NASA basically announced there's no doubt life exist on other planets Kepler 452-b

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
a reply to: neoholographic

Even after being told literally dozens of times exactly why you're wrong, you still just go on blathering about the same nonsense. Notice how none of the scientists or NASA whom you quote out of context ever uses the word evidence.... You're hopeless, dude.

I'm sorry 3rd grade science is such a hard thing for you...

WHAT????

Probability doesn't occur in a vacuum.

Without:

THE DISCOVERY OF EXOPLANETS
BUILDING BLOCKS OF LIFE ON COMETS AND METEORS
EXTREMOPHILES IN HARSH CONDITIONS
EARTH LIKE PLANETS BEING "QUITE COMMON"

How could he reach his conclusion? What is the probability based on??????????????????????????????

EVIDENCE!

A Scientist can say he's almost certain Hawking Radiation exists based on the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE. Like I said probability doesn't occur in a vacuum.

I can't give you the probability of getting in a car accident on the highway if I have no EVIDENCE about cars getting into accidents on highways.

We could just have one piece of EVIDENCE that says earth like planets are rare and there's no way Hawking or Kaku would have made these statements.

To say there's no EVIDENCE makes no sense.

it's part of the gradual disclosure we've been getting from our top-level agencies such as Vatican, on-line whistleblowers, channelers and all the rest that 'we are not alone' eventually it might be more obvious

Nothing you've mentioned is 'evidence' of anything.

Exoplanets exist. Great! All that means is that our star system is not unusual in its configuration (star + one or more planets circling it), but we've known that for quite a while. Some of those are in the Goldilocks Zone? Great! There is a 'possibility' that some form of life may exist there, given the correct conditions, which we know nothing of yet. The only criterion for the term 'Earth-like' is the type of star and the mass and orbit of the planet – nothing else is categorised yet.

Organic compounds have been found on comets, yes, but these are just some tiny fragments of the molecules, acids and proteins required for life – you still need plenty more and a very amenable planet and system for it to arise – and there's no guarantee it will.

What you've done is bought some milk and eggs, thrown them on the table and said "There, I've bought you a cake". Each piece you've brought could possibly form part of a cake, but not any single part, or the collection of parts you've brought, will actually make a cake.

You don't have 'evidence' – nobody has.

Saw that coming light years away...

It just narrowed minded, not to think that given the vastness and timelessness of the universe, how can there not possibly be life elsewhere...

Let alone other advance intelligent life just like ourselves, no I am not talking advance one celled creatures under a microscope! There I said it...

Disclosure as it unfolds...

Peace

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: 321Go
What Jade said, and in addition, can you not see the failure in logic in these two sentences (used together by you):

"there's EVIDENCE that life exists outside of earth"
"Aliens almost certainly exist"

If there was evidence there would be no 'almost' in the second sentence.

Again, another ASININE comment.

Just because there's evidence it doesn't equate to 100% certainty. This has NOTHING to do with Science and it's shameful that you and Jade are spreading that GARBAGE!

For instance, there's Scientist who were certain that the Higgs Boson exists before it was discovered they even made friendly bets on it. They were certain because of the EVIDENCE. This doesn't have anything to do with the ASININE comment about 100% Certainty.

This is the case for much of Science.

Really sorry to do this to you, but there was no evidence that the Higgs existed, only supposition that something was missing from the Standard Model.

originally posted by: InnerPeace2012
Saw that coming light years away...

It just narrowed minded, not to think that given the vastness and timelessness of the universe, how can there not possibly be life elsewhere...

Let alone other advance intelligent life just like ourselves, no I am not talking advance one celled creatures under a microscope! There I said it...

Disclosure as it unfolds...

Peace

Good points and these are some of the reason Scientist like Hawking are almost certain alien life exist. You can't be ALMOST CERTAIN of something without any evidence. That makes no sense.

That's like saying, I'm ALMOST CERTAIN that she wants to marry me but we never met. Where's the EVIDENCE to support your conclusion?

originally posted by: 321Go

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: 321Go
What Jade said, and in addition, can you not see the failure in logic in these two sentences (used together by you):

"there's EVIDENCE that life exists outside of earth"
"Aliens almost certainly exist"

If there was evidence there would be no 'almost' in the second sentence.

Again, another ASININE comment.

Just because there's evidence it doesn't equate to 100% certainty. This has NOTHING to do with Science and it's shameful that you and Jade are spreading that GARBAGE!

