to run this by you if you don't mind. You understand "Golden Ratio", right? Could that qualify as a means of measuring distance from the closest visible stars/galactic systems (biggest in our line of sight) all the way to the ones furthest away (smallest where can only be detected via Xray, GRBs, Radio, etc.). I have this idea floating around that Golden Ratio can be used as a means of measurement of a "pathway" to the place where it all began before 13.8 billion years.
My wife tells me that I am romanticizing the Golden Ratio as I am also doing with Infinite Fractals as determining all levels between Quantum particles all the way up to the biggest objects in the Universe. She says that I might get my answers sometime in the next 200 years. LOL
antigoracle
2 / 5 (20) Apr 28, 2016
Apologies obama_socks, that 1 was meant for Mike.
richk
1.6 / 5 (16) Apr 28, 2016
this mental masturbation becomes tiresome after a while when realize the "hypothesizes" are not testable.
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (29) Apr 28, 2016
obama_socks (OS) Fails again
.. he is still smarting from his verbal whipping from Otto, Stumpy, uncle Ira..
What does it mean, prove it ? You show Failure to distinguish claim-on-claim vs actual evidence, "Whipping" term used by intellectually feeble rednecks

OS claims "responsibility" but, evidence shows doesn't thus can't ever be trusted !

Awaiting your "verifiable evidences" & "algorithms", why you can't do simple arithmetic ?

OS claims
He was almost crying in one thread..
A truly dumb childish post, really ? prove it ?

Why would anyone with many uni qualifications AND trades ASX stocks AUD$ 3 Million each 2 month be 'crying' from anonymous nick's redneck claim, r u nuts :P ?

OS betrays idle focus
.. pity on him and gave him FIVES
Intelligent here know votes don't matter

OS stupidly
..demanding EVIDENCE. I don't play that
Why lie making things up that mislead badly, why want to appear insane ?

Yah think, even a little weenie bit ?
obama_socks
2.5 / 5 (24) Apr 28, 2016
Apologies obama_socks, that 1 was meant for Mike.
- antiG

No problem, buddy. Ratings in this site mean nothing to me. Only facts and concepts.
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (29) Apr 28, 2016
Benni (B) asks
Why don't you just address your Comments to the contents of the article?
Indeed happy to do so, accept antialias_physorg point generally but, would add a series of topologically base corrections based on biological imperatives re permutations which ride loosely on dynamics of crystal formation ie Physics of matter patterns of self-assembly extrapolated to biology.

B asks
Why do you persist making me the SUBJECT
You don't get it, you AND obama_socks make many unsupportable claims misleading the many others to follow & never take responsibility for huge mistakes !

B claims
..as I explain the science of "redshift"
No, you don't "explain" you make claims from vanity

B claims
.. spent ALL your Commentary on a bitch trail about unrelated issues having nothing to do with the article
Wrong, see comment

B claims .. anything about science Really, see ALL posts, prove your claims littering claims, Eg radiative transfer Benni ?
obama_socks
2.3 / 5 (22) Apr 28, 2016
this mental masturbation becomes tiresome after a while when realize the "hypothesizes" are not testable.
- richk

Mine are simply "musings", so I have been told. Doesn't qualify yet to be considered hypothesis.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (30) Apr 29, 2016
obama_socks claims
No problem, buddy. Ratings in this site mean nothing to me
Really, why all your sock-puppets then ?

You do know server logs the IP addresses re when you access & its easy to correlate nicks/threads with postings across IP spans re dates & times etc ?

Has it never ever occurred to you even a wee bit you are tracked ?

obama_socks with another lie
Only facts and concepts
No, you're false, you make idle claims on 'facts' which mislead & proven wrong just recently.

You claim the 'facts' so naively, recently claiming geological heat far exceeds AGW * claiming you had "verifiable evidences" but, nada !

So I asked you to show it & provenance & to help offered simple math along & links you could refute but, failing to address the 'facts', you did nothing, why is that ?

Why didnt you address the simple arithmetic to prove your claim, is so very easy & would go some way to addressing your other claim you do "algorithms" daily at work :P
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (29) Apr 29, 2016
obama_socks claims
Mine are simply "musings", so I have been told
Really ?
So when you claim you have "facts" and "verifiable evidences" we should interpret that to mean only "musings" and you are not serious ?

Is that how we should interpret your writings when you make specific claims that you also claim you "take responsibility for".

So you've changed your mind again - is that so ?

obama_socks correct for once
Doesn't qualify yet to be considered hypothesis.
Indeed, then why claim "facts", why claim you have "evidences" then don't show them ?

Is that an appropriate example and is it ok then to mislead the naive & immature who can read your posts at any time to come long after the 3 min window to edit them ?

Is that sensible ?
rderkis
2.3 / 5 (15) Apr 29, 2016
So, if an advanced alien civilization emits a radio signal into space and we don't hear it. Then, do they exist?

I guess the question is why would they use radio? We have pretty much given up on morse code and smoke signals.
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (24) Apr 29, 2016
However, there is another problem that we must face. Those older ones of long ago (over 13.8 are no longer there (in our own timescale). We will be seeing "a ghost", just as much as all other objects that existed billions of years ago are ghosts of what once was.

Guess we'll just have to readjust our timescale.
Your "romanticizing" ghosts...
Therefore, don't you really mean - predictors of what WILL be?
It's disturbing b/c our SS might be next to be dragged into a BH with no warning.

We have warning of asteroids and comets as little as 100 ft across. How would we miss a gravity well as large as a black hole that had sufficient pull to drag in an entire solar system??
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (26) Apr 29, 2016
z= 1.....7.7 B lyrs
z=2......10.3 B lyrs
z=3......11.5 B lyrs
z=4......12.1 B lyrs
z=5......12.5 B lyrs
z=6......12.7 B lyrs
z=7......12.9 B lyrs
z=8.......13.01 B lyrs
z=9.......13.11 B lyrs
z=10.....13.18 B lyrs

As you can see, the closer you get to 13.8 B lyrs, the smaller increments between z becomes. For example just to get to z=1 the time traveled in light years is 7.7 B. But the incremental change from z=9 to z=10 is only 0.07 B lyrs.

Plug 50 into a calculator & see what happens by the time you reach z=50. Yeah, you're stacking galaxies right on top of one another before you even get to 13.8 because there's no more space beyond the 13.8 Limit.

You don't get the principles of perspective, do you... Light does the same thing as sound but at a different EM frequency. Pretty well figured out by now...
(BTW, they follow (generally) the golden mean that OS refers to.)
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (24) Apr 29, 2016
I concur. The 13.8 figure has always been debatable but is a "placeholder" for scientists to masticate upon until something better comes along.

True.
The problem with the figure is that astrophysics is dependent on it as a measure for which many other measurements are dependent on.

Good thing math allows for variables.
e.g., they will expect to find stars/galaxies/dust limited only to 13.8 and no further. What do they expect to find then - a wall?

Non, mon frere. They expect nothing of the sort. Remember, 13.8 is just a place marker. If that is what they expected, they'd have no reason to imagine, design and launch the JWT. It's purpose is to move beyond the "place marker"...
obama_socks
2.2 / 5 (21) Apr 29, 2016
However, there is another problem that we must face. Those older ones of long ago (over 13.8 are no longer there (in our own timescale). We will be seeing "a ghost", just as much as all other objects that existed billions of years ago are ghosts of what once was.


What we are able to detect through advanced telescopes are, at the most distant, no longer where they once were...either having been exploded or moved from its former location. Which means that we will be getting an accurate picture of its origins...of something no longer there, maybe not existing.

Guess we'll just have to readjust our timescale.
Your "romanticizing" ghosts...


How would you "adjust" your 24 hour timescale to the "cosmic" timescale? And do you even KNOW the lengths of that cosmic timescale? Do you adjust it to Mars-time? Jupiter-time? Maybe you can learn the timescale of planets in another solar system far away & adjust it to that? The 24 hour clock doesn't apply everywhere.
obama_socks
2.5 / 5 (22) Apr 29, 2016
(cont'd)
@WhydG
Therefore, don't you really mean - predictors of what WILL be?


No. It has all happened already. You can't "predict" the past. What the J.W. will be imaging is history, not the present or the future. A "ghost" image of that section of the Universe that existed long before the purported 13.8 Billion year age of the Universe and that has moved on, one way or another.

It's disturbing b/c our SS might be next to be dragged into a BH with no warning. [/q
We have warning of asteroids and comets as little as 100 ft across. How would we miss a gravity well as large as a black hole that had sufficient pull to drag in an entire solar system??[/q

Has anyone ever seen a Black Hole? I haven't. All you see are the effects the BH has on matter/energy. Outside of the accretion disk there is most likely very little, if any, disturbance to planets/solar systems. It's not like the BH would be right next door to where you live. No warning except for subtle signs.
chileastro
2.8 / 5 (27) Apr 29, 2016

Mike_Massen 3.2 /5 (9) 8 hours ago
Be aware of "obama_socks", just like schizophrenic "Benni",


The voting above that comment looks pretty clearly like they have 2-3 puppets each, and/or that one is the other. Ditto the downvoting on your previous comment.

A science site with no integrity is not a science site. It's a science popularizing site. I'm going to seriously look at starting a new one that was like PO used to be before it was bought, then pimped out.
obama_socks
2.5 / 5 (22) Apr 29, 2016
I concur. The 13.8 figure has always been debatable but is a "placeholder" for scientists to masticate upon until something better comes along.

True.
The problem with the figure is that astrophysics is dependent on it as a measure for which many other measurements are dependent on.

Good thing math allows for variables.
e.g., they will expect to find stars/galaxies/dust limited only to 13.8 and no further. What do they expect to find then - a wall?

Non, mon frere. They expect nothing of the sort. Remember, 13.8 is just a place marker. If that is what they expected, they'd have no reason to imagine, design and launch the JWT. It's purpose is to move beyond the "place marker"...
- WhydG

And why wouldn't they? Do you really think that the Hubble T-scope and all the other existing scopes would be the last generation of such devices, only because they suspected a wall?
BTW, I was only being facetious about the wall. Did you think I was serious?
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.8 / 5 (16) Apr 29, 2016
@dogbert:


torbjorn_b_g_larson,

Earth like planets presume life exists I those planets and has for an extended period. Without life giving us an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere, we would not find earth to be "earth like".

Unless we find life elsewhere, we cannot assign probabilities that human habitable planets exist.

We simply lack sufficient data.


You are moving goalposts. The paper itself doesn't look on the frequency of Earth-like planets according to the idiosyncratic definition by dogbert.

