Lake found on Mars

[modo]

In fact as the moon moves away from us our axial tilt increases. This could make life difficult on this planet. Typically our axial tilt is between 22 and 24.5 every 40k years...it varies like a spinning top....the more extreme the tilt the more extreme the seasons....we are at 23.5.....not sure if going up or down at this time but leaning towards more extreme seasons.

As the moon moves away the tilt range increases and could get to the point where the poles point towards the sun....that's a while from now thank goodness.

 

[number51]

Lol brett don't believe the Earth is that old, modo.

:jackson:

I have to keep checking in on this thread just for the lols of people trying to talk science with a guy that thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old.

 

[brett05]

The theory goes that enough small particles coalesce thru static electricity...larger particles can form thru gentile collisions and then gravity takes control......

planets are smooth because of gravity. At about 700k in diameter the forces of gravity start to overwhelm the structure and cause it to go into a general round shape.



and I have never seen data that points to the moon slowing down while it drifts away from us.

It's there, the Earth's gravity keeps slowing it. I can't see these large pieces of Earth combining nor enough small particles to jettison from Earth to give us what we have today. There should also be massive evidence here of this collision which is not seen. Like I said, just too many holes.

 

[modo]

It's there, the Earth's gravity keeps slowing it. I can't see these large pieces of Earth combining nor enough small particles to jettison from Earth to give us what we have today. There should also be massive evidence here of this collision which is not seen. Like I said, just too many holes.

the formation of a planet happens over a long period of time......it isn't like we can take a camera and put it on youtube for everyone to see.

In the absence of a better explanation and based on the laws of physics as we have come to understand them it is the most rational explanation. In time we may come to change our mind on this, but we have to go with what we know. And what we see in physics is fairly concrete.

 

[remydat]

and that is why I don't think the validity of any probability has any point. The creation of life is key to any existence of life.......

I don't need credentials to make my claim. I think my assertion is fairly straight forward.....I also posted an article by an astrophysicist that also says that any probability calculation is kind of pointless. If you don't trust my thought on it fine.

here is the link again...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...umans-are-alone-in-the-universe/#5d7a2dd47d3b

You can certainly extrapolate this information to include all of life because the same premise exists...we don't know the frequency at which life exists in the universe beyond 1.

You and I are arguing over semantics for the most part. We aren't even arguing over as something important like the existence of life. You choose to start an argument over some random calculation of the possibility of life outside Earth....



if we just went by credentials any discussion on this board would be moot because, for the most part, none of us are experts at what we discuss here. We are people who form opinions based on what we see and think.


here are the relevant parts to my point...stop attacking my credentials and address my points instead..if you disagree, that's fine...there really isn't anything to prove
In particular, there are a few steps that we simply don't know how frequently they occur. They clearly occurred here on Earth, but we haven't, as of yet, discovered anyplace else in the Universe where even one has occurred. These are the steps that lead us from non-living molecules to the complex, differentiated, intelligent species that we fancy ourselves to be.
This equates to two (in the Drake equation) unknowns that are absolutely necessary to reach the ultimate goal of intelligent aliens:

1. the likelihood of creating life from non-life on an Earth-like world,
2. and the likelihood of that life evolving into an intelligent, communicative, and possibly interstellar species.

In terms of raw probability, we have no idea how likely or unlikely these events are.

Again it is like you read but don't comprehend. Your article is about the Drake Equation and the Fermi Paradox. The article I referenced is not trying to address the same questions. The difference between what your article and what my article is talking about is as follows.

1. The Drake Equation and Fermi paradox are centered around the question as to why Alien life has not visited us. My article is not about whether alien life has visited us.

2. The Drake Equation has as an input in the the calculation, the probability of abiogenesis. In order to solve for the Drake Equation, you have to come up with an estimate of the probability. My article has an equation that removes abiogenesis as an input in the calculation and thus it has nothing to do with your article or abiogenesis.

So I question whether you read the article or if you did whether you comprehend it because it has nothing to do with your argument above. For several pages now, you keep repeating the same shit that has nothing to do with the article I posted. So once again, you are claiming something as meaningless that the above post just proves again you do not understand.