For instance, there's Scientist who were certain that the Higgs Boson exists before it was discovered they even made friendly bets on it. They were certain because of the EVIDENCE. This doesn't have anything to do with the ASININE comment about 100% Certainty.

This is the case for much of Science.

Really sorry to do this to you, but there was no evidence that the Higgs existed, only supposition that something was missing from the Standard Model.

This clearly shows you don't know anything about Science.

Yes, there was evidence the Higgs Boson exists and this is one of the reasons the LHC was built. Here's more:

In particle physics, elementary particles and forces give rise to the world around us. Nowadays, physicists explain the behaviour of these particles and how they interact using the Standard Model—a widely accepted and "remarkably" accurate[21] framework based on gauge invariance and symmetries, believed to explain almost everything in the world we see, other than gravity.[22]

But by around 1960 all attempts to create a gauge invariant theory for two of the four fundamental forces had consistently failed at one crucial point: although gauge invariance seemed extremely important, it seemed to make any theory of electromagnetism and the weak force go haywire, by demanding that either many particles with mass were massless or that non-existent forces and massless particles had to exist. Scientists had no idea how to get past this point.

In 1962 physicist Philip Anderson wrote a paper that built upon work by Yoichiro Nambu concerning "broken symmetries" in superconductivity and particle physics. He suggested that "broken symmetries" might also be the missing piece needed to solve the problems of gauge invariance. In 1964 a theory was created almost simultaneously by 3 different groups of researchers, that showed Anderson's suggestion was possible - the gauge theory and "mass problems" could indeed be resolved if an unusual kind of field existed throughout the universe; if this kind of field did exist, it would apparently cause existing particles to acquire mass instead of new massless particles being formed. Although these ideas did not gain much initial support or attention, by 1972 it had been developed into a comprehensive theory and proved capable of giving "sensible" results that were extremely accurate, including very accurate predictions of several other particles discovered during the following years.[Note 7] During the 1970s these theories rapidly became the "standard model" favoured by physicists and used to describe particle physics and particle interactions in nature. There was not yet any direct evidence that this field actually existed, but even without proof of the field, the accuracy of its predictions led scientists to believe the theory might be true. By the 1980s the question whether or not such a field existed and whether this was the correct explanation, was considered to be one of the most important unanswered questions in particle physics, and by the 1990s two of the largest experimental installations ever created were being designed and constructed to find the answer.

If this new kind of field did exist in nature, it would be a monumental discovery for science and human knowledge, and would open doorways to new knowledge in many disciplines. If not, then other more complicated theories would need to be explored. The simplest solution to whether the field existed was by searching for a new kind of particle it would have to give off, known as "Higgs bosons" or the "Higgs particle". These would be extremely difficult to find, so it was only many years later that experimental technology became sophisticated enough to answer the question.

en.wikipedia.org...

The theory that predicted the field gave accurate predictions that led to the discovery of several particles.

THIS IS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE!

You don't understand how Science works. You seem to think that something can only be labeled evidence when you're 100% certain of it and that's ASININE.

a reply to: neoholographic

There is a very big difference, between knowing that life exists elsewhere as opposed to an individual choice of whether someone agrees to marry you or not. It takes two to tango in your example.

But then again how bad do you want that someone to be your soulmate, are you not presenting yourself in a way to allow her to make that choice.

Peace

a reply to: InnerPeace2012

Exactly

That's my point. You can't be ALMOST CERTAIN of something without ANY EVIDENCE.

a reply to: neoholographic

Of course if you so choose to believe otherwise. But then again are we not evidence of advance intellectual life forms in these vast universe.

Peace

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: InnerPeace2012

All you seem to be saying is that the scope of the universe and the knowledge we have about life on Earth is enough circumstantial evidence to say that life elsewhere almost surely exists.

Nobody here is arguing with you about that. We agree that is true. Most scientists agree that is true. Most people (except some religious fundamentalists) agree this is true.

HOWEVER, what we are arguing is that the discovery you discussed in the OP does not suddenly amount to any harder evidence for life. The evidence in your OP is just more of the same circumstantial evidence we already had. It doesn't change anything; it isn't hard direct evidence needed to suddenly tip the scales toward science being more definitive on life existing.