And I was commenting on your claim that the sole case of Earth is insufficient to do statistics on frequency of life/civilizations, which I (and the present paper) shows is erroneous.

We can also tell, statistically, from the short time between Earth becoming habitable at 4.3+ Ga and putative life, either 4.1+ Ga or 3.8+ Ga depending on your criteria, that life emerges easily on habitable planets.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.8 / 5 (16) Apr 29, 2016
@ogg:


Drake "Equation" (which should never be used quantitatively, and lacks any evidential (ie.scientific) basis) assumes the factors are independent while we know with near certainty that they are not.


The only way to use the DE is quantitatively, since it is amodel for estimating frequencies you are interested in.

The factors are chosen to be independent.


tThere's also the comments which (either ignorantly or irrationally) assume that the only possible Probability measures are frequentist


The use of probabilities is because they are useful, especially for objective testing. Bayesian estimates are very useful in making models.

These are tools, not facts in themselves.


For that to occur, we need to define what life is,


Definitions of life have little practical use. We can instead study what life does, as we do in paleontology. As I already mentioned, we can tell that life emerges easily on habitables.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.7 / 5 (17) Apr 29, 2016
@ogg:

It suggests that star systems which are similar to our own may be quite rare.


I have no access, but the "humans are special" type of idea that our system is rare has been punctuated again and again.

There is plenty of systems with more packed planets, our system has the expected number of planets for such systems, and the putative discovery of Planet Nine makes our system perfectly normal. (Neptunes most common.) In fact, the paper on unbiased sampling I linked to earlier has Saturn as more likely a big Neptune, so we don't need PN to be among the most common system structure.

@aap: "Any formula that has one variable that is complete guesswork is uselsess [sic]."

It is meant to be a target for research. As we estimate factors it becomes more and more useful. If we can observe a sample of likely inhabited planets, thought to happen in 10-20 years, it is an informative model for estimating the frequency of "inhabitables".
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.8 / 5 (17) Apr 29, 2016
Clearly someone doesn't understand the hyperbolic (in the differential equation and geometry sense) nature of light cones:

"Yeah, you're stacking galaxies right on top of one another before you even get to 13.8".

Not really, since you are now looking at a time before galaxies existed.

Yes, the early universe was densely packed as it had a much lower volume than today after expansion. The redshift when the CMB appears, that is well before the 400 kyrs needed to get neutral gas that could coalesce into stars. is such that the universe had 1/1000 the current volume. (Easily seen by that the frequency peak of the blackbody radiation then was ~ 4000 K, and today it is ~ 3 K, so the photons have been stretched by a factor 1000 today.)

The hyperbolic nature of the light cones show up in that they expand when you go forward in time, and the influence from them expands when you go back. I.e. older and older parts of the universe sends light to you.

[tbcdt ]
Benni
2.6 / 5 (27) Apr 29, 2016
They expect nothing of the sort. Remember, 13.8 is just a place marker. If that is what they expected, they'd have no reason to imagine, design and launch the JWT. It's purpose is to move beyond the "place marker".


Oh you bet it is a "placeholder", but do you even know how it is used to calculate the Redshift Curves for which I put up the table that you downvoted with a 1 Star? The fact of the matter is, you have no comprehension of the mathematical derivation behind the Integral (that's Calculus) via which all Redshift Calculations are made.

Most of the online Calculators for Redshift are based on a Limit within the Integral of between 13.6 & 13.7 B lyrs. These Calculators stop working when you enter more than about z=20 Redshift.

Go ahead, use some of your artist talent & play around with Ned's & see what you get, then ask yourself the next obvious question: Why does the Calculator stop working at a certain value of z (redshift)?
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.8 / 5 (16) Apr 29, 2016
[ctd]

This happens in all directions obviously. It only appears odd when you try to compare relativistic local now with some sort of global "now" that relativity says is meaningless. The topology involved has therefore been explored for graphic effect by Escher. [ ]http://euler.slu.edu/escher/index.php/Hyperbolic_Geometry
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (21) Apr 29, 2016

Oh you bet it is a "placeholder", but do you even know how it is used to calculate the Redshift Curves for which I put up the table that you downvoted with a 1 Star?

Nope. And neither do you. As for stars, commenters either get a 5 or nothing from me.
The fact of the matter is, you have no comprehension of the mathematical derivation behind the Integral (that's Calculus) via which all Redshift Calculations are made.

And that accusation get's you - what?
Most of the online Calculators for Redshift are based on a Limit within the Integral of between 13.6 & 13.7 B lyrs. These Calculators stop working when you enter more than about z=20 Redshift.

Most, but not all, eh?

Go ahead, use some of your artist talent & play around with Ned's & see what you get, then ask yourself the next obvious question: Why does the Calculator stop working at a certain value of z (redshift)?

Easy Answer? Relativity. Tuffer answer - lack of more refined calculations...
Benni
2.6 / 5 (27) Apr 29, 2016
A science site with no integrity is not a science site. It's a science popularizing site. I'm going to seriously look at starting a new one that was like PO used to be before it was bought, then pimped out.


Let's aptly reword this: "A science site with no math content is not a science site. It's a pop-sci site for neophytes who should be on Facebook rather than PO. On FB they could enjoy the company of like minded foul mouthed name calling aficionados with whom they would have more in common.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (19) Apr 29, 2016
Guess we'll just have to readjust our timescale.


How would you "adjust" your 24 hour timescale to the "cosmic" timescale?

By seeing time as a scalable construction.
And do you even KNOW the lengths of that cosmic timescale?

Nope. No one does. Hence, the reason for "place markers" and better observations (JWT).
The 24 hour clock doesn't apply everywhere.

The "24 hour" part doesn't. "Clock" does...

Benni
2.5 / 5 (26) Apr 29, 2016
Most, but not all, eh?


Well then Mr snarky Metal Bending Artist, go ahead, use some of your bending artist talent & bend your versions of some Redshift table into the Integral & show us what you think Redshift Calculations should display, then ask yourself the next obvious question: At what values of Redshift do I stop?

Easy Answer? Relativity. Tuffer answer - lack of more refined calculations
.......total gibberish, you don't even know what you said, so how would you expect anyone else, except for maybe chileastro, to make sense of this?

Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (21) Apr 29, 2016
A science site with no integrity is not a science site. It's a science popularizing site. I'm going to seriously look at starting a new one that was like PO used to be before it was bought, then pimped out.


Let's aptly reword this: "A science site with no math content is not a science site. It's a pop-sci site for neophytes who should be on Facebook rather than PO. On FB they could enjoy the company of like minded foul mouthed name calling aficionados with whom they would have more in common.

Interesting... your presence here can be interpreted as to you being one of those "neophytes", then...?
And talk about snarky.... LOL
Benni
2.8 / 5 (25) Apr 29, 2016
Interesting... your presence here can be interpreted as to you being one of those "neophytes", then...?
And talk about snarky.... LOL


.........and this explains why you are here?

For sure you're not here positing gibberish postings in the Commentary because you think you have such a vast store of knowledge about science you just can't wait to share with others.

You're just here for the ARGUMENT, not the SOLUTION. The SOLUTION part of Science is much too difficult for the mathless world of Art in which you live, so what you come here to do is engage in the ARGUMENT phase most commonly found on the social networking sites.

I understand that you want to socialize somewhere WG, but you can't learn Science by some process of human based osmosis by simply mingling & rubbing elbows with people who professionally engage in the practices of math based Science, that can only be done in a real classroom where you take tests & get final grades.
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (26) Apr 29, 2016
Benni Fails with irony (again)
Let's aptly reword this: "A science site with no math content is not a science site. It's a pop-sci site for neophytes who should be on Facebook rather than PO.
Really, so you're here on phys.org claiming others can't recognize differential equations (DE) implying you can & add more claim you're an Electrical/Nuclear Engineer & professional to boot, is that it - do you see huge contradiction & irony ?

NB. Everytime I challenge re DE , Eg radiative transfer you either refuse to look at my links or just ignore it, run away & repeat mindless ego based claims again, is that sane ?

Claiming people can't do or what won't happen is not how an Engineer writes they're happy to check links to confirm/refute claims, you do neither :/

So, since you have nil math (well except the deflection math re GR) which I urged you learn from L.Susskind's Stanford lecture, what do you have Benni ?

Why no Calculus at all, no DE's at all Benni ?
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (26) Apr 29, 2016
Benni with hypocrisy
You're just here for the ARGUMENT, not the SOLUTION
Eh !! You criticise whilst claiming degrees but, offer NIL solution !

Benni claims
The SOLUTION part of Science is much too difficult for the mathless world of Art in which you live..
So why is all DE & other math missing from your posts, you only bark criticism at people, are you sane ?

Benni claims
... professionally engage in the practices of math based Science, that can only be done in a real classroom ...
Right, so prove your Electrical/Nuclear degrees & your professional status - why do you refuse ?

And tell us just WHY you can't appreciate lab experience in Electrical re unknown reactances and straightforward procedure to evaluate them ?

ie. This is in reference to your claim dark matter is invisible fairy dust yet wouldn't see any student engineer saying that in a lab re motor reactances & math, huge contradiction,

You don't & have never written like an Engineer !
Eddy Courant
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 29, 2016
And they all ended with a Trump presidency.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (20) Apr 29, 2016
.........and this explains why you are here?

For sure you're not here positing gibberish postings in the Commentary because you think you have such a vast store of knowledge about science you just can't wait to share with others.

My knowledge is a pittance to that of some others on here. I hope to gain from their input. You are not on that list.
You're just here for the ARGUMENT, not the SOLUTION.

Why is it I'm never the one arguing?
..., but you can't learn Science by some process of human based osmosis by simply mingling & rubbing elbows with people who professionally engage in the practices of math based Science...

LOL. Not socializing. I'm LISTENING. You should try it - you might learn something...:-)
These articles are for EVERYONE, not just scientists. You just might be a "math based science" guy , but you definitely ignore the totality of "science" when you type.
Benni
2.8 / 5 (26) Apr 29, 2016
LOL. Not socializing. I'm LISTENING. You should try it - you might learn something...:-)
These articles are for EVERYONE, not just scientists. You just might be a "math based science" guy , but you definitely ignore the totality of "science" when you type.


........and you continue prattling on with ARGUMENTS totally absent of Science based content.

You've been challenged by this Scientist/Engineer to put up your data in comparison to the Redshift Curve Table of data I put up, but you refuse to do it, and so does your aficionado (Muttering M), instead all the two of you do is put up one argumentative RANT after another. Cease it with the RANTS, talk about Science, let's see your Redshift Data Table & we'll just compare yours & MM's to the one I posted above.
viko_mx
1.8 / 5 (16) Apr 29, 2016
No. We are not alone. We are only isolated on Earth because of sin.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (19) Apr 29, 2016
........and you continue prattling on with ARGUMENTS totally absent of Science based content.

