The internet as a truth

[OrdinaryClay]

 

Sure it does.  

 

"The Drake equation is a probabilistic argument used to arrive at an estimate of the number of active, communicative extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Waygalaxy.^[1][2] The number of such civilizations, N, is assumed to be equal to the mathematical product of

1. the average rate of star formation, R_∗, in our galaxy,
2. the fraction of formed stars, f_p, that have planets,
3. for stars that have planets, the average number of planets n_e that can potentially support life,
4. the fraction of those planets, f_l, that actually develop life,
5. the fraction of planets bearing life on which intelligent, civilized life, f_i, has developed,
6. the fraction of these civilizations that have developed communications, f_c, i.e., technologies that release detectable signs into space, and
7. the length of time, L, over which such civilizations release detectable signals,

for a combined expression of:

N=R∗⋅fp⋅ne⋅fl⋅fi⋅fc⋅L

The equation was written in 1961 by Frank Drake, not for purposes of quantifying the number of civilizations, but as a way to stimulate scientific dialogue at the first scientific meeting on the search for intelligent extraterrestrial life (SETI). ^[3][4] The equation summarizes the main concepts which scientists must contemplate when considering the question of other radio-communicative life.^[3]

Criticism related to the Drake equation focuses not on the equation itself, but on the fact that the estimated values for several of its factors are highly conjectural, the combined effect being that the uncertainty associated with any derived value is so large that the equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions."

 

Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

 

Item 5 above absorbs all of your concerns.  In any event, the Drake Equation is only a mathematical/probability equation.  If accurate data were available for each of the parameters, an accurate product would result.  

 

This is from the Rare Earth Hypothesis.  Note it is a hypothesis.  Yet, you pretend it is fact.  Your bias is quite obvious.  In any event, even if correct, it merely affects the probability of the product of the Drake Equation (again, assuming we have accurate data to apply to it), not the viability of the Drake Equation.

 

As to the factors in the Rare Earth Hypothesis equation, some have evidence supporting them (e.g., need for magnetic field) because there is actual evidence supporting that factor.  Others are somewhat more speculative in terms of necessity (e.g.,  need for a "right" arrangement of planets in the solar system in question, need for plate techtonics).

 

Two of the factors in the Rare Earth Hypothesis deal with biological evolution.  No doubt you agree with those factors in the equation.

 

Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis

The values plugged into 4,5,6 and 7 are complete WAGs. The evidence is building for the non-existence of life. So as I said, there may be life in the universe despite the evidence building against it.

 

It's well established we need plate tectonics for a mineral cycle. There is a finite (ecologically speaking) amount of carbon, for example, and subduction is essential for its long term (geologically speaking) stable distribution. Furthermore, if our planet was tidal locked we would not have sentient life.

 

Ward and Brownlee are not the only ones proposing the atheist heresy that life is rarer than many believe.

[bornagainathiest]

 

I have a question for OrdinaryClay about Brownlee and Ward's book, The Rare Earth Hypothesis.

 

Here is a link to .pdf file of the entire book. http://www.ohsd.net/cms/lib09/WA01919452/Centricity/Domain/675/Rare Earth Book.pdf

 

In chapter two (Habitable Zones of the Universe) there is a diagram showing the habitable zones surrounding different types of star.

Brownlee and Ward contend that to support life a planet would need to orbit within the respective habitable zone of each type of star.

The diagram is on page 17 of the book and can be found by scrolling down to page 50 of the linked .pdf file.

 

OrdinaryClay,

 

Please tell us what important information the printers of this book have omitted from the diagram.

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

 

Bumped for OrdinaryClay's attention.

[bornagainathiest]

 

I have a question for OrdinaryClay about Brownlee and Ward's book, The Rare Earth Hypothesis.

 

Here is a link to .pdf file of the entire book. http://www.ohsd.net/cms/lib09/WA01919452/Centricity/Domain/675/Rare Earth Book.pdf

 

In chapter two (Habitable Zones of the Universe) there is a diagram showing the habitable zones surrounding different types of star.

