Just Add Water - planetary life may be ubiquitous

Halbhh · Mar 2, 2021

keith99 said:
Bolding mine.

And perhaps to be hit by ones as large as the ones that hit Earth. It just might be that impacts create the sort of spark that leads to life. If that is the case it creates a very narrow path. Impact to start things going, but later impacts may blast things back to the stone age. If that is the case then it jsut might be that to persist civilization must create thigns like atomic bombs and space flight to protect against future impacts but also not use them for war or the like. A very narrow path based on how we humans have gone so far.

You've touched on or gotten close to a key thing: impacts that are not too large can and have helped to drive/accelerate evolution. The impact 66 million years cleared out most dinosaurs from niches, opening up the way for the rise of the mammals, some of which managed to survive the impact. Because of that impact, a way was cleared for us.

Of course, if that impact had been significantly larger, no mammals would have survived either... Christians (at least some of us, or many of us) believe God is in control, as you might expect. It would not be hard for Him to select the right rock, if that was His plan.

SelfSim · Mar 2, 2021

SkyWriting said:
Not at all. Plants create oxygen, chemical reactions create nitrogen, sunlight causes photosynthesis, everything result has a cause, billions of planets have no life.

There is no universally applicable objective basis for the claim that (your words): 'everything result has a cause'. Cause and effect is largely a philosophical topic. In some instances science establishes objective tests and evidence for some causes and their effects. There are provisional and contextual constraints applicable for these cases.

SkyWriting said:
If twelve earth identical planets were in our solar system what would be the reason life would develop on any of them? We know about the tides. Do tides cause life? We know about the seasons, Do seasons cause life? If we do find life, what is it's function? Why is it there? What purpose does life serve? Is it balancing something? Is it consuming excess energy? It is transforming a dead rock into something with better chemicals? Why did it develop and what is it doing?

Wrong forum!

Halbhh · Mar 2, 2021

SkyWriting said:
Not at all. Plantes create oxygen, chemical reactions create nitrogen, sunlight causes photosynthesis, everything result has a cause, billions of planets have no life.

If twelve earth identical planets were in our solar system what would be the reason life would develop on any of them? We know about the tides. Do tides cause life? We know about the seasons, Do seasons cause life? If we do find life, what is it's function? Why is it there? What purpose does life serve? Is it balancing something? Is it consuming excess energy? It is transforming a dead rock into something with better chemicals? Why did it develop and what is it doing?

We don't know one way or the other whether some, many or no other planets might temporarily have very early beginnings of life, even commonly(?) before typical, common events and forces of nature as we observe it -- things like stellar super flares, planetary orbital migration, and so on -- in various stellar systems wipe out those beginning forms of life, over and over and over. We don't know one way or the other yet. Don't even have a characteristic time scale.

SelfSim · Mar 2, 2021

Halbhh said:
You've touched on or gotten close to a key thing: impacts that are not too large can and have helped to drive/accelerate evolution. The impact 66 million years cleared out most dinosaurs from niches, opening up the way for the rise of the mammals, some of which managed to survive the impact. Because of that impact, a way was cleared for us.

Sounds like you've chosen to believe all that(?)

You didn't have to do that, of course.

SkyWriting · Mar 2, 2021

Halbhh said:
Is that what you wanted to ask about, or are you asking instead about this: For us believers, we can know at least one key thing about how life started -- the Creator of all that exists is by definition necessarily the creator of physics -- the laws of nature, and thus the way in which nature works. Being the Creator of physics means being the creator of all that happens through physics. Since all that happens in nature naturally is understood to simply be physics in action -- physics -- all natural events (as distinct from supernatural events!) are simply the outcome of this physics we have. Ergo, the creator of physics is the creator of all natural events, a-z.

I don't subscribe to believers' assumptions either. What I discovered in scripture fits the facts the best.
God is holding each atom together with His willpower according to a plan He made. Our willpower is limited, but God's is not. By the power of His will, he keeps each electron in it's expected place and on his plan for us. All is planned, nothing is natural.

Colossians 1:17
And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

xRMeQI0BkPV2slT8O-yzrF-ZNWDcwHmCnm7HQR3UW4OL2Y84KeIoQa2CS8vO6PAcMnJarsQbTMcizTX5Ezor-VtvNWU8wfBnOX2ttkXl0PDRGdTNi-sci4WBHqx2bUKGvY7NGQoY1ALOPd11ig

Hebrews 1:3
He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.

1 Corinthians 8:6
yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Halbhh · Mar 2, 2021

SelfSim said:
The creator of physics was the human mind .. end of story.
Physics' descriptions are for the sole purpose of us making sense of what we see (and experience).

When the new General Relativity -- derived from certain principles -- predicted a never-before-seen-nor-expected degree of bending of light by gravity, and years later the first ever observations where undertaken to test the theory, and then it was proven accurate...it was a demonstration of how physics preexists discovery.

We discover transforms (versions, including approximations that hold in domains, ranges) of pre-existing absolute laws of nature: which already exist and function, and precisely, before we have a clue about them.