Who's arguing?
You've been challenged by this Scientist/Engineer to put up your data in comparison to the Redshift Curve Table of data I put up, but you refuse to do it, and so does your aficionado (Muttering M),

It's a RDT list that you got from the internet. I wasn't even arguing with it. Good enough for me. Not for you, apparently.
instead all the two of you do is put up one argumentative RANT after another. Cease it with the RANTS, talk about Science, let's see your Redshift Data Table & we'll just compare yours & MM's to the one I posted above.

Look who's ranting now...:-)
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (19) Apr 29, 2016
No. We are not alone. We are only isolated on Earth because of sin.

Wow, Viko... You sound like my grandmother...
You have any scientific data for that (per Benni's rant)?

BTW, Benni...
Why aren't you hard at work at that Professional, Math Based Science" job, instead of trying to pick fights on a "social network" blog?
viko_mx
1.5 / 5 (15) Apr 29, 2016
I do not follow fashion trends. These are invented for people without own taste and opinion.
The eternal things are not subject to fashion that follows the human vanity.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (20) Apr 29, 2016
I do not follow fashion trends. These are invented for people without own taste and opinion.
The eternal things are not subject to fashion that follows the human vanity.

Some things ya just know, eh?
obama_socks
2.3 / 5 (19) Apr 29, 2016
And they all ended with a Trump presidency.
- Eddy Courant

Let us hope so. Trump is promising to make America great again. Cruz would do just as well, except for the immigration issue, and he is too vulnerable. He has a nice, young family who will be picked apart in their every waking hour - by the media and Liberal/Progressives/Socialsts/Marxists and, why yes, the Communist Part of the USA. Ted should have waited until his daughters have graduated High School to run for POTUS. Maybe the girls will become STEM students while maintaining their Catholic upbringing.
:)
Benni
2.8 / 5 (24) Apr 29, 2016
BTW, Benni...
Why aren't you hard at work at that Professional, Math Based Science" job, instead of trying to pick fights on a "social network" blog?


.........perfect example of what I mean about your snarky attitude. The only science content to it was your snarky derisive reference to my "job" & associated skills for posting Commentary on a type of website that is suitable for such content.

WG, seriously, based on your continuing ranting snarky behavior, it is obvious you are unable to converse with science professionals because that is not where your deepest interests lie. Your deepest interests lie in the professional fields of your artistic talents, at such a site you would find greater social compatibility in mutually shared interests among professionals with whom you can have cogent rapport........at least give it a try, it might be easier than you think, but E=mc² is not for you.
OdinsAcolyte
4 / 5 (9) Apr 29, 2016
I like it.

By the way empirical equations are used when the complexities of reality exceed the abilities of a human to calculate. They are used in most branches of science and are guidelines that produce amazingly accurate reflections of what happens in our physical world. We use them because they work not because we understand why they work. Ask any engineer...
You only have to know EVERYTHING to be completely accurate.
There are none of those walking on two legs.
obama_socks
2.5 / 5 (19) Apr 29, 2016
Guess we'll just have to readjust our timescale.


How would you "adjust" your 24 hour timescale to the "cosmic" timescale?

By seeing time as a scalable construction.
And do you even KNOW the lengths of that cosmic timescale?

Nope. No one does. Hence, the reason for "place markers" and better observations (JWT).
The 24 hour clock doesn't apply everywhere.

The "24 hour" part doesn't. "Clock" does...

- WhydG

1) TIME itself is not scaleable. It just flows on. No stopping, pausing or reversing. Only way to measure "familiar" Time is with clocks to measure ONLY distances & events, but you're not really measuring Time itself. Space/time is misnamed. Should have been Space/Timing of events/distance.


(cont'd)
obama_socks
2.6 / 5 (20) Apr 29, 2016
(cont'd)
2) Cosmic timescale cannot be quantified even by clocks, since there are too many variables wrt each occurrence of objects consisting of matter/energy. It is only possible to measure timescale of each INDIVIDUAL object, e.g. planets, stars IF rotation/orbit is known. Even then, it would be necessary to measure by using our familiar 24 hour clock as is done now. Without that basis, each planet man sets foot on that has a different timescale (hour, day/night, month, year) could cause confusion and would make it necessary to have a centralized timekeeper somewhere that can keep track of ALL planetary objects & their timescales.

3) Timescale of the Cosmos itself makes it virtually impossible to fix a particular age. That is why the 13.8 Billion year time of Birth, even as a "placeholder" is meaningless and beyond questionable. It should not be taught to children as it only confuses them. It is an unknown factor for which the J.W. may, or may not have an answer.
obama_socks
2.4 / 5 (20) Apr 29, 2016
No. We are not alone. We are only isolated on Earth because of sin.

Wow, Viko... You sound like my grandmother...
You have any scientific data for that (per Benni's rant)?
- WhydG

Are you now joining with Viko to introduce religion into this thread?
Isolation due to committing sin is something that has been discussed in other threads in Physorg. The premise is that homo sapiens has been found by other intelligent life forms elsewhere in the galaxy to be hostile, vengeful, mean, paranoid, psychopathic, antisocial, murderous, etc. and even demonic in nature. I would say that this estimation is spot on.
Humans are ripe for picking by Satan, (even if you don't believe in that entity, he believes in YOU) to take over and control humanity. There are many who have walked right up and (voluntarily) chose to become his servant/acolyte. They don't believe in consequences wrt THEIR CHOICE.

That being said, you don't have to read what Viko says, you know.
Benni
2.8 / 5 (25) Apr 29, 2016
@o_s, it is an excellent point you make about the JWT may or may not have an answer. The problem is the conclusion Einstein made in GRT, Part 3 Considerations on the Universe as a Whole- The Structure of Space as I'm quoting him following:

"If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection 1) between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it."....... Albert Einstein

cont'd.......

Benni
2.8 / 5 (25) Apr 29, 2016
If the JWT's infrared cameras discover mature galaxies beyond z=11 at a consistent density, the entire 13.8 number is history. So far this is what the evidence is showing, that we have never seen the edge of the observable Universe, and if the JWT shows evidence of consistent density of material within it that Einstein discusses as I quoted above in the previous post, then the Primordial Gas Cloud theory is kaput along with a whole litany of other hypotheses.

blazmotronic
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 29, 2016
To the answer to some of these questions i suggest you
watch the Privileged Planet on the tube!
obama_socks
2.4 / 5 (20) Apr 29, 2016
@Benni
Say you have a huge kettle of simmering water (space) and add your seasonings (dust clouds, EM, even filaments), add your meats (stars, planetary nebulae), your veggies (asteroids, comets, BH) and allow them to continue cooking slowly for 13.8 Billion years or more. When done, you find that you have too much solids and not enough liquids in the pot, so you empty everything into an even bigger kettle and add more liquid (space). You can't add more solids or you will have the same problem as before. The solids become soggy where some fall apart (energy) and the rest remain solid (matter). They are all floating in this nice broth, but the broth (space) tends to evaporate and needs to be replenished. So you add more liquid (space) to the kettle. The veggies & meat go off to one corner of the kettle so that the biggest area is all or mostly liquid (space).

This is what I think has happened in the Cosmos. The J.W. will find vast empty space where there is nothing but...space.
obama_socks
2.3 / 5 (19) Apr 29, 2016
What I'm saying is that matter/energy are finite, but space is not. And there are no boundaries. Space is infinite and continues on for eternity. Matter/energy takes on one form or the other and cannot be destroyed, of course. But there isn't any more of it being made. Black Holes are huge recycling bins and are responsible for digesting the old and spewing out the well-digested product far from itself.
What J.W.T. will show us is that most, if not all of the matter/energy have moved away from their original locations IN THE BEGINNING, and formed clusters of stars and galaxies because of the process of matter turning into energy/energy transmutation into matter. The process is continuous. It will happen to our solar system also, which is why we have to make haste in finding new worlds to populate.

"To stand in a new world. To look beyond this to the next one.."
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (18) Apr 29, 2016
.........perfect example of what I mean about your snarky attitude. The only science content to it was your snarky derisive reference to my "job" & associated skills for posting Commentary on a type of website that is suitable for such content.

Which you stated - isn't.
WG, seriously, based on your continuing ranting snarky behavior, it is obvious you are unable to converse with science professionals because that is not where your deepest interests lie.

I seem to have been doing a fairly decent job of conversing , if you'd ask any real scientist on here. But then, you have no respect for them, either...
Your deepest interests lie in the professional fields of your artistic talents.

Was that -a compliment?!?
(cont)
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (18) Apr 29, 2016
(cont)
at such a site you would find greater social compatibility in mutually shared interests among professionals with whom you can have cogent rapport........at least give it a try, it might be easier than you think, but E=mc² is not for you.

Nahh, there are too many Professional Employed Artist effete elitists who act and sound just like you, on those sites...
I think I'll just hang here with actual scientists who know I get the basic mechanic without the specialized math training. BTW - you're not on that list - again.
If you'd just learn to listen properly, without throwing in your egotistical "I'm an expert on just about everything and therefore I'm right" attitude, why - we might even get along... Get over yourself. Sound like you did for a couple of comments over in another thread (I 5ed you for at least 2 of them, if you didn't notice) - a real person.
Okay Sorry to disappoint the rest of you, but that was about the "rantiest this "old codger" gets.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (23) Apr 29, 2016
What I'm saying is that matter/energy are finite


but space is not. And there are no boundaries. Space is infinite and continues on for eternity


Putting both of your above two points together, you agree with Einstein when he stated that: "The universe is a stellar island within an infinite expanse of Space".

The problem so many studying cosmology have with understanding what Einstein stated is they confuse the term SPACE & the term UNIVERSE as synonymous with one another, not realizing Einstein makes a sharp distinction in his use of the two words.

Matter/energy takes on one form or the other and cannot be destroyed, of course. But there isn't any more of it being made.
Yep

Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (18) Apr 29, 2016
ow, Viko... You sound like my grandmother...
You have any scientific data for that (per Benni's rant)?
- WhydG
Are you now joining with Viko to introduce religion into this thread?

Think you know the answer to that one...:-) (or you have not yet mastered satire)
Isolation due to committing sin is something that has been discussed in other threads in Physorg.

Not scientifically. The only "sin" committed was some evolutionary change that permitted us to rationally question that which appears fixed in stone around us.
Some call it intelligence, but I call it the "Yeah, but..." Syndrome...