Brownlee and Ward contend that to support life a planet would need to orbit within the respective habitable zone of each type of star.

The diagram is on page 17 of the book and can be found by scrolling down to page 50 of the linked .pdf file.

 

OrdinaryClay,

 

Please tell us what important information the printers of this book have omitted from the diagram.

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

 

Re-bumped for OrdinaryClay's attention.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

 

So Brownlee and Ward's sample was severely biased towards the massive end of the above scale.

Less than ten of their sample featured in the three most abundant types of exoplanet (the blue, green and orange bins) that are now known to exist.  The reason for this statistical bias isn't difficult to understand.  Exoplanet detection in the 1990's was an immature and imprecise discipline, with only the largest and most massive exoplanets generating a sufficiently strong signal for the ground-based instruments of that decade to register.  This is in sharp contrast to the much-more precise instruments lofted above the blurring and distorting effects of Earth's atmosphere on the Kepler satellite.  

 

In a nutshell, Brownlee and Ward committed themselves too early, with too little data and with severely biased data.

If they had waited until after the Kepler results had come in and used the 3,000+ exoplanets in that data set, then their hypothesis would be worth consideration.  As it stands, their Rare Earth hypothesis made in the year 2000 is not worthy of serious consideration.  I would therefore like to expand upon your response to OrdinaryClay.  Like this...

 

The Rare Earth hypothesis is not fact.  

It is a hypothesis and a very-poorly formulated one at that.  It does not stand up to scrutiny.  It's conclusions are deeply flawed and they should not be trusted.  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Finding more planets of a mass closer to earth's does nothing to address the gross bulk of the theory. That should be clear from even a cursory reading.

[sdelsolray]

 

The values plugged into 4,5,6 and 7 are complete WAGs.

...

 

Which is another way of saying we currently do not have much, if any, actual data to enter into the Drake equation for factors 4, 5, 6 and 7.

 

...

The evidence is building for the non-existence of life. So as I said, there may be life in the universe despite the evidence building against it.

...

How do you get from WAGs ("wild ass guesses") to "evidence is building"?  Please reference at least some of this "evidence".

 

...

It's well established we need plate tectonics for a mineral cycle. There is a finite (ecologically speaking) amount of carbon, for example, and subduction is essential for its long term (geologically speaking) stable distribution.

...

 

Carbon-based life is a rather efficient process for physical distribution of carbon as well as one for chemical distribution (i.e., placing carbon in or removing carbon from numerous different molecules).  That carbon-based life requires a planet which has plate tectonics is a claim.  It is not evidence.

 

...

Furthermore, if our planet was tidal locked we would not have sentient life.

...

 

Just not in any way you can demonstrate.

 

...

Ward and Brownlee are not the only ones proposing the atheist heresy that life is rarer than many believe.

"Atheist heresy"....

 

That's funny.

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

Finding more planets of a mass closer to earth's does nothing to address the gross bulk of the theory. That should be clear from even a cursory reading.

 

False.

Brownlee and Ward rely on the statistics (see chapters 1 and 2) of exoplanet distribution throughout the universe as the foundation upon which they build their hypothesis.  This is problematic for them, because the body of empirical evidence they employed before 2000 was ridiculously small, severely biased and unfit for purpose.  Their conclusions are also problematic for you OrdinaryClay.  

 

Because according to your own definition, as given in this thread...  http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/76905-just-thinking/?page=2

 

Modern experimentally backed cosmology is ex nihilo. Science depends on the experimental method. It is not science unless it is subject to experiment. None of the multiverse models are subject to experiment. Hence they are metaphysics.

 

...Brownlee and Ward can't be doing exoplanet science in their hypothesis.  

