The internet as a truth

[bornagainathiest]

For the eighth (8th) 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.

[LogicalFallacy]

 

 

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.

 

Hi BAA

 

I get that point easy enough. I actually read some of the links you posted regarding their work.

 

Based on all available info I put zero confidence. We know that water at least is not uncommon. If I am correct Venus had water, Mars had water, some moons of Saturn/Jupiter are suspected to have water. So that's one factor that might not be as uncommon as previously thought. Then there is the data sets you point out about numbers and types of planets in the universe. I studied Statistical Analysis at uni and one thing we were taught was to ensure the sample is representative. If its not you get skewed results (Brownlee and Ward)

 

Also the hypotheses relies on the assumption that life can only arise on an earth like planet. I think there are massive problems with this assumption. I know that when searching for life we look towards similar planets because we know 100% that an earth planet can produce life, however basing a 'life occurrence' hypothesis based on the assumption that life can only arise on an earth planet I think is problematic. And that's considering only this galaxy - other galaxies could be completely different... although that might contradict the Copernican principle?

 

Here I paraphrase a line from Game of Thrones: "We know nothing"... well not quite nothing, but I'm sure surprises from the cosmos await.

 

So grasping that point about the rare earth hypothesis is easy as its more conceptual. I guess its the technical stuff I get bogged down on because of the lack of prerequisite knowledge. (Hence me taking ages to respond to threads at times while I try and fill said gaps in knowledge) So for example I can't tell what's missing from the diagram you ask OC about. I would say they are basing the habitable zone on a sample size of one - earth. That I think is problematic, but is it what is missing?

 

Thanks

LF

 

 

[sdelsolray]

I see little wrong with proposing a list of factors that should, could, might or must be present in order for carbon based life to emerge and evolve.  Brownlee's and Ward's attempt is OK, although they have (i) jumped the gun on some of the factors' importance and presume all factors are absolute and mandatory and (ii) jumped the shark on estimating the value for any of the factors.  Indeed, the chosen title "Rare Earth Hypothesis" demonstrates expectation bias and a lack of scientific objectivity and rigor.  By what measure is the word "rare" objectively measured?  For example, say there were/are 1,000 planets in an average galaxy that meet all the factors/conditions Brownlee and Ward put forth.  Assuming 100 billion galaxies exist in the observable universe, a reasonable calculation of how many planets exist with sentient life approaches 100 trillion (100,000,000,000,000).  Is that rare?

 

Ordinary Clay shows his expectation and confirmation biases by promoting any conclusion from the Rare Earth Hypothesis, other than we do not know.

[sdelsolray]

 

 

...

I would say they are basing the habitable zone on a sample size of one - earth. That I think is problematic, but is it what is missing?

 

Thanks

LF

 

 

On this one point, LF, they are basing it on more than just the Earth.  The chemistry of carbon based life (e.g., organic chemistry) requires the existence of carbon and some other elements besides hydrogen and helium (the only two elements in the primordial universe (I'm leaving out lithium)).  Such "heavier" elements are only formed in stars and only spread out (to be absorbed into later forming solar systems) from novas, super novas, hyper novas and neutron star mergers.  That did not happen until early generations of stars had run through their life cycles ejecting the heavier elements and enough subsequent time elapsed for the ejecta to infiltrate clouds of primordial hydrogen which were destined to become proto-solar systems and eventually fully evolved solar systems.  I have seen estimates (almost WAGs) from hundreds of millions of years to five billion years until a solar system was formed from these heavier elements.  Put more simply, a planet must contain hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen (and some others) for carbon-based life to emerge.

[LogicalFallacy]

 

On this one point, LF, they are basing it on more than just the Earth.  The chemistry of carbon based life (e.g., organic chemistry) requires the existence of carbon and some other elements besides hydrogen and helium (the only two elements in the primordial universe (I'm leaving out lithium)).  Such "heavier" elements are only formed in stars and only spread out (to be absorbed into later forming solar systems) from novas, super novas, hyper novas and neutron star mergers.  That did not happen until early generations of stars had run through their life cycles ejecting the heavier elements and enough subsequent time elapsed for the ejecta to infiltrate clouds of primordial hydrogen which were destined to become proto-solar systems and eventually fully evolved solar systems.  I have seen estimates (almost WAGs) from hundreds of millions of years to five billion years until a solar system was formed from these heavier elements.  Put more simply, a planet must contain hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen (and some others) for carbon-based life to emerge.

