Astronomers to Earth: You've got some newly found near-twins

Risky Thicket said:

I'm sticking with you on this one. If anyone knows about completely unsupported gibberish it's you.

Click to expand...

Are you scared of robots ending the human race? I'm not.

Henrin said:

Are you scared of robots ending the human race? I'm not.

Click to expand...

Honestly, it's not something I've ever thought about and probably never will. If it happens it won't be tomorrow. But, if we all have to continue to try to talk to computers when we call damn near any company from insurance to cable to pharmacies to county pet licensing offices I would imagine we will kill all the robots before the feckers have the ability to take over.

How many times a week do each of us play "Guess why you called" with voice recognition software options?

There is a point, and we will get there, where computer technology will be more of a pain in the ass to live with than without. It'll happen before the robots take over. In many ways, even now, computers make people less productive. I'm no luddite but I have lived in a world with much less computer technology than we have now and it was in retrospect a satisfying life in many ways.

Henrin said:

I don't know what you're talking about. I'm talking about his ideas on how the world will end, which is completely unsupported gibberish.

Run! The robots are coming!

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I cant imagine you properly understanding legitimate theories and ideas proposed by Hawking based on what I've seen of your grasp of other realities here on Earth, including history. You just lack credibility.

Lursa said:

I'm sorry, I cant imagine you properly understanding legitimate theories and ideas proposed by Hawking based on what I've seen of your grasp of other realities here on Earth, including history. You just lack credibility.

Click to expand...

Sure, sure, it's nice to know you have nothing to say.

Henrin said:

Sure, sure, it's nice to know you have nothing to say.

Click to expand...

It's a joke to see you knocking the smartest guy on the planet. Not much more to say than that.

Lursa said:

It's laughable that you think your opinion is more credible than the top scientists on the planet, including Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan (deceased). Because those people and organizations provided funding based on those scientific facts, opinions, and statistics.

Click to expand...

People get so upset when it is pointed out to them that their fantasies are just fantasies without any basis in face:shrug: The fact is that we don't have any basis for any statement as to the likelihood of alien life. This is just a fact, it's not up for argument.

j-mac said:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Earth has a few more near-twin planets outside our solar system, tantalizing possibilities in the search for extraterrestrial life.Astronomers announced Tuesday that depending on definitions, they have confirmed three or four more planets that are about the same size as Earth and are in the not-too-hot, not-too-cold "Goldilocks Zone" for liquid water to form.
These planets are likely to be rocky like Earth, and not gas giants or ice worlds. They get about the same heat from their star as we get from the sun, according to the latest results from NASA's planet hunting Kepler telescope.

Astronomers to Earth: You've got some newly found near-twins

Click to expand...

Yeah, now send us more money!

Guy Incognito said:

People get so upset when it is pointed out to them that their fantasies are just fantasies without any basis in face:shrug: The fact is that we don't have any basis for any statement as to the likelihood of alien life. This is just a fact, it's not up for argument.

Click to expand...

Not too familiar with statistics and scientific method are you? It's the same sort of theorization that leads to determining the likelihood of cancer in certain populations, for example.

LOL at what is or is not 'up for argument.'

Lursa said:

Not too familiar with statistics and scientific method are you?

LOL at what is or is not 'up for argument.'

Click to expand...

The Drake Equation is really just simple algebra. We can't determine the likelihood of alien life unit we know the variables.

This response I am getting here is a great example of how emotional and irrational a person can get when it gets pointed out to them that their cherished fantasies are nothing more than fantasies. People love aliens, what can I say. "Lursa" is the name of one of the Klingon characters from Star Trek, if I recall correctly. Science fiction fandom is a powerful motivator for people.

So I can see how a sci-fi fan might need to think that alien life must be out there. It's a great form of escapism from the actual world.

Bottom line, though, is that you can't say that a large number of planets means there must be alien life on one of them until you know the likelihood of life developing on a given world, which we don't.

Guy Incognito said:

The Drake Equation is really just simple algebra. We can't determine the likelihood of alien life unit we know the variables.

This response I am getting here is a great example of how emotional and irrational a person can get when it gets pointed out to them that their cherished fantasies are nothing more than fantasies. People love aliens, what can I say. "Lursa" is the name of one of the Klingon characters from Star Trek, if I recall correctly. Science fiction fandom is a powerful motivator for people.

So I can see how a sci-fi fan might need to think that alien life must be out there. It's a great form of escapism from the actual world.

Bottom line, though, is that you can't say that a large number of planets means there must be alien life on one of them until you know the likelihood of life developing on a given world, which we don't.

Click to expand...

We know lots of the variables. You look silly.

Like you would know more than the scientists who study the universe. :lamo

Lursa said:

We know lots of the variables. You look silly.

Like you would know more than the scientists who study the universe. :lamo

Click to expand...

But there is an important variable that is missing, which is the likelihood of life arising on a given planet. Specifically, in the Drake Equation, this variable is "the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point." It is impossible to say what sort of odds there are that life will develop anywhere, no matter how many planets there are, until we know the odds of life developing. This is an exceedingly simple concept, but its distasteful consequences seem to be frequently ignored by sci-fi aficionados.

I like Star Trek as much as the next guy, but I am not going to let that overwhelm my commitment to logic and sound reasoning.

Guy Incognito said:

But there is an important variable that is missing, which is the likelihood of life arising on a given planet. Specifically, in the Drake Equation, this variable is "the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point." It is impossible to say what sort of odds there are that life will develop anywhere, no matter how many planets there are, until we know the odds of life developing. This is an exceedingly simple concept, but its distasteful consequences seem to be frequently ignored by sci-fi aficionados.

I like Star Trek as much as the next guy, but I am not going to let that overwhelm my commitment to logic and sound reasoning.

Click to expand...

You have not put forth anything that demonstrates a grasp of logic or sound reasoning more than myself and certainly not the reputable scientists that have considered it and believe it is a definite possibility.

You have only shown a close-minded, rather desperate grasp onto one theory. I prefer less limited thinking.

Lursa said:

You have not put forth anything that demonstrates a grasp of logic or sound reasoning more than myself and certainly not the reputable scientists that have considered it and believe it is a definite possibility.

You have only shown a close-minded, rather desperate grasp onto one theory. I prefer less limited thinking.

Click to expand...

You're really describing yourself. I have been very clear and cogent, and have soundly made my point, whereas your counter-arguments have been uniformly fallacious.