According to your definition, they are doing exoplanet metaphysics.  In their book they list the 'Dead Zones of the Universe'.  These are locations they conclude are unlikely to harbor exoplanets.  Their list follows below.  Since NO empirical evidence of exoplanets in any other galaxies exists, Brownlee and Ward's conclusions cannot be subject to experiment.  By your own definition, their conclusions about the zones I've highlighted are not scientific - they are metaphysical.  

 

Brownlee and Ward's Dead Zones of the Universe.

 

Early Universe

Globular Clusters

Elliptical Galaxies

Small Galaxies

Centers of Galaxies

Edges of Galaxies

Planetary Systems with 'Hot Jupiters'

Planetary Systems with Giant Planets in Eccentric Orbits

Future Stars

 

There is NO empirical evidence for exoplanets in any of the highlighted Dead Zones.  

 

NONE.

 

NADA.

 

ZIP!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

I have a question for OrdinaryClay about Brownlee and Ward's book, The Rare Earth Hypothesis.

 

Here is a link to .pdf file of the entire book. http://www.ohsd.net/cms/lib09/WA01919452/Centricity/Domain/675/Rare Earth Book.pdf

 

In chapter two (Habitable Zones of the Universe) there is a diagram showing the habitable zones surrounding different types of star.

Brownlee and Ward contend that to support life a planet would need to orbit within the respective habitable zone of each type of star.

The diagram is on page 17 of the book and can be found by scrolling down to page 50 of the linked .pdf file.

 

OrdinaryClay,

 

Please tell us what important information the printers of this book have omitted from the diagram.

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

 

Re-re-bumped for OrdinaryClay's attention.

[bornagainathiest]

Some more bad news for OrdinaryClay about Brownlee and Ward's Rare Earth hypothesis.

Of the fifty exoplanets Brownlee and Ward could have have used in formulating their hypothesis, four were later shown to be false positives.  Three brown dwarves...  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_dwarf and a red dwarf star.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_dwarf

 

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

In 1997, an extrasolar planet was announced on the basis of radial velocity measurements. This detection method gives only a minimum mass on the planet. Follow-up studies with the Hipparcos satellite indicate that the companion is actually low-mass star in a nearly face-on orbit.  

(A low mass red dwarf star in a 39.6 day orbit, to be exact.)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_190228

Brownlee and Ward would have concluded that HD 190228b was a planet.  But...

 Later astrometric measurements confirmed this: HD 190228 b is in fact a brown dwarf of 49.4 Jupiter masses in a nearly face-on orbit. The brown dwarf takes 1146 days to orbit the star, and the orbit is elliptical with an eccentricity of 0.5.

HD 190228b was confirmed as a brown dwarf in 2011, over a decade after the Rare Earth hypothesis was formulated and published.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_162020

HD 162020 b is a brown dwarf with mass 15.0 MJ. 

In 2002 it was found that the object Brownlee and Ward would have taken as a planet was, in fact, a brown dwarf with a mass 15 times that of Jupiter.  Since Jupiter is 318 times the mass of the Earth a simple calculation shows that HD 162020b has a mass 4,770 times that of the Earth!  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_202206

HD 202206b, the companion detected in 2000 is not a planet, but a brown dwarf with a mass 5,406 times that of the Earth!

The other companion (a giant planet 2.44 times the mass of Jupiter) that was later found orbiting this star was first detected in mid-November 2004, almost five years after Brownlee and Ward formulated and published their Rare Earth hypothesis.

 

As I said earlier in this thread, exoplanet detection between 1995 and 2000 was an immature and imprecise discipline, fraught with much uncertainty.

Conclusions based upon such unreliable data are deeply suspect and should not be taken seriously.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

I have a question for OrdinaryClay about Brownlee and Ward's book, The Rare Earth Hypothesis.

 

Here is a link to .pdf file of the entire book. http://www.ohsd.net/cms/lib09/WA01919452/Centricity/Domain/675/Rare Earth Book.pdf

 

In chapter two (Habitable Zones of the Universe) there is a diagram showing the habitable zones surrounding different types of star.

Brownlee and Ward contend that to support life a planet would need to orbit within the respective habitable zone of each type of star.

