Recent Events Beyond Earth

[BIG BWACULL]

Heres some pics from last year Enjoy
PICS HERE
Check the news pics too (careful quite graphic)

 

[disarray]

On another note, does anybody know the name of that mathematician (was very famous, oh and it wasn't Fibonnaci ) who once described the probability of life on earth forming the way it has, as about as much chance of going into your garage, throwing the tools around and a car appearing?

you might be thinking of the Drake Equation

Just a thought though, belief in "black holes" and "dark matter" requires belief in something nobody can see. Their existence is hypothesized, based on behaviour of other heavenly bodies.

its just the gaps in our knowledge thing. the strength of science is that it needs to be challenged, tested, proved or disproved, that is a far more robust intellectual model than "listen to the guy in the white pointy hat because his 2000 year old book says so". science doesn't require "belief", it requires "proof". hypothesis is only a stepping stone to fact.

it's a really exciting time at the moment and you can see the level of our technological development has gone parabolic (along with population, resource depletion, pollution, extinction etc).

 

[MRC & Co]

you might be thinking of the Drake Equation



its just the gaps in our knowledge thing. the strength of science is that it needs to be challenged, tested, proved or disproved

it's a really exciting time at the moment and you can see the level of our technological development has gone parabolic (along with population, resource depletion, pollution, extinction etc).

Hmmmm, don't think it was Drake.

The trouble with science, is that what is prooven, is then disprooven. As is the nature of complex and chaotic systems. Change one variable, and the entire system is thrown out, 'solve it with all our academia' and then in 100 years, another acadmic will disproove it and so repeats the cycle.

Wayne also makes a good point about the electric universe, just another possibility, there are so many I have given up trying to grasp the concepts of them all.

Definately exciting times though.

Absolutely fantastic pictures there BIGB, some I had not seen before.

Cheers

 

[wayneL]

its just the gaps in our knowledge thing. the strength of science is that it needs to be challenged, tested, proved or disproved, that is a far more robust intellectual model than "listen to the guy in the white pointy hat because his 2000 year old book says so". science doesn't require "belief", it requires "proof". hypothesis is only a stepping stone to fact.

it's a really exciting time at the moment and you can see the level of our technological development has gone parabolic (along with population, resource depletion, pollution, extinction etc).

That's a bit skewed and not really the point.

* Some science is not about gaps in knowledge to be proved or disproved. Astronomical science being a great case in point. Some parts of the big bang theory have been added specifically because the theory doesn't work. It has effectively been disproven. The response has been to add mysterious, unseeable and unprovable "forces" to make it work.

That's OK, providing it's status remains as hypothesis, rather than theory. But in fact, it is taught more as fact.

Much science can take on aspects of religious belief. Climate science is another one that come to mind. Dissenters are regarded by the high priests of the IPCC and their disciples as heretical. Trying to discuss the matter with AGW adherent is exactly like trying to discuss the origins of the universe with an evangelical Christian.

It's a human trait to fervently and militantly align themselves with some belief or cause, whether or not based on actual fact. Humans behave no differently in the fields of scientific hypotheses and theory. Heck, there are still people who believe Gordon Brown is the political messiah .

* While we do have pointy hatted, bible waving filibusters, spewing out nonsense of various flavours, the thinking person doesn't see that as disproof of God or some other non-physical reality, just because they spout easily disprovable concepts. Equally, one can hypothesize on this subject as well, developing and changing based on advances in knowledge.

Chuck the books and think about it (if one wants to that is), based on knowledge and experience. Reject the fear and guilt mechanisms of "religion" without rejecting 'spirituality' (for want of a better word) and there is much to think about and hypothesize over.

The fact is, when viewed this way science and errrr (I'll have to think of a word with non-religious connotations) have more in common than most would like to accept.

But what definitely should happen, is that proponents of the science only view, really should stop dragging up 2000 year old books, pointy hats and genesis creation stories as representative of people who are exploring the other side of the coin. Let's leave those people to their tradition and their beliefs, but recognize the views of other thinkers.

