The Drake Equation Fallacy

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Grenade
We sure are pretty lucky, this random universe has been very kind to us with its coincidence.

Is that why 99.99999% of the universe is hostile to life?

Also has anyone ever tried to work out the chances of a moon and sun performing a near perfect eclipse? Must be pretty small, another strange astronomical coincidence i'd say.

In a universe with hundreds of trillions of stars and hundreds of billions of galaxies, it's not coincidence in the slightest that one planet (and likely millions more) has a similar perspective of moon and sun size in the sky. It wasn't always like that. Billions of years ago, the moon was closer to earth, so it was bigger in the sky and eclipses were longer and partial eclipses were more common

I've not done the math however i'd guess it's pretty uncommon and unlikely. Nobody knows what the conditions were Billions of years ago unless of course your claiming your incomplete and ever changing model of physics is some kind of crystal ball.

The CMB axis of evil has to be even more of an anomaly.

I'm not denying science, i'm simply stating it lacks enough refinement to accurately describe the mechanisms of Gravity and it's interaction with Mass. Nor can we confirm the existence of dark matter or energy.

a reply to: Barcs

Are void dragon farts made of dark energy?

a reply to: Barcs

Yes, i believe if we create an AGI capable of self improvement it would bring about a technological singularity.

At that point we are beholden to it's will and very quickly we will progress to either our destruction or symbiosis with it.

Either way i see it eventually moving us from natural biology and consciousness to calculated machines.

True AGI would quickly develop technology which could allow it interstellar travel, when time is not limited by biology i think it's feasible we could literally become the Borg.

a reply to: Grenade

Are void dragon farts made of dark energy?

That's alright he might grow up during the course of this thread but was
wondering is it element 15 that's associated with dark matter?

a reply to: carsforkids


No, i think you're confusing the claims of Bob Lazar with Moscovium. Lazar claimed the UFO's he worked on used element 115 for their anti-matter reactor from what i remember. In reality it's a highly radioactive synthetic chemical element that was only synthesised decades after his claims of its existence and only in tiny amounts so far.

We have no idea what dark matter or energy are made from or even if they exist at all. Dark energy in supposed to act like an opposite repulsive force to gravity hence i brought it up. Conveniently dark matter and energy are non-baryonic which means we can't use our current tools to measure or detect them as they don't interact with photons nor have any of our detectors had any success even tho this matter is supposed to be all around us.

You can create models which modify general relativity to explain Gravity but that's like modifying their bible, most scientists would rather fudge the data and invoke invisible forces. General relativity accurately explains Gravity at solar system scales, it's validity on galactic or cosmological scales is less convincing.

a reply to: Grenade

Fascinating and you lay it well enough for the average bloke. Would
it be fair then to say Lazar predicted there would be an element 115?
I've watched his viideo where he sells himself basically. And I came
away with notion that to a layman, it was convincing.

What are your thoughts if you don't mind?

a reply to: carsforkids

You could argue he predicted element 115 although he claimed its properties were different to what we have synthesised. He claimed elements that heavy can't be synthesised on Earth. To be fair i think we have managed only about 100 atoms where as Lazar claimed to have like 500 pounds of the stuff.

Personally find his body language and vocals very convincing, he's either an expert liar or telling the truth. The problem is he has no evidence to backup his claim so i can't say i truly believe him.

Years ago on ATS someone did a video analysis of the UFO video he captures out in the Desert and it seems to show something that matches Bob's description.

Unfortunately it's just his word, however convincing he sounds we can't take that as fact.

a reply to: Grenade

Your answer is almost perfectly as I imagined it. Your class and
knowledge is to be welcomed and also pretty rare on these
boards. Much appreciated.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Barcs

Again it's a hypothesis and cannot be measured or detected directly. Hence the "dark".

The acceleration of the universal expansion can be measured directly. It's dark because we don't know the CAUSE, just like dark matter. We observe the effects.