The diagram is on page 17 of the book and can be found by scrolling down to page 50 of the linked .pdf file.

 

OrdinaryClay,

 

Please tell us what important information the printers of this book have omitted from the diagram.

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

 

Re-re-re-bumped for OrdinaryClay's attention.

[ag_NO_stic]

Am I the only one still getting notifications for this thread who skims over the content, notices a SHIT ton of words not understood, has resigned to just not knowing science as well as other people, and just assumes @bornagainathiest has this one covered? 

[bornagainathiest]

Yes, I've got this one covered, ag_NO_stic.  

 

But OrdinaryClay is a religious fanatic who simply won't admit when he's been cut down to size.

 

 

But I haven't finished with him yet!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

How do you get from WAGs ("wild ass guesses") to "evidence is building"?  Please reference at least some of this "evidence".

 

Carbon-based life is a rather efficient process for physical distribution of carbon as well as one for chemical distribution (i.e., placing carbon in or removing carbon from numerous different molecules).  That carbon-based life requires a planet which has plate tectonics is a claim.  It is not evidence.

 

Just not in any way you can demonstrate.

 

 

Evidence is building against it because of the cumulative building of evidence against the possibility. No one can ever claim scientifically  that "no alien life exists in the universe", but we can say that the evidence is trending toward the conclusion that it is far more difficult for life to start, let along have evolved to the point of interstellar travel, than anyone thought to be the case. For example, despite an enormous amount of intellectual effort spent by brilliant scientific minds no one has explained abiogenesis yet. The accumulation of needed planetary factors is another factor.

 

Life cannot reclaim carbon in deep sequestration. Plate tectonics is needed to reclaim the deeply held carbon in the ocean floor for example. This is an example of the long term carbon cycle. Evolution requires deep gelogic time. Deep geologic time requires plate tectonics for a carbon cycle of the proper time scale.

 

A tidally locked planet has a broken (from the stand point of life) hydrological cycle. Our hydrological cycle requires a constant heat distribution to work properly. The evolution of advanced life and sentient life requires a geologically stable and very long term hydrological cycle.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

False.

Brownlee and Ward rely on the statistics (see chapters 1 and 2) of exoplanet distribution throughout the universe as the foundation upon which they build their hypothesis.  This is problematic for them, because the body of empirical evidence they employed before 2000 was ridiculously small, severely biased and unfit for purpose.  Their conclusions are also problematic for you OrdinaryClay.  

 

Because according to your own definition, as given in this thread...  http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/76905-just-thinking/?page=2

 

Modern experimentally backed cosmology is ex nihilo. Science depends on the experimental method. It is not science unless it is subject to experiment. None of the multiverse models are subject to experiment. Hence they are metaphysics.

 

...Brownlee and Ward can't be doing exoplanet science in their hypothesis.  

According to your definition, they are doing exoplanet metaphysics.  In their book they list the 'Dead Zones of the Universe'.  These are locations they conclude are unlikely to harbor exoplanets.  Their list follows below.  Since NO empirical evidence of exoplanets in any other galaxies exists, Brownlee and Ward's conclusions cannot be subject to experiment.  By your own definition, their conclusions about the zones I've highlighted are not scientific - they are metaphysical.  

 

Brownlee and Ward's Dead Zones of the Universe.

 

Early Universe

Globular Clusters

Elliptical Galaxies

Small Galaxies

Centers of Galaxies

Edges of Galaxies

Planetary Systems with 'Hot Jupiters'

Planetary Systems with Giant Planets in Eccentric Orbits

Future Stars

 

There is NO empirical evidence for exoplanets in any of the highlighted Dead Zones.  

 

NONE.

 

NADA.

 

ZIP!

 

 

 

 

 

 

The planet size is a small part of the case made for the rarity of advanced biological life in the universe.

 

The multiverse theories are unavailable to experimental verification because by definition we cannot observe between universes. So their empirical verification is outside science. This is explained in the book reference I posted earlier.

