Why does the U.F.O. skeptic treat all all evidence as equally not evidence?

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Harte

One thing I didn't mention - you failed to cite your source. Why is that?

Who on Earth "knows" the probability of occurence for "advanced sentient life" in the universe?

My source...you are right I didn't mention that did I?


My source: Logic, common sense, an understanding of advanced mathematics and probability, decades of statistical analysis, my own research.

How much research are you doing? What is the nature of your research?

Without a source, I'd say that the graph you manufactured is based on the idea that no life can develop on planets around a red dwarf.

This belief, though recently mainstream in acceptance, has lately been shown to be false.

So, how about recalculating? And this time, perhaps you'll be willing to tell us the parameters that are known to increase the probability that intelligent life will evolve from ordinary life.

originally posted by: tanka418

I pointed out that recent findings basically blow the entire idea you promoted completely out of the water.

Your "recent findings" aren't actually findings, they are theoretical statements based on physics...you think I haven't included such concepts!?!! Think again!

The "things" you think of as "findings" are at the very same level of actual science as my bell curve. The reason is that science currently has no way to measure the effect you are referring to, just as it will be difficult to measure my theory...they both are theories, and until I see better technology for the remote measurement of stars and their planets, I ill continue to be a wee bit skeptical of such things as you have presented. Please remember, I'm currently working with the best technologies for finding these sort of thing...you are not!

What sort of technologies are you employing in your research?

Or do you rely on just about any ole scientist that says what you want to hear?

Given that you claim to have used "research" to determine the probability of intelligent life evolving on an exoplanet, I've seen precious little in the way of such research that would so indicate.

originally posted by: tanka418

Can you explain the reasons you limit "complex life" to the types of stars you prefer?

You are aware, I hope, that certain processes, such as chemical reaction, and other physical events can depend on the amount of available energy. The smaller, colder, dimmer a star is; the less energy it contains. It appears that the more complex a life form is, or can be, the greater the energy from that life form's "Star" (energy source) is required for evolution.

"Certain processes...," "It appears that..."

Which processes, and exactly how does it "appear" that a star has to have a certain output that is prerequisite to the evolution of intelligent life?

The amount of energy received by such a planet is enough to maintain liquid water. Where is more energy than that needed? Are you thinking of photosynthesis? Photosynthesis through chlorophyll would be basically impossible due to the frequency of light from the star. But that doesn't rule out other possible forms of the process. There's more than enough light energy supplied in the temperate zone of such a star for ordinary chemical processes associated with life to occur.

Or do you think otherwise? If so, why?

Harte

a reply to: tanka418

My source: Logic, common sense, an understanding of advanced mathematics and probability, decades of statistical analysis, my own research.

So it was you who drew that chart and labelled it with those spurious probabilities?

Pah!

originally posted by: Harte


Given that you claim to have used "research" to determine the probability of intelligent life evolving on an exoplanet, I've seen precious little in the way of such research that would so indicate.

Actually...this demonstrates the depth of your misunderstanding!

I did not say that. And, that interpretation is all you.

So I take it you are NOT doing any sort of scientific research, nor the application of scientific principal, or even attempting to apply technology to the issue of finding out about exoplanets, and the possibilities/probabilities of life in the cosmos, and rely solely on what you want to hear...

Then you feel the need to attempt t ridicule my work and try to discount it. Just so we have that straight...

You obviously do not understand quite "what" research even is...so you have a nice time in your muddle...one day it will become clear the nature of life in the cosmos, and I will contribute to that body of knowledge, you will not.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: tanka418

My source: Logic, common sense, an understanding of advanced mathematics and probability, decades of statistical analysis, my own research.

So it was you who drew that chart and labelled it with those spurious probabilities?

Pah!

If you have a problem with that; you are invited to disprove it...good luck.

originally posted by: tanka418


Then you feel the need to attempt t ridicule my work and try to discount it. Just so we have that straight...

You don't.

You confuse "ridicule" with yet another attempt to get you to actually SHOW YOUR WORK.

Can't ridicule what isn't there.

a reply to: tanka418

If you have a problem with that; you are invited to disprove it...good luck.