 

Ok, good to know. Thanks sdelsolray.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Hi BAA

 

I get that point easy enough. I actually read some of the links you posted regarding their work.

 

Based on all available info I put zero confidence. We know that water at least is not uncommon. If I am correct Venus had water, Mars had water, some moons of Saturn/Jupiter are suspected to have water. So that's one factor that might not be as uncommon as previously thought. Then there is the data sets you point out about numbers and types of planets in the universe. I studied Statistical Analysis at uni and one thing we were taught was to ensure the sample is representative. If its not you get skewed results (Brownlee and Ward)

 

Also the hypotheses relies on the assumption that life can only arise on an earth like planet. I think there are massive problems with this assumption. I know that when searching for life we look towards similar planets because we know 100% that an earth planet can produce life, however basing a 'life occurrence' hypothesis based on the assumption that life can only arise on an earth planet I think is problematic. And that's considering only this galaxy - other galaxies could be completely different... although that might contradict the Copernican principle?

 

The CP comes into play as a form of assumption, LF.

Because of the speed of light, anything we know about this galaxy is from 4.3 to 100,000 years out of date.  That's going from the nearest star system to one lying on the far edge of the Milky Way.  Our two satellite galaxies (the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds, which are in your NZ skies) are about 160,000 and 200,00 light years away, respectively.  Andromeda is 2.5 million and so on.  Since we can't do as OrdinaryClay insists and experiment or test anything directly, we are obliged to assume (using the CP) that what we observe about these distant places today still applies to them today, even though their light is millions of years old.

 

When it comes to other galaxies, we've established that they have (more or less) the same range and distribution of chemical elements as we find in the Milky Way, as we find on other planets and as we find here on Earth.  We therefore use this information to assume (using the CP) that since life arose naturally here, then it can do so naturally in those other places.   In a nutshell, what we see here gives us a template to extrapolate with about life in outer space.  How we use that template is the key question.

 

In this thread I've said nothing at all about extraterrestrial life.

Instead, my focus has been solely on the faultiness of the template that Brownlee and Ward have proposed - the Rare earth hypothesis.  Imho I've been able to show, using the facts and relevant data, that their worked is seriously flawed and untrustworthy.   More on this below.

 

 

 

Here I paraphrase a line from Game of Thrones: "We know nothing"... well not quite nothing, but I'm sure surprises from the cosmos await.

 

So grasping that point about the rare earth hypothesis is easy as its more conceptual. I guess its the technical stuff I get bogged down on because of the lack of prerequisite knowledge. (Hence me taking ages to respond to threads at times while I try and fill said gaps in knowledge) So for example I can't tell what's missing from the diagram you ask OC about. I would say they are basing the habitable zone on a sample size of one - earth. That I think is problematic, but is it what is missing?

 

Thanks

LF

 

 

 

Ok, now about that diagram on page 17 of Brownlee and Ward's book.

Since OrdinaryClay refuses to answer my question about it and hasn't displayed even the slightest interest in finding out what's missing, I'll set things right here and now.  I can't copy the diagram from the .pdf file in question, but here's a similar one that conveys similar information.

 

 

Cooler stars are type M red dwarves, Sun-like stars are type G (the Sun is G2)  and hotter stars are type F.

This Wiki page is helpful.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_classification  So, what's displayed in Brownlee and Ward's book are what they call the three types of star that might host Earth-like planets, M, G and F.  They make the point that type G is optimum and that types M and F have significant problems in comparison.  But from looking at 'Harvard Spectral Classification' diagram on the Wiki page, can you see an intermediate type of star, between the red type M and the yellow type G?

 

 

What about the orange, K type stars?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-type_main-sequence_star

 

Do you see the last column of the above table, LF?