Remove any bias from your head, forget the question of abiogenesis and read my article again. It once again has **** all to do with actually trying to determine or estimate abiogenesis.

Finally, the terms pointless or meaningless do not show up in your article. The physicist you are citing does not use those terms so you can't use this article to defend you denigrating the work of other scientists particularly when you don't even understand the topic. All your article says is that certain things are unknown. Your ignorance is in then trying to take it a step further and argue that something is meaningless simply because you don't understand it at the moment. Your article never makes that claim because I presume the author doesn't possess the arrogance you do and wouldn't shit on other people's work when they know they don't have the answers themselves.

 

[Ares]

the formation of a planet happens over a long period of time......it isn't like we can take a camera and put it on youtube for everyone to see.

In the absence of a better explanation and based on the laws of physics as we have come to understand them it is the most rational explanation. In time we may come to change our mind on this, but we have to go with what we know. And what we see in physics is fairly concrete.

He thinks the Earth was formed 6,000-10,000 years ago.

Planetary formation over millions or billions of years is a nonstarter.

 

[brett05]

the formation of a planet happens over a long period of time......it isn't like we can take a camera and put it on youtube for everyone to see.

In the absence of a better explanation and based on the laws of physics as we have come to understand them it is the most rational explanation. In time we may come to change our mind on this, but we have to go with what we know. And what we see in physics is fairly concrete.

We actually don't know how long it took to form a planet, let alone an object like the moon. It would seem that the fragments would have collapsed back to earth long before the slow process of planet building would have occurred as you stated. The most likely explanation seems to be they were both formed at the same time.

 

[remydat]

Here let me break this down for you by taking things from your article.

This equates to two (in the Drake equation) unknowns that are absolutely necessary to reach the ultimate goal of intelligent aliens:

the likelihood of creating life from non-life on an Earth-like world,
and the likelihood of that life evolving into an intelligent, communicative, and possibly interstellar species.
In terms of raw probability, we have no idea how likely or unlikely these events are.

Agreed, we have no idea how likely or unlikely these events are. Agreed these are two enormous unknowns. This is precisely why the article I posted doesn't attempt to estimate these events. Instead what it does is it takes the other inputs known and it assumes the solution is > 0 for other civilizations out there and it then MATHEMATICALLY calculates what these unknowns would have to be less than in order for us to be alone in the universe.

The answer is less than 1 over 10 to the power of 22. This does not mean that is the actual probability. It just means that as long as the actual probability is higher than this number then life exists elsewhere. It does not attempt to determine what that number is. It does not attempt to understand all the mysteries of life. It is just the math. Since you know the other inputs and since you know the solution you want is Z > 0, you can calculate the lowest possible probability that gives you an answer > 0 without actually knowing said probability.

That is the beauty of math. You can solve for equations even if you don't know a given variable provided you know the other variables. You keep wanting me to address something I simply don't need to know as the math works whether I know the actual probability or not. I don't know what the actual probability is nor do I care really. All I know is that if it is higher than 1 over 10 to the power of 22 then life exists elsewhere.

So in some future if someone figures out how to calculate the probability of life, all I will need to do is compare their calculation to 1 over 10 to the power off 22. If their calculation is higher then one can speculate that life exists elsewhere. If their calculation is lower then one can speculate that it does not. 1 over 10 to the power of 22 is simply the benchmark against which I can now measure any actual estimates made. It is not the estimate of the probability of life itself.

 

[remydat]

We actually don't know how long it took to form a planet, let alone an object like the moon. It would seem that the fragments would have collapsed back to earth long before the slow process of planet building would have occurred as you stated. The most likely explanation seems to be they were both formed at the same time.

The bold is baseless speculation passed off as fact or the most likely outcome. No one thinks what you suggest is the most likely aside from Creationists or people that think the world is 6,000 years old because they did some calculations based off of a book of fairy tales.

 

[modo]

Here let me break this down for you by taking things from your article.