Not to do so is unscientific and narrow-minded... based as much on emotional factors as the pointy hat followers. The few scientists looking at non-physical phenomena are exploring some remarkable avenues.

There is more in common with both trains of though than is generally accepted.

 

[2020hindsight]

http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/tornado.html

PS nothing personal intended about the reference to disarray .. pure coincidence

In his 1983 book The Intelligent Universe, astronomer Fred Hoyle wrote the following infamous passage:

"A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe." (p.19)

Though Hoyle actually intended this as an argument against abiogenesis, the creationists have since assimilated it and used it against evolution

In creationist literature, this argument has mutated into a diversity of forms: setting off an explosion in a print shop to produce a dictionary, disassembling a watch and shaking up the pieces in a box to reassemble it, and so on, building a bicycle by applying a blowtorch to a pile of bicycle parts, and so on. No matter what form the analogy takes, however, creationists have promoted it as a common-sense proof of the impossibility of evolution producing complex, highly ordered forms. There is even a creationist book titled Tornado in a Junkyard.

This essay will show that this analogy is not an accurate representation of how evolution (or, for that matter, abiogenesis) works. In fact, it is a straw man, a ridiculous caricature that bears no resemblance to what the theory actually says... etc

a) It operates purely according to random chance.
b) It is an example of single-step, rather than cumulative, selection.
c) It is a saltationary jump - an end product entirely unlike the beginning product.
d) It has a target specified ahead of time. ....

a) The first point is the most important. The tornado in the junkyard is an example of an intricate, complex and highly organized form being produced by nothing more than random chance. But evolution is not chance... Rather, it operates according to a fixed law - the law of natural selection - which favors some assemblages over others; it preferentially selects for those adaptations which improve fitness and selects against those that do not. The tornado, by contrast, slams parts together and tears them apart with no preference whatsoever, thus completely failing to represent natural selection, the central force which drives evolution. To more accurately represent evolution, one would have to grant the tornado some power to recognize assemblages of parts which could serve as part of a 747 and prevent it from tearing them apart.

b) Second, the tornado analogy is an example of single-step selection - in one step, it goes from a random pile of parts to a fully assembled airliner. This is completely unlike evolution, which operates according to a process of cumulative selection - complex results that are built up gradually, in a repetitive process guided at each step by selective forces. To more accurately represent evolution, the tornado could be sent through the junkyard not once, but thousands or millions of times, at each step preserving chance assemblages of parts that could make up a jumbo jet.

c) Third, in relation to the point above, the tornado in the junkyard is an example of saltation - a sudden leap in which the end product is completely different from the beginning product. Evolution does not work this way; birds do not hatch out of dinosaur eggs and monkeys do not give birth to humans. Rather, species grow different over time through a process of slow change in which each new creature is only slightly different from its ancestor. Evolution forms a gradually shading continuum ....

d) Finally, the tornado analogy fails to represent evolution in one more significant way: it has a target specified ahead of time. Evolution does not. Natural selection is not a forward-looking process; it cannot select for what may become useful in the future, only what is immediately useful in the present. To more accurately represent evolution, we might add the additional stipulation that the tornado be allowed to assemble, not just a jumbo jet, but any functional piece of machinery

.

 

[wayneL]

Irrevocably, the the theory of evolution boils down to abiogenesis though, so where to from here?

Life from non-life.

 

[2020hindsight]

Carl Sagan on Drake Equation

Speaking of the Drake Equation…
if you watch the interval 4m10s to 4m40s…
ONE ELEMENT of that equation is the factor f(smallL).. = the percentage of suitable planets that go on to develop suitable life

Sagan says only 50%
Drake assumed 100%
It would seem that this is the least of your problems (according to these blokes). As Sagan says, "the molecules of life spontaneously self-assemble"

Sagan :- “now what about (the chances of) life (appearing on a suitable world )…. he assumes 50/50 chance , viz:-

what about life?
under very general cosmic conditions, the molecules of life are readily made…they spontaneously self-assemble
It is conceivable that there might be some impediment – like some difficulty in the origin of the generic code say
although I think that’s very unlikely, given the billions of years of evolution,
On the Earth, life arose very fast after the planet was formed. etc

