Why Habitable Exoplanets Are Bad News

[Melchizedek = Michael]

So you dodged the question.

Okay. I understand why.

Found anything yet?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

(I am assuming you mean life. Your question does not have that a part of it.)

Not that I know of.

Are you suggesting that because of that...no one ever will?

Offer, if you will, the P1 and P2 of a syllogism with a C of:

Therefore no life exists anywhere else in the universe.

Odds favor that life exists elsewhere, but the evidence indicates that life is exceedingly rare.

 

[Cypress]

Yep. As far as we know, the speed of light can't be exceeded. Until someone, somewhere figures out how.

I am hoping for Warp drive!

Accelerating mass to the speed of light (c) requires an infinite amount of energy. And because of the laws of time dilation, any mass which somehow violated physical law and traveled faster than c would actually travel backwards in time.

If it's true that there are thousands of advanced civilizations in the galaxy, I think the reason none of them have visited us is because c really is a universal speed limit.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Found anything yet?

I found that you often dodge questions.

I don't blame you, though. I've seen some of your answers...and dodging questions is a much better option for you.

 

[Cypress]

Odds favor that life exists elsewhere, but the evidence indicates that life is exceedingly rare.

I'd feel a lot better about the supposition that life is inevitable in the presence of liquid water and chemistry if we find microbes on one of the ocean moons of this solar system.

Here is what reduces my confidence that life is ubiquitous and inevitable:

- The Last Universal Common Ancestor seemingly suggests life only arose once on earth. If life easily gains a toehold in liquid water, it's curious that life only arose once in four billion years of Earth history.

-Our search for life on Mars hasn't turned up evidence of life.

- SETI hasn't picked up any footprint of technology elsewhere in the galaxy, though we should keep looking.

-We've never seen evidence of exotic forms of life, like silicon-based biology, even though the appropriate chemistry, ample geologic time, and wide array of localized thermal and chemical environments exist here on earth.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Accelerating mass to the speed of light (c) requires an infinite amount of energy. And because of the laws of time dilation, any mass which somehow violated physical law and traveled faster than c would actually travel backwards in time.

Sounds like someone frantically googled "Elementary School Explanation of Relativity".

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I'd feel a lot better about the supposition that life is inevitable in the presence of liquid water and chemistry if we find microbes on one of the ocean moons of this solar system.

Here is what reduces my confidence that life is ubiquitous and inevitable:

- The Last Universal Common Ancestor seemingly suggests life only arose once on earth. If life easily gains a toehold in liquid water, it's curious that life only arose once in four billion years of Earth history.

-Our search for life on Mars hasn't turned up evidence of life.

- SETI hasn't picked up any footprint of technology elsewhere in the galaxy, though we should keep looking.

-We've never seen evidence of exotic forms of life, like silicon-based biology, even though the appropriate chemistry, ample geologic time, and wide array of localized thermal and chemical environments exist here on earth.

Agreed other examples of life in the Universe would be helpful.

My reading of the OP link suggests that LUCA was the only surviving example of life, not that it was the only example of life. Of course, with no other examples to study, it seems unlikely that life arose twice or more on Earth but nowhere else.

Agreed on the lack of results in the search for life off Earth.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Sounds like someone frantically googled "Elementary School Explanation of Relativity".

^^^
Proof Jank/Perry the Putz is a troll, not a scientist with a calm, rational demeanor much less a PhD.

While he often complains others don't post about science, he rarely does himself. Examples from this thread alone:

Sorry but your sock, Dutch, doesn't post any science.

I honestly can't wait until you roll out some science. That should be really cool.

Yeah, it's not. I can tell by what you post you are completely lost in any science discussion. Why don't you go play with some legos or something more your speed.

Why are you afraid to talk actual science? Do you feel intimidated that a non-scientist appears to know more about science than you do? I haven't seen you say much of any technical value.

(At least your buddy/sock Doc Dutch can be counted on to always have your back. He doesn't talk science either.)

 

[Cypress]

Sounds like someone frantically googled "Elementary School Explanation of Relativity".

No, the frantic Googler is you.

Time dilation is a concept straight out of college freshman physics . And it's a concept familiar to anyone who reads science journalism.

I hardly ever google for for scientific information here, and never use it without attribution like you do

 

[Cypress]

^^^
Proof Jank/Perry the Putz is a troll, not a scientist with a calm, rational demeanor much less a PhD.

While he often complains others don't post about science, he rarely does himself. Examples from this thread alone:

You like to use Google, but you always cite your sources and never try to pass off ideas you read three minutes ago on Wiki as your own original thoughts and ideas.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

No, the frantic Googler is you.

You forgot to quote an authority.

Time dilation is a concept straight out of college freshman physics .

And once again you prove you can't read. Why do you think I said "Elementary school..."

Wow. You really aren't very sharp are you?

I hardly ever google for for scientific information here, and never use it without attribution like you do

Well it shows. You have almost no scientific background and you never talk technical details and you avoid anyone who does (or insult them) so it shows.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

You like to use Google, but you always cite your sources

Awww, isn't it sweet that Cypress is having a love moment with his sock, Doc. Who, just as it so happened, POPPED ONTO THE THREAD THE VERY MOMENT CYPRESS WAS FEELING SAD!

and never try to pass off ideas you read three minutes ago on Wiki as your own original thoughts and ideas.