K type stars represent 12% of all the main sequence stars in the Milky Way... yet Brownlee and Ward totally exclude them from their book.   There aren't just three types of star that should be considered as possible hosts for planets that might support life - there are four.  And the one that's been omitted isn't some minor and unimportant subclass that has no effect on the gross bulk of the hypothesis.  We now know that that it's the type that deserves the most careful and detailed examination.

 

I can explain further, if you'd like.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

[LogicalFallacy]

@reverendturmoil "their faces shall sup up as the east wind."

 

And what do you suppose "sup up means". This verse is nothing to do with worship. The east wind in the Mid east dries everything out. The verse can be put into English as ""their faces shall dry up as the east wind."

 

Next attempt?

 

By the way I think you get the prize for wild interpretations and shoehorning of the Bible. Congratulations, there's a lot of fierce competition for this prize.

 

@bornagainathiest Thanks BAA, that explains it! I note OC hasn't replied yet.....

[reverendturmoil]

 

 

Yeah I think you might have missed the history lesson that covered CE 325 to around CE 1700. You know, marching armies, crusades, blood flowing out of Jerusalem from the slaughter of both Jews and Muslims. Witch hunts, burnings, hangings. In the Name of God.

Did you forget Christians aren't doing that any more?  The crusades were necessary.  Even back then, Islam was doing a pretty good job of killing too. 100 years after Islam began, had it not been for Charles Martel all of Europe could have fallen to the mohammadans.  Less than 100 yeras ago...

 

The city of Izmir hasn’t always been called that. Before it became a Turkish city, it had been Smyrna, a major Greek port and trading center for more than two millennia. Even after becoming part of the Ottoman Empire it remained a primarily Christian city, home to many thousands of Greeks and Armenians.

Until 1922, that is. The week of September 11-17, to be precise. During that period the city was occupied by the forces of Mustafa Kemal, a.k.a. Kemal Attaturk. The Christian areas of the city were looted and torched, and the Armenians and the Greeks were driven from their homes to flee the city or be slaughtered. Of the 400,000 Christians resident in the city beforehand, virtually none remained, and more than 190,000 were never accounted for. The Archbishop Chrysostomos was among the victims, murdered at the hands of a mob while under the “protection” of French marines. The city, except for the Turkish quarter, was reduced to a smoking ruin.

 

Maybe you missed last months history lesson...

 

In May there were 216 Islamic attacks in 26 countries, 44 of them Akbar Allah's, killing 1,649 people and injuring 1726.   Want the list?

Now you show me the list of worldwide CHRISTIAN attacks in the recent past.  
 

[reverendturmoil]

 

 

Does your burrito god give you gas and bad breath?

 

Only when it's made with artificial ingredients.  

It took a mind to make my burito,and  the planet I'm standing on tells me when it's time to eat my burito. 

[LogicalFallacy]

 

Did you forget Christians aren't doing that any more?  The crusades were necessary.  Even back then, Islam was doing a pretty good job of killing too. 100 years after Islam began, had it not been for Charles Martel all of Europe could have fallen to the mohammadans.  Less than 100 yeras ago...

 

The city of Izmir hasn’t always been called that. Before it became a Turkish city, it had been Smyrna, a major Greek port and trading center for more than two millennia. Even after becoming part of the Ottoman Empire it remained a primarily Christian city, home to many thousands of Greeks and Armenians.

Until 1922, that is. The week of September 11-17, to be precise. During that period the city was occupied by the forces of Mustafa Kemal, a.k.a. Kemal Attaturk. The Christian areas of the city were looted and torched, and the Armenians and the Greeks were driven from their homes to flee the city or be slaughtered. Of the 400,000 Christians resident in the city beforehand, virtually none remained, and more than 190,000 were never accounted for. The Archbishop Chrysostomos was among the victims, murdered at the hands of a mob while under the “protection” of French marines. The city, except for the Turkish quarter, was reduced to a smoking ruin.

 

Maybe you missed last months history lesson...

 

In May there were 216 Islamic attacks in 26 countries, 44 of them Akbar Allah's, killing 1,649 people and injuring 1726.   Want the list?

Now you show me the list of worldwide CHRISTIAN attacks in the recent past.  
 