Let’s say 50% of these planets will develop life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
The Drake equation states that:
where:
N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;
and
R* is the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fℓ is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.
Considerable disagreement on the values of most of these parameters exists, but the values used by Drake and his colleagues in 1961 were:
• R* = 10/year (10 stars formed per year, on the average over the life of the galaxy)
• fp = 0.5 (half of all stars formed will have planets)
• ne = 2 (stars with planets will have 2 planets capable of supporting life) = 2
• fl = 1 (100% of these planets will develop life) =
• fi = 0.01 (1% of which will be intelligent life)
• fc = 0.01 (1% of which will be able to communicate)
• L = 10,000 years (which will last 10,000 years)
Drake's values give N = 10 × 0.5 × 2 × 1 × 0.01 × 0.01 × 10,000 = 10. civilisations out there ready to communicate with us

Sagan arrives at the same answer , albeit with different assumptions …..…
• N* = the number of stars in the galaxy now = 400E9= 400 billion in the milky way
• fp = 0.25 (a quarter of all stars formed will have planets)
• ne = 2 (stars with planets will have 2 planets capable of supporting life)
o 200 billion suitable for life
• fl = 0.5 (50% of these planets will develop life) =
o 100 billion inhabited worlds
• fi = 0.1 (10% of which will be intelligent life)
• fc = 0.1 (10% of which will be able to communicate)
o 1 billion planets planets had had a technical civilisation
• fL = a few decades divided by a few billion years
o 1/100,000,000 years
giving (again) 10 civilizations in the galaxy capable of communication, today, now.

 

[Wysiwyg]

The reason for human existance is to learn how life first came about.Once this is discovered then the game is over.The puzzle solved.The charlatans laid to rest.The imposters exposed.A mystery that taunts and teases mankind, causing wars, insanity, cruelty and destruction has an answer to be known.And so it shall be.

Wysiwyg 3:35-42




.

 

[wayneL]

The reason for human existance is to learn how life first came about.Once this is discovered then the game is over.The puzzle solved.The charlatans laid to rest.The imposters exposed.A mystery that taunts and teases mankind, causing wars, insanity, cruelty and destruction has an answer to be known.And so it shall be.

Wysiwyg 3:35-42
.

So if we find the truth... it's all over? The universe implodes back into a superdense pinprick? The Book Of Life is closed?

Long may the mystery prevail then.

 

[Lucky]

Hadron Collider almost complete

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/LHC-en.html

The Large Hadron Collider

Our understanding of the Universe is about to change...

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is a gigantic scientific instrument near Geneva, where it spans the border between Switzerland and France about 100 m underground. It is a particle accelerator used by physicists to study the smallest known particles – the fundamental building blocks of all things. It will revolutionise our understanding, from the miniscule world deep within atoms to the vastness of the Universe.
Two beams of subatomic particles called 'hadrons' – either protons or lead ions – will travel in opposite directions inside the circular accelerator, gaining energy with every lap. Physicists will use the LHC to recreate the conditions just after the Big Bang, by colliding the two beams head-on at very high energy. Teams of physicists from around the world will analyse the particles created in the collisions using special detectors in a number of experiments dedicated to the LHC.
There are many theories as to what will result from these collisions, but what's for sure is that a brave new world of physics will emerge from the new accelerator, as knowledge in particle physics goes on to describe the workings of the Universe. For decades, the Standard Model of particle physics has served physicists well as a means of understanding the fundamental laws of Nature, but it does not tell the whole story. Only experimental data using the higher energies reached by the LHC can push knowledge forward, challenging those who seek confirmation of established knowledge, and those who dare to dream beyond the paradigm.


http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/5021/

 

[MRC & Co]

It's a human trait to fervently and militantly align themselves with some belief or cause, whether or not based on actual fact.