At this point, life elsewhere is such a high probability that the next big leap in this field will need to be direct hard evidence for life processes occurring somewhere (finding metabolic gasses in an atmosphere, etc). Anything less than that is just more of the same, and not a game changer.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

...and so long as no direct evidence exists, there is room for doubt, no matter how improbable (not that probability means much with a sample size of 1).

ANGRY CAPS AND BOLDED TEXT! ASSEMBLE!

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: 321Go

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: 321Go
What Jade said, and in addition, can you not see the failure in logic in these two sentences (used together by you):

"there's EVIDENCE that life exists outside of earth"
"Aliens almost certainly exist"

If there was evidence there would be no 'almost' in the second sentence.

Again, another ASININE comment.

Just because there's evidence it doesn't equate to 100% certainty. This has NOTHING to do with Science and it's shameful that you and Jade are spreading that GARBAGE!

For instance, there's Scientist who were certain that the Higgs Boson exists before it was discovered they even made friendly bets on it. They were certain because of the EVIDENCE. This doesn't have anything to do with the ASININE comment about 100% Certainty.

This is the case for much of Science.

Really sorry to do this to you, but there was no evidence that the Higgs existed, only supposition that something was missing from the Standard Model.

This clearly shows you don't know anything about Science.

Yes, there was evidence the Higgs Boson exists and this is one of the reasons the LHC was built. Here's more:

In particle physics, elementary particles and forces give rise to the world around us. Nowadays, physicists explain the behaviour of these particles and how they interact using the Standard Model—a widely accepted and "remarkably" accurate[21] framework based on gauge invariance and symmetries, believed to explain almost everything in the world we see, other than gravity.[22]

But by around 1960 all attempts to create a gauge invariant theory for two of the four fundamental forces had consistently failed at one crucial point: although gauge invariance seemed extremely important, it seemed to make any theory of electromagnetism and the weak force go haywire, by demanding that either many particles with mass were massless or that non-existent forces and massless particles had to exist. Scientists had no idea how to get past this point.

In 1962 physicist Philip Anderson wrote a paper that built upon work by Yoichiro Nambu concerning "broken symmetries" in superconductivity and particle physics. He suggested that "broken symmetries" might also be the missing piece needed to solve the problems of gauge invariance. In 1964 a theory was created almost simultaneously by 3 different groups of researchers, that showed Anderson's suggestion was possible - the gauge theory and "mass problems" could indeed be resolved if an unusual kind of field existed throughout the universe; if this kind of field did exist, it would apparently cause existing particles to acquire mass instead of new massless particles being formed. Although these ideas did not gain much initial support or attention, by 1972 it had been developed into a comprehensive theory and proved capable of giving "sensible" results that were extremely accurate, including very accurate predictions of several other particles discovered during the following years.[Note 7] During the 1970s these theories rapidly became the "standard model" favoured by physicists and used to describe particle physics and particle interactions in nature. There was not yet any direct evidence that this field actually existed, but even without proof of the field, the accuracy of its predictions led scientists to believe the theory might be true. By the 1980s the question whether or not such a field existed and whether this was the correct explanation, was considered to be one of the most important unanswered questions in particle physics, and by the 1990s two of the largest experimental installations ever created were being designed and constructed to find the answer.

If this new kind of field did exist in nature, it would be a monumental discovery for science and human knowledge, and would open doorways to new knowledge in many disciplines. If not, then other more complicated theories would need to be explored. The simplest solution to whether the field existed was by searching for a new kind of particle it would have to give off, known as "Higgs bosons" or the "Higgs particle". These would be extremely difficult to find, so it was only many years later that experimental technology became sophisticated enough to answer the question.

en.wikipedia.org...

The theory that predicted the field gave accurate predictions that led to the discovery of several particles.

THIS IS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE!

You don't understand how Science works. You seem to think that something can only be labeled evidence when you're 100% certain of it and that's ASININE.

You are either being deliberately argumentative, you have no grasp of the language you are speaking, you have no grasp of the topic you are commenting on, or a mix of all three. Even the article you've quoted says there was no evidence, only a theory; "There was not yet any direct evidence that this field actually existed, but even without proof of the field, the accuracy of its predictions led scientists to believe the theory might be true." No evidence but a sound theory. There is a difference.

There is also a difference between a theory in the form a thought or idea (as in the case above) and a scientific theory in lieu of a physical law (which requires direct and repeatable evidence). I think this is where you are making your mistake – you are confusing the two terms and making them one. I don't blame you for this, it happens a lot, in particular creationist use this argument against evolution. The two definitions are not the same.