(cont)
Benni
2.7 / 5 (23) Apr 29, 2016
WG.........go back & reread those last several of your posts...........nothing but windy & whiny petulance, not a bit of Science content within a single one of them.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (18) Apr 29, 2016
The premise is that homo sapiens has been found by other intelligent life forms elsewhere in the galaxy to be hostile, vengeful, mean, paranoid, psychopathic, antisocial, murderous, etc. and even demonic in nature. I would say that this estimation is spot on.

Only in Sci-Fi dramas...
Humans are ripe for picking by Satan, (even if you don't believe in that entity, he believes in YOU) to take over and control humanity. There are many who have walked right up and (voluntarily) chose to become his servant/acolyte. They don't believe in consequences wrt THEIR CHOICE.

Yeah, but... "Free will" is the ability to question. Questions are not always without risk.

That being said, you don't have to read what Viko says, you know.

Can't help it - it's like a bad car accident on the side of the road...
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (18) Apr 29, 2016
WG.........go back & reread those last several of your posts...........nothing but windy & whiny petulance, not a bit of Science content within a single one of them.

LOL.Yeah, but... They're the truth...:-)
Now. To your redshift list... take a look at the general ratio of the difference in LY at each Z point. Generally golden mean. Wouldn' that infer, given a constant of C, the distance from the first Z point to the 2nd Z point is in actuality the same as from here to the 1st Z point? To continue, would that mean that space is populate by matter at roughly the same density, would "appear" denser? And so on down the line... Seems, somehow, that the interpretive correlation of "time" as a measure of distance has disconnected, doesn't it...?
Unless, of course, that was accounted for in the setting of Z points...
obama_socks
2.3 / 5 (18) Apr 29, 2016
What I'm saying is that matter/energy are finite


but space is not. And there are no boundaries. Space is infinite and continues on for eternity


Putting both of your above two points together, you agree with Einstein when he stated that: "The universe is a stellar island within an infinite expanse of Space".

The problem so many studying cosmology have with understanding what Einstein stated is they confuse the term SPACE & the term UNIVERSE as synonymous with one another, not realizing Einstein makes a sharp distinction in his use of the two words.

Matter/energy takes on one form or the other and cannot be destroyed, of course. But there isn't any more of it being made.
Yep

- Benni
How else could it be? The Universe is the "container" for want of a better word, while Space is expansive and is the medium in which everything floats in. I'll put it another way. The Universe is the huge kettle, while space is the broth within the kettle
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (18) Apr 29, 2016
Putting both of your above two points together, you agree with Einstein when he stated that: "The universe is a stellar island within an infinite expanse of Space".

You are summarizing incorrectly. This is what he actually said;
. If we ponder over the question as to how the universe, considered as a whole, is to be regarded, the first answer that suggests itself to us is surely this: As regards space (and time) the universe is infinite. There are stars everywhere, so that the density of matter, although very variable in detail, is nevertheless on the average everywhere the same. In other words: However far we might travel through space, we should find everywhere in attenuated swarm of fixed stars of approximately the same kind and density.
Increasing density of matter is more Newtonian in construction.
obama_socks
2.3 / 5 (18) Apr 29, 2016
ow, Viko... You sound like my grandmother...
You have any scientific data for that (per Benni's rant)?
- WhydG
Are you now joining with Viko to introduce religion into this thread?

Think you know the answer to that one...:-) (or you have not yet mastered satire)
Isolation due to committing sin is something that has been discussed in other threads in Physorg.

Not scientifically. The only "sin" committed was some evolutionary change that permitted us to rationally question that which appears fixed(...).
Some call it intelligence, but I call it the "Yeah, but..." Syndrome...

(cont)
- WhydG
The problem with satire in a science site...is that it is a science site. I like my science straight with no chaser. :)
It's the importance of understanding reality that we live in, and knowing how to tell the difference between that and any alternative reality. Both are real to the person, but it's only that person who should understand the difference.
obama_socks
2.1 / 5 (18) Apr 29, 2016
And then there is the "science of religion" where religion and its predecessor, Philosopy were both the progenitors of the sciences. There are those who would disagree on the importance of both religion AND Philosophy...but it was/is the questioning and seeking answers, of which religion and Philosophical ideas were predisposed to searching for the right answers, through thought and experience.
obama_socks
2.3 / 5 (19) Apr 29, 2016
Putting both of your above two points together, you agree with Einstein when he stated that: "The universe is a stellar island within an infinite expanse of Space".

You are summarizing incorrectly. This is what he actually said;
. If we ponder over the question as to how the universe, considered as a whole, is to be regarded, the first answer that suggests itself to us is surely this: As regards space (and time) the universe is infinite. There are stars everywhere, so that the density of matter, although very variable in detail, is nevertheless on the average everywhere the same. In other words: However far we might travel through space, we should find everywhere in attenuated swarm of fixed stars of approximately the same kind and density.
Increasing density of matter is more Newtonian in construction.
- Why'd
I disagree with the time element within an equation, in and of itself, as explained previously. It isn't Time, but measuring of events or distance
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (19) Apr 29, 2016
- WhydG
The problem with satire in a science site...is that it is a science site.

No. It's an "as interpreted by journalists" science article aggregation site.
I like my science straight with no chaser. :)

Like good whiskey, I would hope. Unfortunately, this is not the site for that.
It's the importance of understanding reality that we live in, and knowing how to tell the difference between that and any alternative reality. Both are real to the person, but it's only that person who should understand the difference.

And if they don't?
And... Why don't you want to see Viko's "straight, no chaser" science for his statement?
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (19) Apr 29, 2016
- Why'd
I disagree with the time element within an equation, in and of itself, as explained previously. It isn't Time, but measuring of events or distance

As a "place-mark" method of observing uniformly measured sequential reference frames, it's handy to have around. It allows for "pattern" recognition of an "event" in order to compare to other patterns/events. And thusly reveal further "patterns" to recognize...
Enthusiastic Fool
4.4 / 5 (20) Apr 30, 2016
Re: obama
The solids become soggy where some fall apart (energy) and the rest remain solid (matter).


I think you may have the stove turned up a bit high if your solids are becoming energy but I'm no cook. Take this comment with a grain of salt...to taste.

Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (25) Apr 30, 2016
obama_socks claim
.. importance of understanding reality that we live in, and knowing how to tell the difference between that and any alternative reality
But, fails dismally to understand how to communicate "facts" re claims of "verifiable evidences" & thus misleads wasting everyone's time yet obama_socks claims to "take responsibility" which he still *Fails* to do :-(

Why's that obama_socks, you appear as epitome of banal religious like claim :/

Nothing substantive, nothing connected to reality, nil foundation, nil Physics !

obama_socks claims
Both are real to the person, but it's only that person who should understand the difference
Ah cool, so tell this to the multitudes in an insane asylum who imagine a god talks to them at the drop of a hat or appears to them in a dream just as David claimed in the bible ?

obama_socks, you're perfect example of dumbest claim, like ALL religions, when requested verification you run away or stay mute & idle !
Mike_Massen
3.1 / 5 (27) Apr 30, 2016
obama_socks betrays his innermost disdain for religious claims (despite lauding jesus who failed to write) with
...it was/is the questioning and seeking answers, of which religion and Philosophical ideas were predisposed to searching for the right answers, through thought and experience.
But, not by any (personal) god talking to moses or as claimed that jesus was the only son of an omnipotent god that proved to be impotent - do you know that key difference ?

So taking your 'musing' seriously you now say that religion has nil basis in that it wasn't a god but humans exercising 'thought' which was basis for Science, is that correct ?

Then why the heck didn't the basis of Science continue unabashed from ancient Greek times through to the Renaissance, as religion and "faith" got in the way dissuading people from "searching" as those who pushed the bible claimed it had all the answers ?

So why do children die of cancer & genetic conditions regardless of jesus ?
LifeBasedLogic
Apr 30, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Apr 30, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Apr 30, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
LifeBasedLogic
Apr 30, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (24) Apr 30, 2016
LifeBasedLogic (LBL) says
Poor choice of words with the labels. Yet, the truth comes through
What "truth" you alluding to precisely & how would you articulate so much better ?

LBL claims
People are test for integrity, honesty, and a firm grounding in reality with the importance of life there
How are they any sort of test ?
What grounding, you do mean Physics & irrefutable evidence or 'something' else - what ?

LBL says
..your statements disagreed with the truth that life is most important in life. Take a knee
What the heck does this even mean ?

LBL why do you seem to have huge problems on semantics/language & means to ground a theory in basic Science, is english not your first language :-( ?

LBL have you consulted an English lyricist, perhaps a sonnet is more your line of expression ?

Your writings are grammatically garbled, have nil provenance & nil substance in any practical sense :-(

DavidW/LBL why not frame details as a start please ?
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.4 / 5 (14) Apr 30, 2016
@LBL; "'information stated for the specific purpose of harming life'","lied", " life is most important in life."

?

How is geometry of physics harming life?

How "lied"?

What does "life is most important in life" even mean, since it is an obvious fact, try "0 is the most important in 0", which can be interpreted as. "0 = 0".

Since you seen to imply I entertain such activities, against the evidence seen in the threads that I don't lie or harm, I think we can stop there. You may want to seek medical assistance for your outrageous and abnormal behavior.
LifeBasedLogic
Apr 30, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (25) Apr 30, 2016
LBL why do you seem to have huge problems on semantics/language & means to ground a theory in basic Science, is english not your first language :-( ?


........then there's the script of your own shorthand gibberish testifying to your own inability to communicate using the forms of mathematical script professionals exchange among themselves as the language of Science.........you & all of the rest of the Rant Brigade living here who always have so much derisive petulance for others, who by the foul mouthed content of your language always manage to completely dissociate yourselves from the goals of this website, the promotion of Science.............as usual, there was no science content to your post, just the usual personal stuff. WG will give you a 5 Star.
Nanook
3.2 / 5 (13) Apr 30, 2016
One variable not taken into account in the Drake Equation is the threshold at which we consider a civilization advanced. I think it is implied that our level of technology is that threshold but quite probably there are civilizations that would not even consider us intelligent, much less technologically advanced.
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (13) Apr 30, 2016
I concur. The 13.8 figure has always been debatable but is a "placeholder" for scientists to masticate upon until something better comes along.

True.
Hmmm, don't think I agree here. There are many good reasons to expect that the age of the universe is 13.8 billion years; they are the visible mass density (and that includes dark matter; we can see its effect on visible matter), the energy density (which we get from the change in the rate of expansion over time), the cosmological constant (which we get from the rate of acceleration since the universe was about half as old as it is now), and the COBE, WMAP, and Planck measurements of the CMB. There are also the age of the oldest white dwarf stars, the earliest deviations from the main sequence of the lowest mass stars, and, of course, the Hubble parameter. Altogether none of these set a lower limit, and several of them give a pretty precise estimate.