This equates to two (in the Drake equation) unknowns that are absolutely necessary to reach the ultimate goal of intelligent aliens:

the likelihood of creating life from non-life on an Earth-like world,
and the likelihood of that life evolving into an intelligent, communicative, and possibly interstellar species.
In terms of raw probability, we have no idea how likely or unlikely these events are.

Agreed, we have no idea how likely or unlikely these events are. Agreed these are two enormous unknowns. This is precisely why the article I posted doesn't attempt to estimate these events. Instead what it does is it takes the other inputs known and it assumes the solution is > 0 for other civilizations out there and it then MATHEMATICALLY calculates what these unknowns would have to be less than in order for us to be alone in the universe.

The answer is less than 1 over 10 to the power of 22. This does not mean that is the actual probability. It just means that as long as the actual probability is higher than this number then life exists elsewhere. It does not attempt to determine what that number is. It does not attempt to understand all the mysteries of life. It is just the math. Since you know the other inputs and since you know the solution you want is Z > 0, you can calculate the lowest possible probability that gives you an answer > 0 without actually knowing said probability.

That is the beauty of math. You can solve for equations even if you don't know a given variable provided you know the other variables. You keep wanting me to address something I simply don't need to know as the math works whether I know the actual probability or not. I don't know what the actual probability is nor do I care really. All I know is that if it is higher than 1 over 10 to the power of 22 then life exists elsewhere.

So in some future if someone figures out how to calculate the probability of life, all I will need to do is compare their calculation to 1 over 10 to the power off 22. If their calculation is higher then one can speculate that life exists elsewhere. If their calculation is lower then one can speculate that it does not. 1 over 10 to the power of 22 is simply the benchmark against which I can now measure any actual estimates made. It is not the estimate of the probability of life itself.

i know you can substitute in math equations. but in its simplest form X * Y = Z...

X is the number of planets that could support life as we understand it

Y is the chance of life forming on a planet

Z is the amount of life in the universe

we can guess well enough X

as far as we know, outside of Earth Y could equal 0 or it could equal something positive......if it equals 0 then z equals 0
for us to know that Z is some sort of positive number we would have to understand how the creation of life occurs....in that it has a non zero number outside of Earth. We are looking at things with an Earth bias and assuming abiogenesis has a non-zero chance occuring someplace else...we don't know enough to make that assumption.

Hence we can't calculate Z with any sort of accuracy.

If we find any positively identified any non-Earth originated life or we can understand how abiogenesis occurs even on our own planet then we can start to calculate Z....until then it can equal 0 or non-zero and we don't have enough evidence to say with any degree of certainty, either.

 

[Bears_804]

We actually don't know how long it took to form a planet, let alone an object like the moon. It would seem that the fragments would have collapsed back to earth long before the slow process of planet building would have occurred as you stated. The most likely explanation seems to be they were both formed at the same time.

There are some really odd facts out there regarding the moon. The theory we have in place for it's creation would be a miracle. Due to it's perfect size, distance, etc. To form all of that based on a collision, would be nothing short of a miracle or miracles.

Even in chaos, or design, it worked out perfectly for planet earth. Pretty insane. Not touching on beliefs, to each their own, just at how miraculous the formation of the moon to be so perfect for earth is.

 

[The Apostate]

There are some really odd facts out there regarding the moon. The theory we have in place for it's creation would be a miracle. Due to it's perfect size, distance, etc. To form all of that based on a collision, would be nothing short of a miracle or miracles.

Even in chaos, or design, it worked out perfectly for planet earth. Pretty insane. Not touching on beliefs, to each their own, just at how miraculous the formation of the moon to be so perfect for earth is.

Perfect how?

 

[The Apostate]

I'm not sure the moon was part of earth. That's not been proven AFAIK

AFABrettK, anything over 6000 years has never been proven.

 

[Bears_804]

Perfect how?

Say for example. They look the same size in the sky. Because the Sun's diameter is 400 times greater than the moon, and also, 400 times further away from earth. Also plays into eclipses and how if was any other size, there wouldn't be them like they are.

The similarities with planets we can actually study and their moons aren't directly the same as Earth and ours. Shit ton of unexplored space. Like looking at a few square inches of sand on a beach and saying the ocean doesn't exist.