 

Claims within our universe, such as a claim that centers of galaxies are dead zones are verifiable empirically, albeit very difficult to verify. This was the case with Einstein's theories for example. It took a while for the technology to advance to the point where experiments were practical.

[florduh]

OC:  Aliens. Demons. Let's go. Something you have verified on the Internet. Start a new thread if you like. Inquiring minds want to know. Educate us. You're not going to get anywhere arguing with BAA so save yourself the pain and embarrassment. 

[sdelsolray]

 

Evidence is building against it because of the cumulative building of evidence against the possibility.

...

 

I asked for evidence and you simply reassert your claim as a faux tautology.  I'll repeat what I requested in my most recent post above in this thread:

 

"Please reference at least some of this "evidence"."

 

 

...

[W]e can say that the evidence is trending toward the conclusion that it is far more difficult for life to start, let along have evolved to the point of interstellar travel, than anyone thought to be the case.

...

 

 

Again, you claim "the evidence is trending" toward these three new claims of yours:

(i) it is more difficult for life to start;

(ii) it is more difficult for life to evolve and develop interstellar travel; and

(iii) this increased difficulty is greater than anyone previous thought.

 

The only evidence I see is your need to make shit up to feed your confirmation biases.

 

In any event, whatever factors favor or disfavor carbon based life from emerging or evolving, those factors would be present regardless of whether humans know about them or not.  Accordingly, (i) and (ii) above have never been "more difficult" than they ever were in the past, are in the present or will be in the future.

 

Again, please reference actual empirical evidence which supports any of these three bald assertions.

 

 

...

For example, despite an enormous amount of intellectual effort spent by brilliant scientific minds no one has explained abiogenesis yet.

...

Non-sequitur.  Whether humans yet understand or are able to explain something is not relevant to your claims.  This is not "evidence" of your claims.  Indeed, our lack of understanding or explanation is an epistemological observation and simply demonstrates that we do not know and contradicts your mere assertion.  You claim to know, for example, that "it is far more difficult for life to start" (your words).  How do you know this?  By what metric is "more difficult" measured?  What experiments have been done which support your claim?  You make statements which are contradictory (i.e., (i) we don't know how life started but (ii) I know it would be more difficult to start even though I have no evidence).

 

 

...

Life cannot reclaim carbon in deep sequestration. Plate tectonics is needed to reclaim the deeply held carbon in the ocean floor for example. This is an example of the long term carbon cycle. Evolution requires deep gelogic time. Deep geologic time requires plate tectonics for a carbon cycle of the proper time scale.

...

 

 

This is another claim.  Please demonstrate how plate tectonics is a requirement for long term evolution.  I can just as easily claim that plate tectonics merely facilitates evolution, or merely helps to increase species diversity and population densities.  

 

Again, please reference actual empirical evidence which supports the "requirement" element of your claim.

 

 

...

A tidally locked planet has a broken (from the stand point of life) hydrological cycle. Our hydrological cycle requires a constant heat distribution to work properly. The evolution of advanced life and sentient life requires a geologically stable and very long term hydrological cycle.

Another absolutist claim.  Which tidally locked planets do this?  Please list them, first by star, next by planet number from that star and last by common name.  In any event, even if correct, why wouldn't a tidally locked planet have a hydrological cycle along each of its two terminuses (i.e., the edges of the planet which are in twilight at all time)?  What about tidally locked moons?

 

Turning to the evolutionary aspect, how do you know that sentient life requires a hydrological cycle?  It's all well and good to speculate or even hypothesize, or to repeat other's speculations and hypotheses (which is what you are doing here).  However, these are not know facts.  You pretend they are.

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

The planet size is a small part of the case made for the rarity of advanced biological life in the universe.

 

Your attempt to downplay the pivotal significance of planet size tells me that you know just how important it is to the Rare Earth hypothesis..