[contd]
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (17) Apr 30, 2016
........then there's the script of your own shorthand gibberish testifying to your own inability to communicate using the forms of mathematical script professionals exchange among themselves as the language of Science.........you & all of the rest of the Rant Brigade living here who always have so much derisive petulance for others, who by the foul mouthed content of your language always manage to completely dissociate yourselves from the goals of this website, the promotion of Science.............as usual, there was no science content to your post, just the usual personal stuff. WG will give you a 5 Star.

Maybe I will, maybe I won't.
But I will give you a 5 - if you can show me the science in that comment...
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (12) Apr 30, 2016
The problem with the figure is that astrophysics is dependent on it as a measure for which many other measurements are dependent on.
Good thing math allows for variables.
This claim, that measurements in astrophysics are dependent upon the age of the universe, is risible. In fact, the estimate of the age of the universe is dependent upon many different measurements, and is consilient: that is, several different estimates come out the same within the limits of measurement. Not your fault, Whyde; you just quoted it.

[contd]
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (12) Apr 30, 2016
they will expect to find stars/galaxies/dust limited only to 13.8 and no further. What do they expect to find then - a wall?
Non, mon frere. They expect nothing of the sort. Remember, 13.8 is just a place marker. If that is what they expected, they'd have no reason to imagine, design and launch the JWT. It's purpose is to move beyond the "place marker"...
Actually, they expect to find darkness beyond that. The universe was opaque until reionization started-- which was well after the first stars and galaxies-- and turned it transparent. Reionization lasted from about 150 million to about 800 million years after the Big Bang. It progressed over time, so we can see some galaxies from during the period; the current record is held by one about halfway through it.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (20) Apr 30, 2016
The problem with the figure is that astrophysics is dependent on it as a measure for which many other measurements are dependent on.
Good thing math allows for variables.
This claim, that measurements in astrophysics are dependent upon the age of the universe, is risible. In fact, the estimate of the age of the universe is dependent upon many different measurements, and is consilient: that is, several different estimates come out the same within the limits of measurement. Not your fault, Whyde; you just quoted it.

DS,
Completely understand that age is derived FROM measurements, not measurements from age. But I do ponder if our "arc" of observation is sufficiently comprehensive enough to calculate it so exactly... Or are we missing just ONE simple little thing...
Makes me go - hmmm....;-)
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (13) May 01, 2016
When you have the CMB and the oldest galaxies we can see and the Hubble constant and cosmological constant all agreeing, that's a pretty strong case.
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (19) May 01, 2016
When you have the CMB and the oldest galaxies we can see and the Hubble constant and cosmological constant all agreeing, that's a pretty strong case.

Indeed. But it still seems so... Newtonian (read - antiquated) in retrospection...
I like Einsteins view better...
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (13) May 01, 2016
Wow, I don't think any of those things was even dreamed of until well after GRT came in. And we're still investigating three of them very actively and the fourth fairly actively even today.

Planck is still collecting data that will take years to analyze right now on the CMB; the JWST isn't even up yet to show us the farthest oldest galaxies we will ever be able to see; the JWST will give us, finally, really good figures on the Hubble constant (the Hubble did most of the heavy lifting, but the JWST will really nail it down), and both theoretical and observational research into the cosmological constant are hot topics in cosmology right now.

The really big realizations have all come since the 1990s: the supernova data, the CMB research, and most of the Hubble observations.

We have very different views of this, I think, @Whyde.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.4 / 5 (15) May 01, 2016
torbjorn_b_g_larsson

You have called people here names, which is lying.


No, I have classified people according to their behavior. Obviously that isn't lying (but the person may fake a behavior). The reason I have done that is that unfortunately not everyone that comments are doing so in good faith, accepting science and commenting on it as it is. It is a service to bystanders, who may not see the lies, unwarranted claims, distortions, et cetera.

And it keeps us other sane, who is wading through some serious trash on these pages from time to time. Your comments here is an example.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.7 / 5 (13) May 01, 2016
One variable not taken into account in the Drake Equation is the threshold at which we consider a civilization advanced. I think it is implied that our level of technology is that threshold but quite probably there are civilizations that would not even consider us intelligent, much less technologically advanced.


The (sometimes unstated) rationale is that we are among the first generations that can communicate with other systems (by radio, laser, et cetera).
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.7 / 5 (13) May 01, 2016
Wow, I don't think any of those things was even dreamed of until well after GRT came in. And we're still investigating three of them very actively and the fourth fairly actively even today.


I'll add thge perspective that our current cosmology is the first theory of the universe that is consistent, since it predicts the observed age. Earlier cosmologies admitted any value of age in principle, and measurements differed with a factor 2 [!]. Now the age is down to ~ 0.1 % precision, a factor 100 improvement.

And there is no way the age could be anything else than 14 billion years, unless our modern cosmology with its many consistent observations is wrong. It may be incomplete (since GR is, say), but it can't (is too unlikely to) be wrong.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (24) May 01, 2016
Galaxy GN-z11 z=11.09 13.4 B lyrs

The number of stars in the newborn GN-z11 is growing fast, it is forming stars at a rate about 20 times greater than the Milky Way does today. This high rate of star formation makes the remote galaxy bright enough for Hubble to see & perform detailed observations. Amazing (?) that a galaxy so massive existed only 200 million to 300 million years after the very first stars started to form. Producing stars at such a huge rate forming a galaxy that is a billion solar masses. The discovery of GN-z11 was a great surprise as earlier observations always suggested that such bright galaxies should not exist so early in the universe, even now another observation is looking at another galaxy possibly at z=11.9.

Cont'd......
Benni
2.7 / 5 (24) May 01, 2016
.......cont'd:

The results from the UDF 2012 campaign suggest there will be many undiscovered galaxies even deeper in space waiting to be revealed by the forthcoming James Webb Space Telescope, which will be launched in 2018. The James Webb Space Telescope is expected to extend this back to a z of approximately 15, 275 million years after the Big Bang, and possibly beyond. The very first stars may have formed between redshifts 30 and 15.

z= 1.....7.7 B lyrs
z=2......10.3 B lyrs
z=3......11.5 B lyrs
z=4......12.1 B lyrs
z=5......12.5 B lyrs
z=6......12.7 B lyrs
z=7......12.9 B lyrs
z=8.......13.01 B lyrs
z=9.......13.11 B lyrs
z=10.....13.18 B lyrs
z=11…..13.36 B lyrs
z=12…..13.40 B lyrs
z=13…..13.44 B lyrs
z=14…..13.48 B lyrs
z=15…...13.51 B lyrs
z=16……13.53 B lyrs
Benni
2.7 / 5 (23) May 01, 2016
......Cont'd

February 2015 data was released by the Planck mission, according to which the age of the universe is 13.799 ± 0.021 billion years old. I used Ned's calculator for the above redshift table & his limit in the Integral is 13.72 B Lyrs, so there will be small variances than if he were up to date with the Planck mission.
The Cosmic Microwave Background period ends at 380,000 years after the BB upon which time Neutral Hydrogen forms extending to the point where the age of the modern (so-called) universe begins at 13.8 B lyrs. Notice cosmology is now redefining the point in time where the 13.8 is measured from, it is not from the BB but from the end of the period of Neutral Hydrogen Formation, this is significant in that this redefining excludes CMB & NH periods of formation from the 13.8 period, now they need to figure out how to deal with GN-z11 at 13.4 B lyrs.

Cont'd.......
Benni
2.7 / 5 (23) May 01, 2016
......Cont'd from above:

With GN-z11 at 13.4 B lyrs sitting well inside the the NH period & right on the cusp of the CMB is a big problem, such galaxies were adamantly predicted not to be there. I guess galaxies being inanimate fixtures have yet to discern the timeline message sent from Earth; or maybe it simply hasn't yet had time to arrive. Maybe someone has an FTL Warp drive tucked away in some closet in their bedroom that can be sent out?

Scotty, where are you when Cosmology really needs you?
obama_socks
2.3 / 5 (19) May 01, 2016
The Universe has existed, along with all its unseen components for much more than the token 13.8 billion years - and in many forms and levels. Many other civilizations have arisen & perished long before man


..........and just you wait, within a few months ...

So you have no evidence and the statement that you and o_pervert agree on,
is a so far baseless conjecture.
Had you said upfront that you are guessing without(..).
- Pissypants1
The conclusions that astrophysicists have arrived at through math models are still purely conjecture, similar to Electric Universe models. Even BH may not even BE an attractive object for what has now become familiar fantasy, but only a cosmic "drainpipe" in which matter/energy are drawn into. There is much in the Standard Model that is still w/o solid evidence, using only "placeholders" to provide traction for them. Invisibility is not evidence, & effects are still inconclusive w/o further investigation.
(cont'd)
obama_socks
2.3 / 5 (19) May 01, 2016
(cont'd)
"So you have no evidence and the statement that you and o_pervert agree on,
is a so far baseless conjecture.
Had you said upfront that you are guessing without any evidence that would have been ok."
- Pissypants1

Where is YOUR evidence for your claim that MY statements (and Benni's) are only baseless conjecture? Am I required by you to collate my evidence and present it to you for your review as though you are some sort of authority figure on the subject? Since when did YOU become the Physorg doorman? Are you selling tickets to this forum?
Benni states that the JWT will provide the clearcut evidence that the Universe is far older than 13.8 Billion years and you're having a COW over THAT? If you do, then will you be unable to accept that the Universe's age IS way over 13.8B as both Benni & I had expounded on? Perhaps your life (and the lives of others in your Coven) will never be the same since you seem to prefer a finite Universe to fit Einstein's GR.. w/o evidenc

Benni
2.5 / 5 (26) May 01, 2016
@ o_s..the conundrum the 13.8 crowd is caught up in is the silly math trap they've created for themselves versus well founded evidence that the 13.8 can't possibly be correct.

For decades they've been telling the skeptics to prove their vaunted 13.8 is wrong. So what happens? Modern Cosmology does just that & these bunch of neophytes are unable to adapt to new technology.

Oftentimes, once certain dogma gets into some brain cells, those cells program all the remaining cells into a one track state of mind about specific subject matters.

Sometime in 2018 within a few weeks after the deployment of the JWT, we'll all be treated to the news headlines: "Universe Older Than Thought"

Next in 2018 we will be treated in the Commentary with the likes of Phys1, Schneib, Stumpo, etc, making Comments that they had been trying to explain the dawn of this new revelation by the JWT & we were simply the ones who'd be unwilling to accept the new science.