Disprove it? You flatter yourself regarding its significance.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: tanka418


Then you feel the need to attempt t ridicule my work and try to discount it. Just so we have that straight...

You don't.

You confuse "ridicule" with yet another attempt to get you to actually SHOW YOUR WORK.

Can't ridicule what isn't there.

Yeah uh-huh...perhaps IF you could learn to see what's in front of you, you might find what you claim isn't there.

If you carefully read, and fully comprehend what I've written, even through this old keyboard, you will see that what you seek has been there all along. But, as is typical for terrestrials, they only read what they want to "see", only hear what they want to "hear". The stuff you don't like, you never truly "see" nor understand, simply because it somehow violates your artificial limit to the universe. Using that method; you can never learn anything...

So...why don't you sit down, open your eyes, your mind, and shut the pie hole...perhaps you can expand your knowledge.

ETA: Sorry about some of that...but...the reality is that all of y'alls data prejudice would prevent you from accepting anything I say, so the whole point of showing "my work" is kind of moot. But, again, it truly is all over, you see to have missed that...and that is on you.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: tanka418

If you have a problem with that; you are invited to disprove it...good luck.

Disprove it? You flatter yourself regarding its significance.

So that would be; "I can't disprove you, but..."

When you get the "goods" come back, we'll talk.

The truth is, most of humanity is really only interested in ET life if it is basically the same as us, but with some differences in general appearance. We want "Star Trek" aliens. We barely care about the other life on Earth, unless we can eat it or otherwise exploit it, and we consider most other people to be simply annoyances.

If we discover some tiny little independently developed microbes on another planet, most people will lose interest in a short time and hand the subject off to academics to study. As for more exotic or unusual forms of life and intelligence, we're so limited by our human perspective that we might not even recognize it when we see it. And therefore won't care about it.

For instance, these days we have computer networks that communicate on their own to each other continuously. Are we absolutely sure that they're not exchanging information in a way that can be considered a kind of intelligence, but because it's not like human intelligence we don't recognize it? It's a conundrum. All we know is us (to some degree), and we project that view onto the universe. How do we recognize something that is not like us?

originally posted by: tanka418

originally posted by: Harte


Given that you claim to have used "research" to determine the probability of intelligent life evolving on an exoplanet, I've seen precious little in the way of such research that would so indicate.

Actually...this demonstrates the depth of your misunderstanding!

I did not say that. And, that interpretation is all you.

So I take it you are NOT doing any sort of scientific research, nor the application of scientific principal, or even attempting to apply technology to the issue of finding out about exoplanets, and the possibilities/probabilities of life in the cosmos, and rely solely on what you want to hear...

Then you feel the need to attempt t ridicule my work and try to discount it. Just so we have that straight...

You obviously do not understand quite "what" research even is...so you have a nice time in your muddle...one day it will become clear the nature of life in the cosmos, and I will contribute to that body of knowledge, you will not.

I see.

So you can't tell us the parameters you used. Big surprise there.

Again, without a source, I'd have to say you simply made it up.

Show me why I should think otherwise. Or stop posting total BS crap that you manufacture in your mom's basement while binging Cheetos.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
So you can't tell us the parameters you used. Big surprise there.

Again, without a source, I'd have to say you simply made it up.

god, dude!!!
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I told you in this post that the "bell curve" is the standard bell curve used in statistics; you know, the default?

I told you this explicitly, you missed it completely, and you claim you read what I posted...yeah...right.


So tell me, is that just you all the time, or are you being deliberately ignorant in this instance?

a reply to: tanka418

Dude, what statistics? They're asking you to show your math. You know, those funny little numbers and symbols that you scribble on paper to figure out things like that bell curve. Otherwise it's just a picture you're posting and without any information to source or cite: a useless image.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
The truth is, most of humanity is really only interested in ET life if it is basically the same as us, but with some differences in general appearance. We want "Star Trek" aliens. We barely care about the other life on Earth, unless we can eat it or otherwise exploit it, and we consider most other people to be simply annoyances.

If we discover some tiny little independently developed microbes on another planet, most people will lose interest in a short time and hand the subject off to academics to study. As for more exotic or unusual forms of life and intelligence, we're so limited by our human perspective that we might not even recognize it when we see it. And therefore won't care about it.