 

You are committing a fallacy whereby you are saying that because attacks by Islamic militants are currently more numerous than Christian attacks therefore prophesy. Muslims are not currently engaged in all out warfare like the crusaders were.

 

United states is a Christian nation, its presidents all invoke the name of god. Here's a partial list of military interventions

 

https://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

 

"After this I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong; and it had large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed and trampled down the remainder with its feet; and it was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns."

 

This is the prophesy about the United States military crushing nations under it.

[bornagainathiest]

 

(snip)

 

@bornagainathiest Thanks BAA, that explains it! I note OC hasn't replied yet.....

 

Not a problem, LF.

 

His 'leaky universe' edsel will be waiting for him, whenever he returns.

 

[florduh]

The only truth we can trust from the Internet is about demons flying space ships. And maybe the flat earth. Or perhaps hollow earth. It's hard to keep up with all the truth coming from the Internet, prophets and Bronze Age mythology.

[reverendturmoil]

 

 

You are committing a fallacy whereby you are saying that because attacks by Islamic militants are currently more numerous than Christian attacks therefore prophesy. Muslims are not currently engaged in all out warfare like the crusaders were.

 

United states is a Christian nation, its presidents all invoke the name of god. Here's a partial list of military interventions

 

https://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

 

"After this I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrifying and extremely strong; and it had large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed and trampled down the remainder with its feet; and it was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns."

 

This is the prophesy about the United States military crushing nations under it.

So tell me.  Who or what are the ten horns.of the US military?  

[reverendturmoil]

 

The only truth we can trust from the Internet is about demons flying space ships. And maybe the flat earth. Or perhaps hollow earth. It's hard to keep up with all the truth coming from the Internet, prophets and Bronze Age mythology.

No.  Demons are not flying spaceships.  After the aliens/fallen angels die THEN they become disembodied spirits called demons.  AND.  The fallen angel/alien theory has been around way before the internet. 

[LogicalFallacy]

 

Sp tell me.  Who or what are the ten horns.of the US military?  

These are the ten strong allies of the US who back them in the conquest for world domination

[reverendturmoil]

 

These are the ten strong allies of the US who back them in the conquest for world domination

I really don't think the US military is out to conquer the world.  But I do think these people are...

 

 

[midniterider]

 

No.  Demons are not flying spaceships.  After the aliens/fallen angels die THEN they become disembodied spirits called demons.  AND.  The fallen angel/alien theory has been around way before the internet. 

 

Bullshit stories have been around forever. Old bullshit is still bullshit.

[LogicalFallacy]

 

I really don't think the US military is out to conquer the world.  But I do think these people are...

 

 

 

And what do you base you position on the US military on? They pretty much already control the world, they have their finger in every pie. Revelations speaks of the power of the US:

 

"

¹¹ Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon. ¹² It exercised all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. ¹³ And it performed great signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to the earth in full view of the people. ¹⁴ Because of the signs it was given power to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived the inhabitants of the earth. It ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. ¹⁵ The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. ¹⁶ It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, ¹⁷ so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.

¹⁸ This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man.^[e] That number is 666"

 

So Rome was the first beast, and its deadly wound healed and it became the US - the spirit of the beast in Rome transferred to the United States.

 

"And it performed great signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to the earth in full view of the people"

 

So this is a clear prophesy of nuclear fire that happened when they dropped bombs on Japan

 

"And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth"

 

Japan sided with the Nazis who were against Jerusalem. Thus when they got bombed they were consumed.

 

So your interpretation of scripture is way off - you are worried about the side show that is ISIS while you are missing the rise of the second beast! The US is the second beast!

[Ablemate]

This thread seems to have deviated from its original subject.

 

I think OC only posted this to bring up the booklist that puts the bible seventh.

Completely insane.

There are thousands of lists of the top however many of this or that.

They are not lies.

They are opinions. Everyone is free to make their own or agree or disagree.

A lot of effort for nothing.

[Orbit]

 

My college days are long past so I honestly don't know what is allowable in today's schools. Are you saying web sites are never allowed as sources in term papers?

Only if they are reputable. There is a difference between census.gov and infowars.com. The latter is not an acceptable source.