Benni
2.6 / 5 (25) May 01, 2016
May 1, 2016, 6:03 pm 1 richardwenzel987 (1) john berry_hobbes (1) AGreatWhopper (1)

OK you three, above are your 1 Stars clearly indicated.....
with GN-z11 at 13.4 B lyrs sitting well inside the the NH period & right on the cusp of the CMB is a big problem, such galaxies were adamantly predicted not to be there
........ tell me why YOU believe the math is all wrong.

obama_socks
2.2 / 5 (20) May 01, 2016
@ o_s..the conundrum the 13.8 crowd is caught up in is the silly math trap they've created for themselves versus well founded(..)

For decades they've been telling the skeptics to prove their vaunted 13.8 is wrong. So what happens? Modern Cosmology does just that &(..)

...once certain dogma gets...

Sometime in 2018 within a few weeks after the deployment of the JWT, we'll all be treated to the news headlines: "Universe Older Than Thought"

Next in 2018 we will be treated in the Commentary with the likes of Phys1, Schneib, Stumpo, etc, making Comments that they had been trying to explain the dawn of this new revelation by the JWT & we were simply the ones who'd be unwilling to accept the new science.

- Benni
They are in their niche in which they are most comfortable. The Coven slavishly resists new ideas from the rhetoric of radicals as much as any religion would excoriate apostates.

Ἐν οἴνῳ ἀλήθεια = JWT
obama_socks
2.2 / 5 (20) May 01, 2016
@Benni
As I have mentioned in another thread, I would really, REALLY have liked to have seen a "dry dcck" built past the ISS in geosynchronous orbit (of course) at about the halfway distance between Earth and our Moon. All the components of the "bare bones" dry dock would have been sent up to the ISS, where it would have been assembled. Once complete, it could've been pushed into orbit where it would remain far from ISS, and yet close enough in case of emergency mech procedures being required. It would have its own power sources, crew living quarters, tool 'shed', and a docking & berthing facility. Not only would it have been great for assembling the JWT, thus lessening the severity of the weight factor (G-force) on the J.W. components, but also for all other space telescopes; even as a way station to Mars.

It can still be done for future usage as an internationally-based cooperative. It is my dream to see it happen.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (26) May 01, 2016
Ἐν οἴνῳ ἀλήθεια = JWT

For sure it will tell the truth of the 13.8 mythology.

I'd like to be on site to see the JWT launch. I imagine by 2018 NASA will probably be using something like SpaceX to put it into lower Earth orbit, then boost it out near where the Spitzer & Herschel are at 1.5 million miles away from Earth into Sun orbit. Take the kids there & watch the thrilling epitome of science & engineering in real time live action.
obama_socks
2.3 / 5 (21) May 01, 2016
May 1, 2016, 6:03 pm 1 richardwenzel987 (1) john berry_hobbes (1) AGreatWhopper (1)

OK you three, above are your 1 Stars clearly indicated.....
with GN-z11 at 13.4 B lyrs sitting well inside the the NH period & right on the cusp of the CMB is a big problem, such galaxies were adamantly predicted not to be there
........ tell me why YOU believe the math is all wrong.

- Benni

The 3 attackers on your ratings did not, so far, comment in this thread. They are most likely 3 of Otto's legion of sock puppets. Theghostofotto1923 does that to ALL of his "enemies", but gives all FIVES to his allies...and they KNOW who THEY are.

I did a search for those names within this thread...not found.
The ratings mean nothing and the down voting is meant for intimidation and to make you angry, thus possibly causing you to say something that you might regret and that you might be castigated for.
Otto has certain commenters marked for this kind of harassment.
NiteSkyGerl
2.9 / 5 (30) May 01, 2016
ROFLMAO "Trolls united for fairness".

Hey, losers, lie down with dogs get up with fleas. Pretty lame to go all hissy at turnabout.
obama_socks
2.2 / 5 (20) May 01, 2016
áĽ�ν οáĽ�νá�� áĽ�λήθεια = JWT

For sure it will tell the truth of the 13.8 mythology.

I'd like to be on site to see the JWT launch. I imagine by 2018 NASA will probably be using something like SpaceX to put it into lower Earth orbit, then boost it out near where the Spitzer & Herschel are at 1.5 million miles away from Earth into Sun orbit. Take the kids there & watch the thrilling epitome of science & engineering in real time live action.
- Benni
Keep tabs on the progress and your fingers crossed, and hope that they don't screw the pooch. These are certainly interesting times we live in. Maybe President Trump (or Cruz) will be there to witness lift-off. 3..2..1..IGNITION
My wife and I and at least one of our kids will be there to watch the launch in person. History in the making.

BBLater
TehDog
4.8 / 5 (26) May 01, 2016
Wow, almost a circlejerk, just need bs and cd to drop in. (shakes head, walks away sadly)

I'm going to move the comments link to this site from science to entertainment.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (23) May 01, 2016
Benni states that the JWT will provide the clearcut evidence that the Universe is far older than 13.8 Billion years and you're having a COW over THAT? If you do, then will you be unable to accept that the Universe's age IS way over 13.8B as both Benni & I had expounded on? Perhaps your life (and the lives of others in your Coven) will never be the same since you seem to prefer a finite Universe to fit Einstein's GR.. w/o evidence...

Actually, AE envisioned an INfinite universe. With GR as a methodology to explain how finite things withIN that Universe related to each other...
I think astrophysicists would be just as happy to find out it WAS older...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (24) May 01, 2016
Wow, almost a circlejerk, just need bs and cd to drop in. (shakes head, walks away sadly)

I'm going to move the comments link to this site from science to entertainment.

What took ya so long...:-)?
chileastro
2.9 / 5 (27) May 02, 2016
obamarocks 1/5 (132,442) drooled:

The ratings mean nothing and the down voting is meant for intimidation and to make you angry, thus possibly causing you to say something that you might regret and that you might be castigated for.


I kind of doubt it. You do that every sentence on your own without provocation. Regret? I think the only thing you'd regret is something approaching actual logic and accepted facts coming out that parched rictus of a mouth of yours. I really don't think you need to worry about that happening.

For the record, the downvoting is a way of releasing frustration at the drivel mindless trolls like you and benni foul the site with without having to resort to physical violence. That's what stress is. Resisting the urge to beat the crap out of someone that really needs it. As such, you are the origin of the stress and what you get back is richly deserved.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.8 / 5 (17) May 02, 2016
@Benni: You repeat the distance vs z lits verbatim, despite I have explained how the hyperbolic geometry works in the case of such light cone behavior. *This is not a problem.* It is the physics of light in an expanding universe, it is not the physics of the universe itself.

As WG notes, the actual geometry of the universe is flat and infinite. If you just look beyond the quirks of observing vast distances with light in an expanding universe.

A basic cosmology course explains this, and would remove your confusion. Meanwhile, since you are not asking for help to understand the physics but makes inane and erroneous claims of how *you*, an uniformed individual, thinks it works, you come over as inane and, since you won't heed advice, a jerk with an elevator that stops several floors shy of your head.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (25) May 02, 2016
......benni foul the site with without having to resort to physical violence. That's what stress is. Resisting the urge to beat the crap out of someone that really needs it. As such, you are the origin of the stress and what you get back is richly deserved.
......then get over it.

Interesting how prevalent the existence of the kind of mindset like this that persists here on PO. The last time you made a personal diatribe about me, you thought I was someone would should have their nether regions hooked up to electric wires, and Schneibo gave you a 5 Star upvote for that. Let's just see if Scheibo returns & gives you another 5 Star for yet another masterpiece of nonscience content.

Cadar
1.3 / 5 (13) May 02, 2016
It's easy to thumb-suck a few numbers for an equation like this, but the facts are that we know very little about the universe around us, and nothing whatsoever about any life outside of the Earth's biosphere whatsoever, let alone whether there's any intelligent life out there. Let's face it, there's strong evidence that there's no intelligent life here on Earth, if the behaviour of its inhabitants is any indication. The bottom line is simply this: if there is any intelligent life out there, it's thrown up a fifty light year quarantine zone around Earth and left us to either blow ourselves out of existence or grow the hell up before it's too late.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (21) May 02, 2016
Sometime in 2018 within a few weeks after the deployment of the JWT, we'll all be treated to the news headlines: "Universe Older Than Thought"

Uh... what if that doesn't happen?
obama_socks
2.3 / 5 (19) May 02, 2016
Wow, almost a circlejerk, just need bs and cd to drop in. (shakes head, walks away sadly)

I'm going to move the comments link to this site from science to entertainment.
- TehDog
I had to give you a ONE for talking like an asshole. Do you indulge in circle jerks often? You seem to be quite familiar with the circlejerk. 'Tis a pity since most of your comments are cogent and respectful. Maybe it's the company you're keeping in these threads...like StumpRump, Otto, Ira, Pissypants1, and the rest of the coven. What a shame.
obama_socks
2.1 / 5 (18) May 02, 2016
Benni states that the JWT will provide the clearcut evidence that the Universe is far older than 13.8 Billion years and you're having a COW over THAT? If you do, then will you be unable to accept that the Universe's age IS way over 13.8B as both Benni & I had expounded on? Perhaps your life (and the lives of others in your Coven) will never be the same since you seem to prefer a finite Universe to fit Einstein's GR.. w/o evidence...

Actually, AE envisioned an INfinite universe. With GR as a methodology to explain how finite things withIN that Universe related to each other...
I think astrophysicists would be just as happy to find out it WAS older...
- WhydG
I don't know about how Benni feels about an infinite Universe, but I don't believe that the Universe is finite. If it was finite, then it would need a boundary to keep everything - all matter/energy from wandering out to ---- where? It would need a wall or fence...or something to prevent a leak.
obama_socks
2.1 / 5 (18) May 02, 2016
Benni states that the JWT will provide the clearcut evidence that the Universe is far older than 13.8 Billion years and you're having a COW over THAT? If you do, then will you be unable to accept that the Universe's age IS way over 13.8B as both Benni & I had expounded on? Perhaps your life (and the lives of others in your Coven) will never be the same since you seem to prefer a finite Universe to fit Einstein's GR.. w/o evidence...