Brownlee and Ward knew that too, which is why they devote so much time to it in the early chapters of their book.  They, you and I know that the size and distribution of planets in the universe is vital to the hypothesis.

 

This is the truth... even if you will never admit it.

 

 

 

The multiverse theories are unavailable to experimental verification because by definition we cannot observe between universes. So their empirical verification is outside science. This is explained in the book reference I posted earlier.

 

Smolin is a clever man and would never propose something that violates the Laws of Energy Conservation.

But what you've described in this thread does exactly that.  The visual horizon which demarcates the edge of the observable universe is not a fixed barrier across which nothing passes.  Quite the opposite.  Since space is expanding and carrying galaxies with it, every day entire galaxies disappear over this 'edge' and vanish from the observable universe.  By your logic, these galaxies cease to be physical objects and become metaphysical constructs, beyond the reach of science.  If that's so, then according to you, the universe is leaking energy like a sieve.  But that would be a complete violation of Energy Conservation.  Energy cannot be created or destroyed.  But by asserting that these galaxies cease to have a physical existence... you are destroying energy.  Where is this energy going to, OC?

 

 

 

Claims within our universe, such as a claim that centers of galaxies are dead zones are verifiable empirically, albeit very difficult to verify. This was the case with Einstein's theories for example. It took a while for the technology to advance to the point where experiments were practical.

 

Unsupported claim.  Evidence please.

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

I have a question for OrdinaryClay about Brownlee and Ward's book, The Rare Earth Hypothesis.

 

Here is a link to .pdf file of the entire book. http://www.ohsd.net/cms/lib09/WA01919452/Centricity/Domain/675/Rare Earth Book.pdf

 

In chapter two (Habitable Zones of the Universe) there is a diagram showing the habitable zones surrounding different types of star.

Brownlee and Ward contend that to support life a planet would need to orbit within the respective habitable zone of each type of star.

The diagram is on page 17 of the book and can be found by scrolling down to page 50 of the linked .pdf file.

 

OrdinaryClay,

 

Please tell us what important information the printers of this book have omitted from the diagram.

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

[sdelsolray]

 

Finding more planets of a mass closer to earth's does nothing to address the gross bulk of the theory. That should be clear from even a cursory reading.

 

Note how OC pretends the Rare Earth Hypothesis is a scientific theory.  

 

For the lurkers:  This is a classic example of "making shit up".

[sdelsolray]

BAA,

 

You might get a chuckle from the following thread on RatSkep:

 

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/genomes-as-events-in-a-trial-t54241.html

[bornagainathiest]

Here's two other things Brownlee and Ward wouldn't have known in 2000, when they formulated and published the Rare Earth hypothesis.

 

Of the forty-six detected exoplanets that made up their sample, twenty-eight were hot Jupiters...  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Jupiter and nine were warm Jupiters.

Hot Jupiters are defined as having a semi major axis of up to 0.5.  This is an orbital characteristic that describes how closely a planet orbits its star.  Mercury has a semi major axis of 0.387, Venus' value is 0.723 and Earth's is 1.0.   So, Brownlee and Ward would have erroneously concluded that hot and warm Jupiters constituted a significant fraction of all the exoplanets in the universe.  They spent a lot of time explaining how these monsters would have destroyed small planets as they spiraled their way in towards their star, before settling into tight, tidally-locked orbits.  They listed planetary systems with hot Jupiters as Dead Zones of the Universe.  But because of the abundance of hot Jupiters in the early years of exoplanet discovery, they seriously overestimated the abundance of these planets in the universe.

 

Based upon the later, more accurate and more representative data from the Kepler satellite, we now know that only 1% of solar type stars hosts a hot Jupiter.

 

 http://www.pnas.org/content/111/35/12647.full

 

"Ironically, the hot Jupiters that comprised the very first Doppler and transiting exoplanet discoveries are actually quite rare." 

 

Brownlee and Ward's hypothesis was based upon the very first Doppler and transiting exoplanet discoveries.

.

.

.

The second thing they wouldn't have known was this...