Then why don't you tell me what I said in the offending post. EXPLAIN IT IN YOUR OWN WORDS. You know you can't. You know you know as little about QM as I do.

But you are so stuck on yourself that you act superior.

We all know you are just as lost as the rest of us. Don't try to act like you know the first foreign thing about this.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

^^^
Proof Jank/Perry the Putz is a troll, not a scientist with a calm, rational demeanor much less a PhD.

While he often complains others don't post about science, he rarely does himself. Examples from this thread alone:

LOOK WHO JUST SHOWED UP TO SUPPORT CYPRESS!

Like clock work. Wow.

 

[Cypress]

Agreed other examples of life in the Universe would be helpful.

My reading of the OP link suggests that LUCA was the only surviving example of life, not that it was the only example of life. Of course, with no other examples to study, it seems unlikely that life arose twice or more on Earth but nowhere else.

Agreed on the lack of results in the search for life off Earth.

There might have been other lines if biology other than LUCA, but we have no genetic or fossil evidence of it. We would also have to explain why those other lines of biological life disappeared, when we've been told all our lives that life is tenacious and finds ways to maintain toeholds.

In the absence of additional information, the simplest explanation to me is that all life that ever existed on Earth all comes from one genetic line.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You like to use Google, but you always cite your sources and never try to pass off ideas you read three minutes ago on Wiki as your own original thoughts and ideas.

Correct. Something I learned in college; it's okay to quote sources, just make sure to give them credit. Why people plagiarize is a mystery to me since it's a stupid, irrational move.

Not an exact quote, but something I overheard decades ago:
HS graduates think they know everything.
College graduates know they don't know everything.
Post-Grad graduates learn where to find the answers to almost everything. <-- Google is a big help there. LOL

 

[Cypress]

You forgot to quote an authority.



And once again you prove you can't read. Why do you think I said "Elementary school..."

Wow. You really aren't very sharp are you?



Well it shows. You have almost no scientific background and you never talk technical details and you avoid anyone who does (or insult them) so it shows.

The only "technical details" you've ever posted is from tidbits of scientific information you googled three minutes before posting it here without attribution.

I'm not going to "debate" someone who frantically googles for tidbits of scientific information, and then rushes back here to post it without attribution

 

[Dutch Uncle]

There might have been other lines if biology other than LUCA, but we have no genetic or fossil evidence of it. We would also have to explain why those other lines of biological life disappeared, when we've been told all our lives that life is tenacious and finds ways to maintain toeholds.

In the absence of additional information, the simplest explanation to me is that all life that ever existed on Earth all comes from one genetic line.

Extinction is common on Earth. Humans are the only survivors of the human simian branch. The difference there is as you mentioned: we have fossil evidence of the other lines. There is no evidence of non-LUCA lines. Still, an absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. If we could understand why inert materials became alive, it would help understand why LUCA is the survivor if it wasn't alone.

As for "being told", Galileo found out the hard way that "being told" one thing isn't always true.

Agreed on Occam's Razor. Life appears to be exceedingly rare in the Universe. It would be remarkable if life arose more than once on Earth.

 

[Cypress]

Correct. Something I learned in college; it's okay to quote sources, just make sure to give them credit. Why people plagiarize is a mystery to me since it's a stupid, irrational move.

Not an exact quote, but something I overheard decades ago:
HS graduates think they know everything.
College graduates know they don't know everything.
Post-Grad graduates learn where to find the answers to almost everything. <-- Google is a big help there. LOL

Perfectly respectable to Google for information and cite your sources.

Intellectually dishonest to frantically google for tidbits of scientific information, and then rush back here three minutes later to pass it off as one's own original thoughts.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The only "technical details" you've ever posted is from tidbits of scientific information you googled three minutes before posting it here without attribution.

I'm not going to "debate" someone who frantically googles for tidbits of scientific information, and then rushes back here to post it without attribution

Agreed. A 12-year-old knows how to use Google and can cut and paste the answers. What a 12-year-old is unlikely to do is discuss the topic with the maturity of a 40-year-old. The knowledge of a topic can be searched and posted, but a person's personality is much more difficult to fake.

In the example, a 40-year-old can act like a 12-year-old but not vice versa. Even if the 40-year-old wanted to keep acting like a 12-year-old, there'd be times when the true personality would leak through.

So far, I haven't seen the personality of a GeoChem PhD leak through Jank's personality, regardless of his Googling skills. If he does, indeed, hold a PhD, then it goes back to my first comments about him where he's suffering a mental illness, temporary or permanent, causing the discrepancy.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Perfectly respectable to Google for information and cite your sources.

Intellectually dishonest to frantically google for tidbits of scientific information, and then rush back here three minutes later to pass it off as one's own original thoughts.

Agreed on all points. This is where my curiosity is piqued; Why? Why would a person do such a thing?