I just find it personally interesting. Without it, the life we flourish in wouldn't exist either. Moons a huge factor in Planet Earth being what it is. Coincidence, chaos, design... who knows.

 

[The Apostate]

Say for example. They look the same size in the sky. Because the Sun's diameter is 400 times greater than the moon, and also, 400 times further away from earth. Also plays into eclipses and how if was any other size, their wouldn't be them like they are.

The similarities with planets we can actually study and their moons aren't directly the same as Earth and ours.

I just find it personally interesting. Without it, the life we flourish in wouldn't exist either. Moons a huge factor in Planet Earth being what it is. Coincidence, chaos, design... who knows.

At the moment.

In the past the moon was closer and appeared much larger, in the future it will be further and appear smaller. It's really just a momentary coincidence.

Artists representation of what the moon probably looked like around a billion years ago (sorry Brett)

 

[remydat]

i know you can substitute in math equations. but in its simplest form X * Y = Z...

X is the number of planets that could support life as we understand it

Y is the chance of life forming on a planet

Z is the amount of life in the universe

we can guess well enough X

as far as we know, outside of Earth Y could equal 0 or it could equal something positive......if it equals 0 then z equals 0
for us to know that Z is some sort of positive number we would have to understand how the creation of life occurs....in that it has a non zero number outside of Earth. We are looking at things with an Earth bias and assuming abiogenesis has a non-zero chance occuring someplace else...we don't know enough to make that assumption.

Hence we can't calculate Z with any sort of accuracy.

If we find any positively identified any non-Earth originated life or we can understand how abiogenesis occurs even on our own planet then we can start to calculate Z....until then it can equal 0 or non-zero and we don't have enough evidence to say with any degree of certainty, either.

No all we have to do is set Z as > 0 and then we can solve for Y.

So if we exclude earth, I just need to set Z =1 and then knowing X, I can calculate the lowest probability possible of Y for Z = 1.

That is all they did. They calculated what the probability of life would have to be in order for there to be at least 1 other advanced civilization out there. That number once again was 1 over 10 to the power of 22.

Now do you understand? We know X and we set Z to 1 (excluding earth). Y then is just math. I don't need to understand it. I just need to calculate it based on X and knowing I want Z to be 1 excluding Earth.

 

[remydat]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant-impact_hypothesis

No miracle necessary really as collisions like this have been observed elsewhere. Again given the share size of the universe there are really no miracles. Just tiny probabilities that when spread across the scale of the universe makes just about anything possible.

It is just the case that since it worked out for Earth, we exist and thus can ponder how special we are. Someone millions of light years away probably saying the same thing marveling at how special they are that things worked out just right for them.

 

[modo]

No all we have to do is set Z as > 0 and then we can solve for Y.

So if we exclude earth, I just need to set Z =1 and then knowing X, I can calculate the lowest probability possible of Y for Z = 1.

That is all they did. They calculated what the probability of life would have to be in order for there to be at least 1 other advanced civilization out there. That number once again was 1 over 10 to the power of 22.

Now do you understand? We know X and we set Z to 1 (excluding earth). Y then is just math. I don't need to understand it. I just need to calculate it based on X and knowing I want Z to be 1 excluding Earth.

then you are working back from a predetermined conclusion that there must be life outside Earth...that is a non-starter

 

[Enasic]

then you are working back from a predetermined conclusion that there must be life outside Earth...that is a non-starter

Lol no....I can’t believe you guys are still arguing this and can’t believe you still don’t grasp it.

There is zero conclusion made whatsoever. It’s all just probability. Or to put it another way, the ODDS or probability that we are the only form of life in the universe, is really, really, really fucking low. Does that work better for you? Zero conclusions made.

 

[modo]

Lol no....I can’t believe you guys are still arguing this and can’t believe you still don’t grasp it.

There is zero conclusion made whatsoever. It’s all just probability. Or to put it another way, the ODDS or probability that we are the only form of life in the universe, is really, really, really fucking low. Does that work better for you? Zero conclusions made.

no.....I understand everything you guys are saying and I don't agree you can create a probability that means anything