That's exactly what we experienced. The gravitational pull did not match the mass when looking at Galaxy formation and structure so we had to speculate that there was more unseen mass.

FALSE. We could not see what causes the gravity, not that it doesn't match the mass. Every mass we have observed and calculated the gravity for confirms the predictions of general relative and Newton's law of gravity. You are referencing things we don't know.

Seems to me science is using a lot of unknown variables.

Because the purpose of science is to figure out how things work. You can't start with the knowledge, the knowledge is slowly discovered over time via observation and experimentation.

I guess I should just put faith in the science without direct observation or measurement?

Are you purposely being obtuse? The effects of dark matter and dark energy are based on observation. Not knowing the cause doesn't make general relativity wrong. Comparing that to religion is laughably stupid, sorry.

originally posted by: Grenade
I've not done the math however i'd guess it's pretty uncommon and unlikely. Nobody knows what the conditions were Billions of years ago unless of course your claiming your incomplete and ever changing model of physics is some kind of crystal ball.

Actually scientists do have an idea of conditions billions of years ago. They can analyze geological strata, and get an idea of what elements were present and what the early earth was like then.

The CMB axis of evil has to be even more of an anomaly.

What is that??? Nobody has ever proved evil exists, they just take the word from the bible and claim it exists because some people do harmful things. Please explain this axis of evil and how you know it exists.

I'm not denying science, i'm simply stating it lacks enough refinement to accurately describe the mechanisms of Gravity and it's interaction with Mass. Nor can we confirm the existence of dark matter or energy.

I don't agree. We know a lot about it, but not everything. We can measure effects of dark matter and dark energy.

Are void dragon farts made of dark energy?

Maybe they CAUSE dark energy. I mean it's just as valid as claiming God did it.

Yes, i believe if we create an AGI capable of self improvement it would bring about a technological singularity.

What is AGI? I'm sure you aren't talking about adjusted gross income. What is a technological singularity? The terms you are using here don't make a heck of a lot of sense. Can you explain this in depth?

dp

a reply to: Barcs


You have shown a complete lack of understanding regarding dark matter and energy. I have provided you with multiple resources and references. These are hypothetical and unconfirmed or detected. I have no more to discuss on this subject with you as your rudimentary understanding of physics dosen't hold any weight.

AGI is Artificial General Intelligence. Best you Google the term as you don't believe anything I say so why waste my time any longer.

a reply to: Barcs


Anyone with a real background in physics or true understanding of relativity would know what the CMB axis of evil is referring to. I've actually elaborated already in direct response to you regarding the subject.

Your last reply was so full of contradiction I've lost the will to retort.

"We could not see what causes the Gravity, not that it doesn't match the mass." I think you need to delve deeper into the origins of why we postulated the dark matter hypothesis. It's clear to me you don't know what you're talking about, nor are you involved in a scientific field of study.

I have a bachelors degree (hons) in computer science. Can you please state your credentials as seems to me your just making assumptions about physics based on very limited knowledge or study.

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Box of Rain

We sure are pretty lucky, this random universe has been very kind to us with its coincidence.

It's true that we are uniquely what we are because all of the very specific circumstances.

However, if some of those circumstances were different, I think there would still be some life somewhere that was just as uniquely suited to THOSE specific circumstances saying "Gee, aren't we lucky that things are exactly as they need to be for us to exist as we do?"

It's the anthropic principle and survivorship bias.

If things were just slightly different, our universe might not have stars and planets (as we understand stars and planets). However, what might be here instead is so unimaginably foreign to us that we cannot even begin to understand what type of intelligence that could be spawn in such a universe. It may not be life as we could possible recognize it, but it might still be able to wonder "Isn't it lucky for us that our universe is the way it is."

Also has anyone ever tried to work out the chances of a moon and sun performing a near perfect eclipse? Must be pretty small, another strange astronomical coincidence i'd say.

I'm not sure what you mea by a "near-perfect ellipse." Gravity is going to always make ellipses or sometimes near-circular orbits.