For instance, these days we have computer networks that communicate on their own to each other continuously. Are we absolutely sure that they're not exchanging information in a way that can be considered a kind of intelligence, but because it's not like human intelligence we don't recognize it? It's a conundrum. All we know is us (to some degree), and we project that view onto the universe. How do we recognize something that is not like us?

Exactly.

originally posted by: Kojiro
a reply to: tanka418

Dude, what statistics? They're asking you to show your math. You know, those funny little numbers and symbols that you scribble on paper to figure out things like that bell curve. Otherwise it's just a picture you're posting and without any information to source or cite: a useless image.

already shown, and linked...

a reply to: tanka418

Is the link invisible?

originally posted by: Kojiro
a reply to: tanka418

Is the link invisible?

So you too are either blind or ignorant!

Here...since all of y'all can't seem to find anything.

The link: www.abovetopsecret.com...

from the link:

Here is the "typical" bell curve from statistics, "fitted" at the high end because we can better quantify the probabilities of "advanced. complex" when we can have a "limiting" factor; in the case of large/hot stars that limit is time...We know that "large and hot" stars simply don't have a long enough life span...

The "Fitting" on the low end happens as a consequence of nature. And, at first, I'll admit, it didn't make much sense that small and cold "M" class stars should be so handicapped when it comes to life...but, that handicap plays out in the form of tidally locked planets, that never get the chance to evolve "advanced and complex".

Somebody said something about numbers; so let us go into "why" we have the upper limit set where we do... Our upper limit is set at star class "F" the hottest of these are "F0" after that we have class "A" stars...of the 18019 "A" class stars 6 of them are over 3 billion ears old...why 3 billion?...we must allow time for evolution to occur, and, it took Earth 4.5 billion. So...at 3 billion we are being rather generous.

So we find that with the exception of a handful of stars, most can not support life yet, and in fact, many are already dying. Class "A" stars have a very short lifespan. Class "F" at the hottest will also have a rather short lifespan.

On the other end of the spectrum...most of the larger, more viable, "M" class stars were cataloged in Hipparcos. The 2MASS dataset, where your large estimates of the number of "M" class comes from, contains a very large quantity of very small, very cold stars, some barely larger nor much warmer than Jupiter...what kind of life would you expect on the moons of Jupiter? I'm quite sure there is life there.

Now if y'all are quite through insulting your own intelligence, perhaps we can move on.

a reply to: tanka418

I still don't see any link there, unless you mean the link to the post itself, which is silly because there's no math or research there and only the useless image you keep posting. Try again and do attempt at being less obtuse.

originally posted by: Kojiro
a reply to: tanka418

I still don't see any link there, unless you mean the link to the post itself, which is silly because there's no math or research there and only the useless image you keep posting. Try again and do attempt at being less obtuse.

Please read the post above yours...it contains far more than you give it credit for...IF you still fail to "see" please do not respond I have no interest arguing with someone who is being deliberately ignorant.


Seriously man, you wanted to know how I derived the image and curve, I explained it to you...what is so hard for you to grasp?

Perhaps it is the fact that some stars never get old enough to harbor life? Or that some are so cold all they can muster is single celled life?

All of you are being inconsistent and hypocritical...

a reply to: tanka418

Well, for one thing, there's no math in that post to speak of. You're just prattling on about your bell curve without even showing how you calculated it, as if the bell curve is suppose to be evidence in of itself. In reality, it's just a line on a jpeg. I can draw a line on a jpeg too and claim it's the expansion rate of the universe, but without the calculations to back it it's just bull#.

originally posted by: Kojiro
a reply to: tanka418

Well, for one thing, there's no math in that post to speak of. You're just prattling on about your bell curve without even showing how you calculated it, as if the bell curve is suppose to be evidence in of itself. In reality, it's just a line on a jpeg. I can draw a line on a jpeg too and claim it's the expansion rate of the universe, but without the calculations to back it it's just bull#.

Didn't take much math...huh? That's okay, but, you know; it's not my fault, and there is no logical reason for you to take it out on me...your education is entirely on you.