It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Jay-morris
So, we should have all the answers to the universe right?
We know there are around 100 billion galaxies in the universe, which means billions of stars and planets.
I am saying we should ditch theories that aren't empirically evidence
We do not know such a thing. There has yet to be a photograph of an exoplanet beyond our solar system.
originally posted by: Jay-morris
That is absolute rubbish! Are you saying we have no other evidence of other galaxies in the universe? I cannot believe what I am hearing here.
We do have evidence of exoplanets. Because they are not photographs that you can clearly see, does not mean they are not there.
Extrasolar planets have been directly observed, acting tbe same way planets do in out solor system, and you think this is not evidence because we do not have a close up photo.
Funny how you bring up "evidence" when there is absolutly no evidence of a God, but you believe it anyway.
originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: cooperton
I am saying we should ditch theories that aren't empirically evidence
That is absolute rubbish! Are you saying we have no other evidence of other galaxies in the universe? I cannot believe what I am hearing here.
We do not know such a thing. There has yet to be a photograph of an exoplanet beyond our solar system.
We do have evidence of exoplanets. Because they are not photographs that you can clearly see, does not mean they are not there.
Extrasolar planets have been directly observed, acting tbe same way planets do in out solor system, and you think this is not evidence because we do not have a close up photo.
Funny how you bring up "evidence" when there is absolutly no evidence of a God, but you believe it anyway.
We've never been to one, you are taking it on faith that there is some sort of terra-firma planet out there.
Faith is the act of believing without seeing. Your faith is commendable.
Any photo at all would do. A real photo, not CGI. otherwise you are left to faith.
Seems odd you have to resort to attacking my beliefs to defend your own. That's not the category we are discussing, otherwise I would love to defend the things I know with concrete verifiable facts.
You on the other hand, rely solely on theorists to dictate to you what you should believe without any empirical evidence to support your assertions.
originally posted by: Jay-morris
But we clearly have evidence of of exoplanets. Are you saying the only evidence should be a clear photo?
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: Jay-morris
But we clearly have evidence of of exoplanets. Are you saying the only evidence should be a clear photo?
What is the clear evidence to support the existence of exoplanets? Show and tell.
originally posted by: Jay-morris
I seriously cannot believe I have to do this!
There are a few ways we detect exoplanets.
Color-Shifting Stars: The Radial-Velocity Method.
Exoplanets and their stars pull on each other. We can’t see the exoplanet, but we can see the star move. The star’s motion makes its light bluer and redder as seen from Earth.
Down in Front!: The Transit Photometry Method
When an exoplanet passes in front of its star, we can't see the planet, but we can see the starlight dim. Repeat transits tell us an exoplanet's orbit size and shape.
Space-Warping Planets: The Microlensing Method
Star gravity makes space bend near it. When a star passes in front of another star, it bends the distant starlight like a lens, making it brighter. If the lensing star has an exoplanet, it acts like another lens, making the star even brighter.
Wobbly Stars: The Astrometry Method
Exoplanets and their stars pull on each other. We can’t see the exoplanet, but we can see the star move. The star’s motion compared to other stars shows that an exoplanet exists.
originally posted by: fromtheskydown
1: The average number of stars to form per year in the galaxy.
2: The fraction of those stars that form planets.
3: The fraction of those planets that could support life.
4: The fraction of life-supporting planets that form life.
5: The fraction of those living planets that develop intelligent life forms.
6: The fraction of those intelligent life forms that develop technology.
7: The average lifetime of a communicating species; in other words how long a civilisation will use radio technology, leaking signals into space for us to hear.
Until there is a photograph of a planet outside our solar system, it requires your faith to believe it.
originally posted by: Cravens
I’m no astrophysicist but is that how it works?
originally posted by: sean
I don't think we have to question anymore if other life exists out there in the vast Universe. Just the sheer numbers and the fact we exist as an example. Look how much life is on just this planet.
originally posted by: Cravens
And about those equations (formulas) you are declare need to be ‘fitted’, care to show your math? Or is this some obtuse, blind faith fanaticism, plaguing 21st century astrophysicists with nothing else to figure out using empirical evidence?
Again, I’m no astrophysicist, but an a priori deduction suggests to me the evidence comes first
blind believes have an insidious propensity for such rhetorical exercises.
Please show your math and do not be dismayed by not receiving partial credit*.
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: face23785
You might want to Google why stars twinkle...
Yes our atmosphere is highly distortive... All the more reason we can't assume bright and dim oscillations of stars must be orbiting exoplanets.
originally posted by: face23785
ETA: And that still doesn't explain how you thought stars twinkle because they're oscillating.