There's no need to apologise for calling me asinine many times in this thread, I forgive you. I would, however, recommend the purchase of a dictionary.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: InnerPeace2012

Exactly

That's my point. You can't be ALMOST CERTAIN of something without ANY EVIDENCE.

Yes you can, you can be almost certain of anything if you believe it. It's the 'almost' that lets you get away with saying absolutely anything without any supporting evidence.

If you don't mind me asking, where are you from?

a reply to: 321Go

You have no idea as to how Science works. Here's what you quoted:

"There was not yet any direct evidence that this field actually existed, but even without proof of the field, the accuracy of its predictions led scientists to believe the theory might be true."

Show me where Science doesn't use indirect evidence? We have to use indirect evidence in many instances.

When you test a theory and it's predictions are confirmed through observation then that SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. This is why people felt certain that the Higgs Boson exists and if you look at things like String Theory you don't see the same level of certainty in say the string theory landscape.

Here's more from Jefferson Labs:

What is one example of indirect evidence that scientists use to study an atom?

Pretty much everything we know about atoms is indirect evidence. One can't really see atoms. We do see enough of their effects that we can, with confidence, describe the nature of atoms. Here at Jefferson Lab we have quite a few instruments to measure the properties and behavior of atoms. We use a few simple tricks to measure atoms. The most common method is to shoot the atoms through an easy-to-ionize gas or liquid. Argon is the most common that we use. As the atoms or even pieces of atoms fly through the gas electrons are stripped off of them and are left behind. We drift those loose electrons to a collection device, a wire or panel, and measure the charge. It is a little more complex than that, but it works well enough that we get consistent results. It's like putting together a puzzle that's missing some pieces. If you get enough pieces in the right place you can tell what the picture is even though it still has holes.

education.jlab.org...

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. You seem to think Science requires this ASININE standard of 100% certainy which would make ZERO sense.

This is what you just said about the Higgs:

There is also a difference between a theory in the form a thought or idea (as in the case above)

WHAT????????????????????????????????????????

The Higgs wasn't just some thought or idea. Schrodinger's Cat is a thought or idea. The Higgs came about because a theory that predicted the Higgs had made successful predictions. I don't even think you understand what this means. For you to claim the Higgs was just a thought or idea shows you know NOTHING about science.

When I started commenting on your thread I thought you presumptuous in claiming that NASA had 'basically' announced something – there is absolutely no 'basic' announcement of life anywhere in their press release, conference or Q&A session. That statement is wholly and intentionally fraudulent. Then I had sympathy for you for maybe confusing your language and diction. Now I think you're just plain cloth-eared stupid.

Best of luck.

a reply to: 321Go

When you look ridiculous, this is the typical reaction.

You don't know anything about Science accept for what you may read out of a cracker jack box.

There's no standard of 100% certainty in Science. That's just ASININE.

If String Theory started to make accurate predictions that would be SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that the String Theory Landscape exists.

Do you know why Black Holes are debated so much and why some Scientist reach the conclusion black holes exist? It's because of the successful predictions of Relativity. THIS IS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

Relativity's Long String of Successful Predictions

discovermagazine.com...

Without these successful predictions there would be no EVIDENCE that Black Holes are any different from the String Theory Landscape.

If you claim to know anything about Science and you don't know about indirect evidence or how confirmations of predictions is SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, then you belong in the fantasy forum talking about the Hobbits of Middle Earth.

Huh... funny that. It is possible for a human to fail the Turing Test after all.

And thus, a news report about an Earth-like exoplanet turned into a lengthy and elaborate debate about the possibilities (or impossibilities) of extraterestrial life, and about the crediblity of science in general.

*grabs popcorn*

When someone brings up crediblity and usefulness of science, I like to think about the recent randezvous of spacecraft with a comet, an asteroid, and a dwarf planet. Scientists must be doing something right!

Probability doesn't occur in a vacuum.

That, alone, is notable in how an "armchair scientist's" position adresses decades of research and learning that allowed us all these achievements and discoveries that we take for granted and feel competent enough to accept or reject.

a reply to: neoholographic

I'm not sure if you're trolling or if you actually have some sort of a learning disability, but either way, I'm done wasting my time trying to educate you. Good luck.