Amen to that. Some of the scientific community are so sure about their "prooven theories" it reminds me of some of the god botherers (pointy white hat men) you see preeching in the streets!

It is refreshing to watch many documentaries lately and see scentists admit they really have no idea about most of what they believe in or talk about.

Talk about people finding it hard to keep an open mind!

 

[MRC & Co]

The response has been to add mysterious, unseeable and unprovable "forces" to make it work.

That appears the case with 'dark matter', not to mention 'worm holes'.

However, aren't black holes actually seen? Matter circling around, being sucked into them? Not to mention light............

 

[disarray]

That appears the case with 'dark matter', not to mention 'worm holes'.

However, aren't black holes actually seen? Matter circling around, being sucked into them? Not to mention light............

yup

 

[spooly74]

That appears the case with 'dark matter', not to mention 'worm holes'.
............

There are currently 2 candidates for cold dark matter.

The first is the axion, and if it does indeed exist it is too small to be detected directly. There is hope that they may be detected due to their interaction with electromagnetic fields but it`s a long long shot.
There has been an experiment which claimed to have found it, but scientists have been unable to replicate it in othe rlabs (DAMA-dark matter experiment). There is also hope for its discovery in a lab underground in Yorkshire

The 2nd is called the neutralino and if you were a betting physicist this is where your $$ would be.
Although its been given this name, it is not any specific particle but a general name to cover all options. This particle (or combination) emerges naturally out of supersymmetry!!!

This will definitely be detected at the LHC if it exists so sit tight, not long to go.

 

[2020hindsight]

This particle (or combination) emerges naturally out of supersymmetry

that's how they pick Miss Universe as well, I'm told.

 

[spooly74]

* Some science is not about gaps in knowledge to be proved or disproved. Astronomical science being a great case in point. Some parts of the big bang theory have been added specifically because the theory doesn't work. It has effectively been disproven. The response has been to add mysterious, unseeable and unprovable "forces" to make it work.

That's OK, providing it's status remains as hypothesis, rather than theory. But in fact, it is taught more as fact.

Much science can take on aspects of religious belief. Climate science is another one that come to mind. Dissenters are regarded by the high priests of the IPCC and their disciples as heretical. Trying to discuss the matter with AGW adherent is exactly like trying to discuss the origins of the universe with an evangelical Christian.

Specifically, what parts ot the big bang theory do not work?

Big bang is a theory, not a hypothesis ... and by definition dosent have proof, only evidence.
Are there better explanations for cosmic microwave background, for the observed redshift of galaxies or the abundances of the light elements in the universe?
BB is supported by these observations, the lack of alternate theories makes it very strong.

I`m not sure what aspects of science take on religious belief. I am going to assume you mean 'faith' so apologies if I assumed wrong.
Dark matter, dark energy etc are all theories from observations (albeit indirectly) with predicted energies and values. They can all be falsified by coming up with a better theory from observations.
Electric Universe hypothesis on the other hand, is almost totally based on faith.

 

[spooly74]

The WorldWide Telescope (WWT) is a Web 2.0 visualization software environment that enables your computer to function as a virtual telescope””bringing together imagery from the best ground and space-based telescopes in the world for a seamless exploration of the universe.

Brilliant program available for download.

http://www.worldwidetelescope.org

Some screenshots attached.

 

[MRC & Co]

Brilliant Spooly, I'm gonna be playing around with this for a while!

 

[wayneL]

Yeah thanks Spooly,

I'll have to update my abacus before downloading. Saved for later.

 

[MRC & Co]

Electric Universe hypothesis on the other hand, is almost totally based on faith.

I was reading the other day (sorry can't remember the site), that there is a space explorer moving out of our solar system and into the galaxy, of which was being pulled back by the apparent gravity of the sun. Obviously, as the explorer gets further away, the pull of gravity will ease and the explorer will be able to pick up speed, the further it got away, no speed was gained. One arguement beyond faith (unless something else explains this phenomena), for the electric universe.

Then again, skim read it, so probably missed a few points.

Does this sound right?