It's sorta analogous to digging in dirt and finding something that was there all along.

Halbhh · Mar 2, 2021

SelfSim said:
Sounds like you've chosen to believe all that(?)

You didn't have to do that, of course.

? Not sure what you're asking. If one observes how 'gravity' works -- say, imagine being Isaac Newton figuring it out... -- and one figures out the mathematical equations that describe it, then they simply have found a real representation about an absolute reality.

They found math that corresponds to the operation of Nature.

The way nature works which we call 'gravity' is quite real and consistent, and reliable, regardless of whether people understand it, and regardless of future refinements also. Approximations are quite useful, when they are about reality.

Halbhh · Mar 2, 2021

SkyWriting said:
I don't subscribe to believers' assumptions either. What I discovered in scripture fits the facts the best.
God is holding each atom together with His willpower according to a plan He made. Our willpower is limited, but God's is not. By the power of His will, he keeps each electron in it's expected place and on his plan for us. All is planned, nothing is natural.

Colossians 1:17
And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Hebrews 1:3
He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.

1 Corinthians 8:6
yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

I like that. This might be interesting to you (or not!) -- it's also a lot like one unusual QM interpretation theory, or at least in my way of thinking of it.

SelfSim · Mar 2, 2021

SkyWriting said:
I don't subscribe to believers' assumptions either. What I discovered in scripture fits the facts the best.
God is holding each atom together with His willpower according to a plan He made. Our willpower is limited, but God's is not. By the power of His will, he keeps each electron in it's expected place and on his plan for us. All is planned, nothing is natural.

Colossians 1:17
And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Hebrews 1:3
He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.

1 Corinthians 8:6
yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Wrong forum!

SkyWriting · Mar 2, 2021

SelfSim said:
Wrong forum!

Staying anyway!

SelfSim · Mar 2, 2021

Halbhh said:
When the new General Relativity -- derived from certain principles -- predicted a never-before-seen-nor-expected degree of bending of light by gravity, and years later the first ever observations where undertaken to test the theory, and then it was proven accurate...it was a demonstration of how physics preexists discovery.

We discover transforms (versions, including approximations that hold in domains, ranges) of pre-existing absolute laws of nature: which already exist and function, and precisely, before we have a clue about them.

It's sorta analogous to digging in dirt and finding something that was there all along.

The analogy is based on belief.
GR however, is demonstrably a model, which tests out very well. It was the model which was devised to explain questions, (logical consequences), which were previously not conceived (in their entirety) before Einstein.
None of this model has any objective evidence whatsoever for it being independent of a human mind .. and abundant historical evidence for it taking a mind to conceive it. The idea that it describes 'something' which stands independent of a human mind is demonstrably, just a belief and is never tested (because there is no such test yet).

The idea that physics is 'discovering something', is easily interpreted as discovering the depths of our thinking, perceptions and their logical consequences on given topics, to which we have not yet delved.

SelfSim · Mar 2, 2021

Halbhh said:
? Not sure what you're asking. If one observes how 'gravity' works -- say, imagine being Isaac Newton figuring it out... -- and one figures out the mathematical equations that describe it, then they simply have found a real representation about an absolute reality.

Nope .. that's just what you'd like to believe. If you disagree then cite the test which unequivocally demonstrates the existence of this so-called 'absolute reality'. (As you do that, I will observe your mind in action .. which will provide evidence that what you come up with, will have zip to do with this independent, so-called 'absolute reality').

Halbhh said:
They found math that corresponds to the operation of Nature.

.. and 'Nature' is what?? Oh yes .. its also a model!

The math is the descriptive language chosen to explore logical consequences .. Math is not part of some 'absolute reality' .. Twas devised by humans over thousands of years!

Halbhh said:
The way nature works which we call 'gravity' is quite real and consistent, and reliable, regardless of whether people understand it, and regardless of future refinements also. Approximations are quite useful, when they are about reality.

There is broad agreement amongst objectively thinking (scientific) thinkers on the accurate predictions (future descriptions) drawn from the respective models of 'gravity', yes.
There is nothing in that, which provides evidence of gravity being part of some 'absolute reality', other than by way of your believing that.

Halbhh · Mar 2, 2021

SelfSim said:
The analogy is based on belief.
GR however, is demonstrably a model, which tests out very well. It was the model which was devised to explain questions, (logical consequences), which were previously not conceived (in their entirety) before Einstein.
None of this model has any objective evidence whatsoever for it being independent of a human mind .. and abundant historical evidence for it taking a mind to conceive it. The idea that it describes 'something' which stands independent of a human mind is demonstrably, just a belief and is never tested (because there is no such test yet).

The idea that physics is 'discovering something', is easily interpreted as discovering the depths of our thinking, perceptions and their logical consequences on given topics, to which we have not yet delved.

The reality itself is what I think is independent of human knowing or awareness. Our best models surprise us in how perfectly they can predict things new to us we never imagined. Ergo, nature evidently functions by consistent laws, regardless of how well we make models.