Eclipse, not ellipse.

I used the word ellipse in the previous paragraph to describe the correlation between our ellipse and CMB.

My last word on this subject, certainly in response to Barcs.

Please research the cosmological constant, Einstein added this factor to General Relativity in order to balance his equations because he never realised the universe was expanding. Then once it was observed that galaxies were growing further apart over time they re-assigned this constant and created "dark energy". Both of which are simply to balance equations to fit General Relativity.

Einstein contrary to popular belief was Agnostic and rejected the idea of a random universe. In a famous quote to Neils Bohr he said "God does not play dice with the universe".

He also didn't believe in black holes or singularities.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Barcs


You have shown a complete lack of understanding regarding dark matter and energy. I have provided you with multiple resources and references. These are hypothetical and unconfirmed or detected. I have no more to discuss on this subject with you as your rudimentary understanding of physics dosen't hold any weight.

AGI is Artificial General Intelligence. Best you Google the term as you don't believe anything I say so why waste my time any longer.

LMFAO @ accusing me of not understanding physics when you are jumping to all kinds of conclusions about it and making false claims. You can't refute anything I said.

And I did google that abbreviation, you moron. It came up with a dozen different acronyms, so next time use English instead of text message code.

Anyone with a real background in physics or true understanding of relativity would know what the CMB axis of evil is referring to. I've actually elaborated already in direct response to you regarding the subject.

You are pathetically dishonest. I ask for a simple explanation and you can't even give it. You are deluded beyond belief. You don't grasp dark energy or dark matter, you tried to claim that dark energy partially makes up the universe LOL!

I have a bachelors degree (hons) in computer science. Can you please state your credentials as seems to me your just making assumptions about physics based on very limited knowledge or study.

Computer science has ZERO to do with physics. I also have a degree in computer science. It's irrelevant to this discussion, so why even bring up? Computer science =/= actual science (the method).

Please research the cosmological constant, Einstein added this factor to General Relativity in order to balance his equations because he never realised the universe was expanding. Then once it was observed that galaxies were growing further apart over time they re-assigned this constant and created "dark energy". Both of which are simply to balance equations to fit General Relativity.

That's how science works, moron. As new information is discovered theories and hypotheses are updated. Dark energy is not just math based, it can be observed, just not the source of it. You are completely inept. General relativity used to just be a math theory. Today it's a scientific theory because it has made many successful predictions.

Einstein contrary to popular belief was Agnostic and rejected the idea of a random universe. In a famous quote to Neils Bohr he said "God does not play dice with the universe"

False. Einstein did not reject randomness as a factor in the universe. Yes, he was agnostic, it has nothing to do with the conversation and he didn't believe in a god, merely dabbled in pantheism a little bit, but was agnostic. He probably would have called himself atheist today because back then the word was super stigmatized. It still is today but not as badly.

So again, you refuted absolutely nothing I said, you just attacked me personally.

a reply to: Barcs

And I did google that abbreviation, you moron.

That's how science works, moron.

Some more examples of why psychology sees atheists as narcissistic psychopaths.

source

a reply to: Barcs

Claims the flow of electrons through circuitry at specific bandwidths has nothing to do with physics and calls me a moron.

Claims to have a degree in computer science but doesn't recognise the acronym AGI nor is aware of the concept of a technological singularity. OK pal we believe you.

originally posted by: Grenade
To be fair i think we have managed only about 100 atoms where as Lazar claimed to have like 500 pounds of the stuff.

I wonder how physically big that would be. Somebody with a better knowledge of elemental chemistry would probably be able to figure that out, but I'm imagining something the size of a soccer ball.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Barcs

And I did google that abbreviation, you moron.

That's how science works, moron.

Some more examples of why psychology sees atheists as narcissistic psychopaths.

source

You believe and worship a God that is psychopathic! How many people have died in the name of your psychopathic God again?

The reason I hate your psychopathic God is because I have empathy. Why would I worship a God that commands the death of innocent people?