Actually, AE envisioned an INfinite universe. With GR as a methodology to explain how finite things withIN that Universe related to each other...
I think astrophysicists would be just as happy to find out it WAS older...
- WhydG
AE? Who or what is AE? The only things that are finite, as I have already 'splained to Benni, is matter/energy...but that all the rest - space - is INFINITE. My analogy to the kettle of broth (space) and the meat and veggies (stars, planets) and seasonings (cosmic dust) should have made it clear enough. Da?
obama_socks
2.1 / 5 (20) May 03, 2016
It's easy to thumb-suck a few numbers for an equation like this, but the facts are that we know very little about the universe around us, and nothing whatsoever about any life outside of the Earth's biosphere whatsoever, let alone whether there's any intelligent life out there. Let's face it, there's strong evidence that there's no intelligent life here on Earth, if the behaviour of its inhabitants is any indication. The bottom line is simply this: if there is any intelligent life out there, it's thrown up a fifty light year quarantine zone around Earth and left us to either blow ourselves out of existence or grow the hell up before it's too late.
- Cadar
I agree. However, astrophysicists (and others who pretend to be) have much more to accomplish before they know very much about the Universe and how it works. Conjecture, hypotheses, musings are what I do. I don't expect learned scientists to also do what I do, otherwise, for all their PhDs, they are only taking a wild guess
Cadar
1.6 / 5 (13) May 03, 2016
However, astrophysicists (and others who pretend to be) have much more to accomplish before they know very much about the Universe and how it works. Conjecture, hypotheses, musings are what I do. I don't expect learned scientists to also do what I do, otherwise, for all their PhDs, they are only taking a wild guess

Wild guesses seem to be du jour these days. It amazes me that a bunch of the best minds on the planet seriously entertain the notion that we're living in a computer simulation. I suspect that in a universe of this size there has to be other lifeforms and some of them are likely intelligent, but probably so far advanced beyond us we couldn't even recognise them, let alone communicate with them or have them abduct us or make crop circles here. But try explaining that to the tin hat crowd. How can they be expected to think intelligently when popsci guru NDGT thinks it's 50/50 we live in a simulation?
Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here whatsoever.
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (23) May 03, 2016
Actually, AE envisioned an INfinite universe. With GR as a methodology to explain how finite things withIN that Universe related to each other...
I think astrophysicists would be just as happy to find out it WAS older...
- WhydG
AE? Who or what is AE? The only things that are finite, as I have already 'splained to Benni, is matter/energy...but that all the rest - space - is INFINITE.

AE= Albert Einstein, silly.
And you just said what he (AE) said...
My analogy to the kettle of broth (space) and the meat and veggies (stars, planets) and seasonings (cosmic dust) should have made it clear enough. Da?

A kettle of broth has to be over a fire, somewhere...
Benni
2.5 / 5 (24) May 03, 2016
Actually, AE envisioned an INfinite universe. With GR as a methodology to explain how finite things withIN that Universe related to each other...
I think astrophysicists would be just as happy to find out it WAS older


WG, why don't you simply go to a site where the entire Thesis of General Relativity is published & get your facts straight on what Einstein actually stated about the parameters of the UNIVERSE? He clearly states the UNIVERSE is a finitely quasi-spherical (elliptical) structure, that it is a STELLAR ISLAND with a boundary that is surrounded by an INFINITE EXPANSE of SPACE, two different things going on here. UNIVERSE and SPACE are not the the same things in GR.

o_s's "kettle" description is not a bad comparison to Einstein's quasi-spherical UNIVERSE. A kettle has a quasi-spherical boundary, then all you need to do is to put a spherical lid on it to complete the closed boundary conditions required for Entropic energy distribution.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (15) May 03, 2016
ROFLMAO "Trolls united for fairness".

Hey, losers, lie down with dogs get up with fleas. Pretty lame to go all hissy at turnabout.

Actually, it's, try to have a conversation about science, get down voted by Chicken Little retards.
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (21) May 03, 2016
WG, why don't you simply go to a site where the entire Thesis of General Relativity is published & get your facts straight on what Einstein actually stated about the parameters of the UNIVERSE? He clearly states the UNIVERSE is a finitely quasi-spherical (elliptical) structure, that it is a STELLAR ISLAND with a boundary that is surrounded by an INFINITE EXPANSE of SPACE, two different things going on here. UNIVERSE and SPACE are not the the same things in GR.

And here - http://photontheo...08.html, he states a problem with that (Third paragraph down)
o_s's "kettle" description is not a bad comparison to Einstein's quasi-spherical UNIVERSE. A kettle has a quasi-spherical boundary, then all you need to do is to put a spherical lid on it to complete the closed boundary conditions required for Entropic energy distribution.
didn't say it was bad - just incomplete... The Universe is NOT a closed system. Just the distribution of stuff in it.
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (19) May 03, 2016
A kettle has a quasi-spherical boundary, then all you need to do is to put a spherical lid on it to complete the closed boundary conditions required for Entropic energy distribution.

I think you might more be referring to enthalpic distribution...
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (19) May 03, 2016
And here - http://photontheo...n08.html,]http://photontheo...08.html,[/url] he states a problem with that (Third paragraph down)

Edit -
Sorry. The comma at the end breaks the link. fixed it for y'all.
http://photontheo...n08.html
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (20) May 03, 2016
- WhydG
I don't know about how Benni feels about an infinite Universe, but I don't believe that the Universe is finite. If it was finite, then it would need a boundary to keep everything - all matter/energy from wandering out to ---- where? It would need a wall or fence...or something to prevent a leak.

Try my analogy;
The "Universe" as we know it, is a quasi spherical blob of energy floating in some, yet unknown, medium. We can call it "space".
The only thing preventing a "leak" is - pressure from the outside or attraction from the inside (personally, I like attraction, as it removes the necessity of "containment").
However. It is in constant motion (helically, more or less), exposed to constant variables in that medium. This makes it "infinite" - never encountering the exact same conditions as it "travels" that helix.

torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.4 / 5 (14) May 03, 2016
@Cedar: "the facts are that we know very little about the universe around us, and nothing whatsoever about any life outside of the Earth's biosphere whatsoever, let alone whether there's any intelligent life out there."

Making erroneous claims accomplish little, except throwing mud at yourself. Since 2004 we achieved a consistent, well tested image (theory) of the process that made this universe, and its result. (A flat universe, its matter and energy content, et cetera.)

And the kast two decades have learned us a lit about the conditions that made life emerge on Earth, and the conditions of planets elsewhere. This work was made *precisely* because evolution of language capable species looks like one offs, and would be rare. We do know however, since at the moment ~7 % of planets that ever will emerge has done so, that likely at least 10 such species will evolve in the universe. (Since we did.)
Benni
2.7 / 5 (23) May 03, 2016
didn't say it was bad - just incomplete... The Universe is NOT a closed system. Just the distribution of stuff in it.


It figures an artist would make such a statement. Energy is in a constant state of distribution throughout the entirety of the Universe, this is called ENTROPY, it's the reason why we can send rockets to the Moon, land them & bring them back again.

It would figure that an ARTIST who has never taken a course in Thermodynamics would make a statement that ENTROPY does not need a "closed system to work", that's what I as a Scientist/Engineer would label taking "artist license" with the facts of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Let's see the derivation for your math that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics can function in an "open system"?

I think you might more be referring to enthalpic distribution
You don't even know what Enthalpy is, so why do you even bother bringing it up.

Cadar
1.5 / 5 (12) May 03, 2016
@Cedar

The username is "CADAR". If you can't even spell that correctly, how can you expect me to take any of your other comment seriously? I'm not even going to bother replying.
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (20) May 03, 2016
didn't say it was bad - just incomplete... The Universe is NOT a closed system. Just the distribution of stuff in it.


It figures an artist would make such a statement. Energy is in a constant state of distribution throughout the entirety of the Universe, this is called ENTROPY, it's the reason why we can send rockets to the Moon, land them & bring them back again.

Entropy -
1. Physics
a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.

Not constant.
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (20) May 03, 2016
o_s's "kettle" description is not a bad comparison to Einstein's quasi-spherical UNIVERSE. A kettle has a quasi-spherical boundary, then all you need to do is to put a spherical lid on it to complete the closed boundary conditions required for Entropic energy distribution.


Enthalpy i/ˈɛnθəlpi/ is a measurement of energy in a thermodynamic system. It includes the internal energy, which is the energy required to create a system, and the amount of energy required to make room for it by displacing its environment and establishing its volume and pressure.

SO that entropy can work IN it...
Benni
2.7 / 5 (23) May 03, 2016
Enthalpy is a measurement of energy in a thermodynamic system. It includes the internal energy, which is the energy required to create a system, and the amount of energy required to make room for it by displacing its environment and establishing its volume and pressure.

SO that entropy can work IN it.
.........SUBJECT TO THE 2nd LAW of THERMODYNAMICS.

You're still unable to comprehend it, it's the reason your professional endeavors limit you to the artistry of metal bending, You're unable to bend your brain cells around the concept that ENTROPY requires fixed boundaries in which distributed energy must be confined or WORK cannot be accomplished. Remove the boundaries of the cylinder walls surrounding the pistons of an ICE & see how long it will operate.....immediate shutdown.

I'm still awaiting the submission of your math proving ENTROPY is NOT DEPENDENT on a CLOSED SYSTEM for energy distribution.

Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (20) May 03, 2016

It figures an artist would make such a statement. Energy is in a constant state of distribution throughout the entirety of the Universe, this is called ENTROPY...

Or maybe - RE-distribution...
it's the reason why we can send rockets to the Moon, land them & bring them back again.

Completely different scale of effect.
It would figure that an ARTIST who has never taken a course in Thermodynamics would make a statement that ENTROPY does not need a "closed system to work", that's what I as a Scientist/Engineer would label taking "artist license" with the facts of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Let's see the derivation for your math that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics can function in an "open system"?

Let's see yours that says it CAN'T...
How bout - "mostly closed"? or "almost closed"...
Benni
2.7 / 5 (23) May 03, 2016
This makes it "infinite" - never encountering the exact same conditions as it "travels" that helix.


If it is "infinite" as you claim, then how can you discern it has it has the shape (boundaries) of a helix? Why do you as a metal bending artist imagine you can be smarter than Einstein as he defined the quasi-spherical shape of the Universe. Send us the results of your latest IQ test so we can compare it to Einstein's.
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (20) May 03, 2016
You're still unable to comprehend it, it's the reason your professional endeavors limit you to the artistry of metal bending, You're unable to bend your brain cells around the concept that ENTROPY requires fixed boundaries in which distributed energy must be confined or WORK cannot be accomplished. Remove the boundaries of the cylinder walls surrounding the pistons of an ICE & see how long it will operate.....immediate shutdown.

You're talking localized constrained entropic event's. Where's the container around the sun? The solar system? The Galaxy?