Shemjaza · Mar 2, 2021

SkyWriting said:
Not at all. Plants create oxygen, chemical reactions create nitrogen, sunlight causes photosynthesis, everything result has a cause, billions of planets have no life.

If twelve earth identical planets were in our solar system what would be the reason life would develop on any of them? We know about the tides. Do tides cause life? We know about the seasons, Do seasons cause life? If we do find life, what is it's function? Why is it there? What purpose does life serve? Is it balancing something? Is it consuming excess energy? It is transforming a dead rock into something with better chemicals? Why did it develop and what is it doing?

With presence of energy naturally occurring organic molecules will absorb the energy and the bonds will become more favourable to more complicated chemistry.

This is the same chemical process that powers the chemistry within life. A life form is inherently more efficient at replicating then other organic chemicals, so it will be favoured by the environment.

The exact pathway from reoccurring complex chemicals to true RNA/DNA replicators to actual life form isn't known... but the chemistry is simply a consequence of the carbon atom's ability to form varying bonds and chains.

Erik Nelson · Mar 2, 2021

SelfSim said:
See the Seager Equation:

'The equation focuses on the search for planets with biosignature gases, gases produced by life that can accumulate in a planet atmosphere to levels that can be detected with remote space telescopes.
N=N*FQFHZFOFLFS
where:

N = the number of planets with detectable signs of life

N* = the number of stars observed

FQ = the fraction of stars that are quiet

FHZ = the fraction of stars with rocky planets in the habitable zone

FO = the fraction of stars with observable planets

FL = the fraction of planets that have life

FS = the fraction of life forms that produce planetary atmospheres with one or more detectable signature gases'

We can't see squat in space

We cannot directly resolve any exoplanets

We have no data to process

Theories aside, there could be city lights covering every continent of every exoplanet in the galaxy and we couldn't see them, wouldn't know about them

Landon Caeli · Mar 2, 2021

Occams Barber said:
I suspect Fermi overegged the likelihood of other planetary life being discoverable.

While the odds of off-planet life may have gone up, the problem of planet temperature combined with the odds of life from two planets accidentally bumping in to each other, still makes it unlikely we'll be tripping over aliens.

OB

Why would planet temperature be a problem for other planets within the habitable zone?

sjastro · Mar 2, 2021

Erik Nelson said:
We can't see squat in space

We cannot directly resolve any exoplanets

We certainly can.

ESO's Very Large Telescope (VLT) has captured an unprecedented series of images showing the passage of the exoplanet Beta Pictoris b around its parent star. This young massive exoplanet was initially discovered in 2008 using the NACO instrument at the VLT. The same science team since tracked the exoplanet from late 2014 until late 2016, using the Spectro-Polarimetric High-contrast Exoplanet REsearch instrument (SPHERE) — another instrument on the VLT.

Beta Pictoris b then passed so close to the halo of the star that no instrument could resolve them from one another. Almost two years later, after seeming to merge into the image of the star, Beta Pictoris b has now emerged from the halo. This reappearance was captured again by SPHERE.

ESO used an occulting disk to block out the light of the star Beta Pictoris in order to make the exoplanet visible.

Halbhh · Mar 2, 2021

sjastro said:
We certainly can.

ESO used an occulting disk to block out the light of the star Beta Pictoris in order to make the exoplanet visible.

A bright star, not far away: "...63.4 light years, with an uncertainty of 0.1 light years... ...As an A-type main sequence star, Beta Pictoris is more luminous than the Sun...visual luminosity 9.2 times greater than that of the Sun." So, with that large planet, it's a nice target. Wouldn't it be great if we could combine telescopes over a baseline like the diameter of Earth's orbit tho.

Landon Caeli · Mar 2, 2021

deleted!

my reading comprehension is lacking today.

sjastro · Mar 2, 2021

Halbhh said:
A bright star, not far away: "...63.4 light years, with an uncertainty of 0.1 light years... ...As an A-type main sequence star, Beta Pictoris is more luminous than the Sun...visual luminosity 9.2 times greater than that of the Sun." So, with that large planet, it's a nice target. Wouldn't it be great if we could combine telescopes over a baseline like the diameter of Earth's orbit tho.

Beta Pictoris has an interesting history.
Before the discovery of exoplanets, Beta Pictoris was one of the first stars where gas and dust surrounding a star was directly imaged.
It provided the first clue of the possible existence of exoplanets.

Just Add Water - planetary life may be ubiquitous

Everything You say is Life to me

A non "-ist"

Everything You say is Life to me

A non "-ist"

The Librarian

Everything You say is Life to me

Everything You say is Life to me

Everything You say is Life to me

A non "-ist"

The Librarian

A non "-ist"

A non "-ist"

Everything You say is Life to me

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

God is perfect - Nothing is an accident

Newbie

Everything You say is Life to me

God is perfect - Nothing is an accident

Newbie

Similar threads