The internet is just like a library, only bigger, and with more self-publishing. One has to use critical thinking to evaluate the quality of the material.

[bornagainathiest]

STOP PRESS!

 

I discovered this yesterday.

 

 http://www.aspbooks.org/publications/213/85.pdf

 

This is information that was presented at an Exoplanet conference in Kohala, Hawaii in March 2000.

This data represents EVERYTHING that could have been known about exoplanets before Brownlee and Ward drafted their Rare Earth Hypothesis in the year 2000.

 

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

 

In a nutshell, the salient points are these.

 

1.

Thirty five (35) exoplanets are listed, but one (Rho Coronae Borealis b ) has since been found to be an ultra-low mass red dwarf star masquerading as a planet.  This drops the true number of exoplanets that Brownlee and Ward could have known about to thirty four (34).  This is a laughably small sample from which to try and characterize the billions of exoplanets that swarm through our galaxy.

 

2.

In the Kohala article, it is stated that the minimum mass of exoplanets detectable at that time was equal to that of the planet Saturn.  This gas giant planet is 95 times as massive as the Earth.  This means that it was impossible for any telescope in existence at that time to detect the presence of a small, rocky planet like the Earth.  Impossible.  This further means that Brownlee and Ward had NO examples of Earth-like exoplanets upon which to base their hypothesis.  Which means that they were shooting blind when they did so.

 

3.

The Kohala article further states that 21 of the 35 exoplanet candidates (their existence hadn't been independently confirmed at this time - which is why they are referred to as candidates) were 'Hot Jupiters'.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Jupiter  This is significant because we now know that these hot, massive planets are only found around 1% of Sun-like stars.  The reason so many were found so early on in the hunt for exoplanets is easy enough to understand.  Massively-heavy planets orbiting very close to their host stars generate a very strong signal that can be easily detected.  Whereas, small planets like the Earth, orbiting much further out generate a very much weaker signal.  As point # 2 describes, no telescope at that time had any chance of detecting such a weak signal.  Which is why the largest exoplanets, orbiting closest to their stars were the ones to be discovered first.

 

Brownlee and Ward could not have known any of this, of course.

They wrongly took the detected abundance of Hot Jupiters as a true indicator of just how common they were.  This apparent (but false) abundance severely biased their conclusions about the prevalence of Earth-sized planets in our galaxy.  They supposed that these giant planets formed in the cold, outer reaches of their solar systems and then spiraled in towards their stars, smashing and scattering smaller Earth-sized planets on their way.  They therefore concluded that every hot Jupiter orbiting close to it's star had destroyed all the Earth-sized planets in those solar systems.  (see 'Migration' on the Wiki Hot Jupiter page)  This lead them to (wrongly) conclude that Hot Jupiters were very common and Earth-sized planets were correspondingly very rare.

.

.

.

This update is mostly for the benefit of Christian OrdinaryClay, who stubbornly persists in defending Brownlee and Ward's Rare Earth Hypothesis, despite the fatal flaws in their work.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

[ironhorse]

On ‎6‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 1:23 PM, OrdinaryClay said:

Who here relies on the internet as a source of truth?

 

One quote I keep in mind:

 

"Believe what you like, but don't believe everything you read

without questioning it."

~ Pauline Baynes

 

 

http://paulinebaynes.com/

[LogicalFallacy]

Ironhorse is back folks.

 

Quick try and get him to answer outstanding questions before he runs off again.!

[midniterider]

16 hours ago, ironhorse said:

 

One quote I keep in mind:

 

"Believe what you like, but don't believe everything you read

without questioning it."

~ Pauline Baynes

 

 

http://paulinebaynes.com/

 

And by questioning it she means making a judgment call. If you read something and it is contradictory, ridiculous or ignorant then you ought to NOT believe it. 

Some of the Ex-c people here have pointed out contradictory scripture to you and your answer was basically , "There are some parts of scripture I don't understand....but I believe it anyway." I dont think Christians honestly appraise their faith or the bible unless they are headed towards deconversion.

 

They might ask questions ... but the answer is always "God is right. The bible is right", even if they don't understand what they just read.