 

http://www.dunlap.utoronto.ca/warm-jupiters-not-as-lonely-as-expected/

 

But, instead of finding “lonely”, companion-less Warm Jupiters, the team found that 11 of the 27 targets they studied have companions ranging in size from Earth-like to Neptune-like.

“And when we take into account that there is more analysis to come,” says Huang, “the number of Warm Jupiters with smaller neighbours may be even higher. We may find that more than half have companions.”

 

For the record, the same data that now informs us that hot Jupiters orbit only around 1% of solar type stars also informs us that Warm Jupiters  orbit around 3% of solar type stars.

 

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

 

Am I the only one still getting notifications for this thread who skims over the content, notices a SHIT ton of words not understood, has resigned to just not knowing science as well as other people, and just assumes @bornagainathiest has this one covered? 

 

Pretty much at this point.

 

 get two thoughts: 1) Damn damn damn that I never had a decent science education, 2) I'm catching up slowly, but this stuff is still way out of my depth to have any meaningful input into the topic.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Pretty much at this point.

 

 get two thoughts: 1) Damn damn damn that I never had a decent science education, 2) I'm catching up slowly, but this stuff is still way out of my depth to have any meaningful input into the topic.

 

Then let me see if you grasp this vital point, LF.

 

Brownlee and Ward formulated and published their Rare Earth hypothesis in 2000.

As of that year, fifty exoplanets had been discovered.  Since then we've found that four were mistakes (not planets), reducing the amount to forty-six.  Of that total, twenty-eight were a type of planet called a hot Jupiter.  Basically, a giant planet spirals in towards it's star and settles in a very tight and close orbit, destroying or scattering small Earth-like planets out of it's way as it does so.  This was listed as a major hazard by Brownlee and Ward because over half of the then-known exoplanets were hot Jupiters.  

 

But we now know that hot Jupiters are found around just 1% of Sun-like stars.

So, the sample they worked with to formulate their hypothesis had a massive over-representation of these otherwise rare planets.

 

If you get this point, would you put much confidence in their Rare Earth hypothesis?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

 

BAA,

 

You might get a chuckle from the following thread on RatSkep:

 

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/genomes-as-events-in-a-trial-t54241.html

 

Thanks sdelsolray!

 

I did.

 

[bornagainathiest]

For the seventh time of asking...

.

.

.

I have a question for OrdinaryClay about Brownlee and Ward's book, The Rare Earth Hypothesis.

 

Here is a link to .pdf file of the entire book. http://www.ohsd.net/cms/lib09/WA01919452/Centricity/Domain/675/Rare Earth Book.pdf

 

In chapter two (Habitable Zones of the Universe) there is a diagram showing the habitable zones surrounding different types of star.

Brownlee and Ward contend that to support life a planet would need to orbit within the respective habitable zone of each type of star.

The diagram is on page 17 of the book and can be found by scrolling down to page 50 of the linked .pdf file.

 

OrdinaryClay,

 

Please tell us what important information the printers of this book have omitted from the diagram.

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

OrdinaryClay wrote...

 

The multiverse theories are unavailable to experimental verification because by definition we cannot observe between universes. So their empirical verification is outside science. This is explained in the book reference I posted earlier.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physics-String-Theory-Science/dp/061891868X.

.

.

There's another problem you need to face up to OC.

Besides having to explain how the universe is losing energy, you also need to explain how the universe is losing information.  By treating the universe's visual horizon as a kind of 'event horizon' that actively converts physical objects into non-physical ones, you're not only destroying the matter and energy of whole galaxies, you're also destroying their physical information.  This is exactly what is described here...

 

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

 

The major differences is one of scale.

Any black hole can only be destroying information locally, on a stellar or galactic scale.  But you are doing it on a universal scale.  You're positing that this total destruction of matter, energy and information has been happening for the past 13.7 billion years - the entire lifetime of the observable universe!

 

 

 

Where is all the physical information of billions of galaxies going to, OC?