Benni
2.7 / 5 (23) May 03, 2016
Let's see yours that says it CAN'T...
How bout - "mostly closed"? or "almost closed"


........the onus is on you to FALSIFY the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, however you can't prove your claim to it's falsifiability because you'll need set up Partial Differential Equations to prove the 2nd Law can be circumvented & wouldn't that be an interesting PDE for an artist to work on, working on something that has no solution.
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (20) May 03, 2016
If it is "infinite" as you claim, then how can you discern it has it has the shape (boundaries) of a helix?

Same way AE imagined it was quasi-spherical. Imagination.
Why do you as a metal bending artist imagine you can be smarter than Einstein as he defined the quasi-spherical shape of the Universe.

Who said I claimed to be smarter? Sounds like YOUR imagination workin', there...
Send us the results of your latest IQ test so we can compare it to Einstein's.

Never had one, that I'm aware. Did rate in the top 1% in military aptitude tests, tho. And they're still trying to figure out how I got the max score in analytics, I'll bet...
(so am I, to tell the truth...)
Now. Send us YOURS....
Benni
2.7 / 5 (23) May 03, 2016
You're talking localized constrained entropic event's. Where's the container around the sun? The solar system? The Galaxy?


What's your definition of "localized"? Earthbound?

All the rockets we send anywhere in the solar system function exactly as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics prescribes, the same laws via which we design & build internal combustion engines on planet Earth & the internal combustion features of rocket engines to put things into orbit around the Sun. Just because you can't see the boundary by which galactic systems are contained, only means that the boundary is so far away it can't be seen.

You want a Perpetual Motion Machine for a Universe, but that is nt the way the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics can perform WORK in generating the constant motion in which we observe the functioning of the Universe.

So let's see the derivations of your math FALSIFYING the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (24) May 03, 2016
Never had one, that I'm aware. Did rate in the top 1% in military aptitude tests, tho. And they're still trying to figure out how I got the max score in analytics,
.......I can certainly understand why they would still be trying to figure out why after all these years that you got that "max score". But you made that up so it doesn't matter anyway, that is unless you can prove it.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (23) May 03, 2016
Same way AE imagined it was quasi-spherical. Imagination


No imagination about it.......it's all in the manner that ENTROPY distributes energy, the randomness of the motion of ENERGY DISTRIBUTION results in spherical & quasi-spherical patterns of geometrical shapes, no cubes, no pyramid shapes just spherical, but you don't know this because you remain unable to FALSIFY the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Einstein on the other hand knew better.
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (21) May 03, 2016
You're talking localized constrained entropic event's. Where's the container around the sun? The solar system? The Galaxy?


What's your definition of "localized"? Earthbound?
All the rockets we send anywhere in the solar system function exactly as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics prescribes the same laws via which we design & build internal combustion engines on planet Earth & the internal combustion features of rocket engines to put things into orbit around the Sun.

Intentionally contained. Man-made, in your ICE and rocket examples.

Just because you can't see the boundary by which galactic systems are contained, only means that the boundary is so far away it can't be seen.

Like maybe 13.8b light years?
You want a Perpetual Motion Machine for a Universe, but that is not the way the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics can perform WORK in generating the constant motion in which we observe the functioning of the Universe.

You have a suggestion?
Benni
2.7 / 5 (24) May 03, 2016
You have a suggestion?


...........and I keep saying it, FALSIFY the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, so doing will prove you are right beyond the shadow of any doubt. What's the matter? Afraid your "max score in analytics" will be unable to deliver the goods?
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (21) May 03, 2016
Same way AE imagined it was quasi-spherical. Imagination


No imagination about it.......it's all in the manner that ENTROPY distributes energy, the randomness of the motion of ENERGY DISTRIBUTION results in spherical & quasi-spherical patterns

Not random. It is the reason for attaining spherical shape. (hint-Phi)
... no cubes, no pyramid shapes just spherical, but you don't know this because you remain unable to FALSIFY the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics,

knowing and falsifying are 2 different things. Besides - Modifying would work better...
Einstein on the other hand knew better.

Indeed he did, but he already had enough on his plate...:-)
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (21) May 03, 2016
You have a suggestion?


...........and I keep saying it, FALSIFY the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, so doing will prove you are right beyond the shadow of any doubt.

Ya can't. That's why its a Law. But it can be modified.
What's the matter? Afraid your "max score in analytics" will be unable to deliver the goods?
Nope. No relational relevance.
I notice your Degree in whatever isn't doing any better.
BTW. Why do you only attack what you perceive as the weakest link in a chain?
You're a coward.
Benni
2.8 / 5 (24) May 03, 2016
....and I keep saying it, FALSIFY the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, so doing will prove you are right beyond the shadow of any doubt.


Ya can't. That's why its a Law. But it can be modified.
.......how do you know it can be "modified"? Show us the math by which to prove this. I never saw proposals for such modification in any of the Thermodynamics courses I took. Maybe my profs were just not up to your speed:
in the top 1% in military aptitude tests..... they're still trying to figure out how I got the max score in analytics


BTW. Why do you only attack what you perceive as the weakest link in a chain?
.....you talking about yourself here as the "weakest link in a chain"? What's this 'weakest link"? You? You claim to be in a 1% aptitude rating, now you want to back off that? What "chain" are you talking about? Is there a specific chain of high aptitude people here to which you make reference? Stumpy? Greeno?

Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (20) May 04, 2016
Show us the math by which to prove this. I never saw proposals for such modification in any of the Thermodynamics courses I took.

And that was - when?
Unlike you, I never proclaimed proficiency in math.
BongThePuffin
May 04, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Garrote
2.8 / 5 (24) May 04, 2016
Cadar 1 /5 (3) 14 hours ago

@Cedar

The username is "CADAR". If you can't even spell that correctly, how can you expect me to take any of your other comment seriously? I'm not even going to bother replying.


Ever heard of spelling autocorrect, you pretentious git? Why don't you change it to something more appropriate, like "peckerwood".

Have some respect. TBGL has contributed more to the site than I can imagine you ever will.
NiteSkyGerl
2.8 / 5 (25) May 04, 2016
antigoracle

1 / 5 (6) 20 hours ago

ROFLMAO "Trolls united for fairness".

Hey, losers, lie down with dogs get up with fleas. Pretty lame to go all hissy at turnabout.

Actually, it's, try to have a conversation about science, get down voted by Chicken Little retards.


That one gets more incoherent by the day. How, exactly, do votes keep you from having a conversation? Better yet, tell us what evidence you've offered in years of pointless copy and paste postings and puerile insults that you are capable of any kind of meaningful conversation.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (24) May 04, 2016
The following accounts are controlled by the same person......(they post in various immediate succession to each other in several threads, and have troll rated 1's to every one of my posts irrespective of content as far back as 7 pages of posts.....

NiteSkyGerl
antigoresockpuppet
fckthierreyhenry
BongThePuffin
john berry_hobbes
maloderousmiscreant
YoureAPeanut
GoshURStupid
tooty
jim_xanara
AGreatWhopper
chileastro

So, tell me "NiteSkyGerl", do you work for Phys.Org,... are all these fake screen-names a fraud hoisted on your advertisers? Or is it, that you are demented?

antigoracle
2.1 / 5 (13) May 04, 2016
So, if an advanced alien civilization emits a radio signal into space and we don't hear it. Then, do they exist?

I guess the question is why would they use radio? We have pretty much given up on morse code and smoke signals.

Precisely, but as far as I know, radio is the only signal we are listening for. The reason for my original statement is because the Drake equation appears to not account for us not listening for the signal.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.7 / 5 (12) May 04, 2016
@Cedar

The username is "CADAR". If you can't even spell that correctly, how can you expect me to take any of your other comment seriously? I'm not even going to bother replying.


Mea culpa. I have a temporary neuropathy, and my vision isn't the best at the moment (one teary eye). It doesn't affect my brain though, and I see that accept that you erred since you have no support for your claim.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (10) May 04, 2016
@antigoracle:

There is optical SETI, and people hope to do neutrino SETI one day since that is the ultimate in non-disturbed signal.

Re the DE, it is an empirical model for signal search where a lot of factors are not included. That doesn't mean it isn't useful, it means it is simplified for convenience. C.f. the mileage estimate in your car, if you head up the mountains the prior estimate was erroneous.
ceciliateixeira09
1 / 5 (7) May 04, 2016
I love it! :-)
If we have not found evidence of intelligence in the universe by now, there is a reason.
Clocking with lasers was talked about on here and we are not vary advanced race yet. If a truly advanced race wanted to isolate us or just hide from us for whatever reason, it would be quite easy for them.

dear, they found us, they here ,,, wake up looke up the Sky
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (17) May 04, 2016
I love it! :-)
If we have not found evidence of intelligence in the universe by now, there is a reason.
Clocking with lasers was talked about on here and we are not vary advanced race yet. If a truly advanced race wanted to isolate us or just hide from us for whatever reason, it would be quite easy for them.

dear, they found us, they here ,,, wake up looke up the Sky

Sorry Cecelia, but unless there is a big ship when I look up, there is only the Universe....
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (16) May 04, 2016
.....you talking about yourself here as the "weakest link in a chain"? What's this 'weakest link"? You? You claim to be in a 1% aptitude rating, now you want to back off that?

Nope and nope.
More specifically, your repeated requests for maths that I have repeatedly stated were not in my "toolbox". (And you fail to show that you would understand, even if they were).
I gain understanding with a different tool - listening (and questioning) without prejudice or attitude...
MalleusConspiratori
1 / 5 (8) May 19, 2016
LifeBasedLogic 1.3 /5 (16) Apr 30, 2016
Not if it is properly encrypted, per Snowden. My girlfriend's dad ran Booz Allen for many, many years.


One has to wonder if this one has less of a grasp on reality and the meaning of basic English than cantthink or is more of a narcissistic exaggerator than gkam. Toss a coin...

"Ran Booz Allen". Man, that is said either way.
MalleusConspiratori
1 / 5 (8) May 19, 2016
obama_socks 1.5 /5 (22) Apr 28, 2016
No problem, buddy. Ratings in this site mean nothing to me. Only facts and concepts.


OK.

Fact: Your comments are an eyesore.
Concept: Basic respect for others that don't share your point of view.

MalleusConspiratori
1 / 5 (8) May 19, 2016
viko_mx 1.8 /5 (15) Apr 29, 2016
No. We are not alone. We are only isolated on Earth because of sin.


So, presumably, before "the fall" humans had access to space travel. Nifty. Well, with those partriarchs living to be 1,000 that would be very handy.

I have a more parsimonious hypothesis. You are isolated in an outdated, discredited belief system because you're stupid and that affects your ability to process data veridically.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.