Do you believe in possibility of life in other galaxies?

[Christopher S.]

I think that comment about faith was actually pointing out that belief of scientific probability is in and of itself faith in essence. Belief = faith, basically.

[Old Guy]

If there is intelligent life it is smart enough not to be detected by non-intellegent life. i.e.: earthlings.

[Christopher S.]

11 hours ago, Old Guy said:

If there is intelligent life it is smart enough not to be detected by non-intellegent life. i.e.: earthlings.

Or, they are too far away from us for the signals of their existence to reach us(right now). What we have observed of other systems has happened in the past, effectively the same amount of time in years that it took light to reach our telescopes. When considering the billions of light years between us and a neighboring galaxy, what we see is all those billions of years ago. It's impossible for us to know the present anywhere, we only see what has already transpired. To an observer of Earth from Andromeda, we do not exist.

Edited May 16, 2021 by Christopher S.

[Sasquatch Ontario]

One would have to be quite naive to think there isn't life elsewhere. There's much proof happening (and throughout history) on this planet that give much support, not to mention sentient and sapient "unknown" existence here on earth that is being ignored and denied by mainstream science. I know this through personal ongoing experiences that change our understanding of reality. sasquatchontario.com (Sasquatch Ontario YouTube)

https://sasquatchontario.com/2021/05/08/mufon-publication/

Edited May 17, 2021 by Sasquatch Ontario

[Christopher S.]

2 hours ago, Sasquatch Ontario said:

I know this through personal ongoing experiences that change our understanding of reality.

Anecdotal evidence is unfortunately not sufficient enough to be considered scientific.

[Drax Spacex]

The question "Do you believe in the possibility of life in other galaxies" presumes the existence of other galaxies.   What if those tightly-grouped clusters of tiny pinpoints of light in the night sky are not galaxies but instead just tightly-grouped clusters of tiny pinpoints of light in the night sky?  It would render moot the gravity / modified gravity / dark matter debate which tries to explain the structure of galaxies and the universe.  It would also put a lot of astrophysicists and cosmologists out of work.  But astronomers can keep their their jobs and telescopes.

"Question everything." - George Carlin

[Christopher S.]

1 hour ago, Drax Spacex said:

The question "Do you believe in the possibility of life in other galaxies" presumes the existence of other galaxies.   What if those tightly-grouped clusters of tiny pinpoints of light in the night sky are not galaxies but instead just tightly-grouped clusters of tiny pinpoints of light in the night sky?  It would render moot the gravity / modified gravity / dark matter debate which tries to explain the structure of galaxies and the universe.  It would also put a lot of astrophysicists and cosmologists out of work.  But astronomers can keep their their jobs and telescopes.

"Question everything." - George Carlin

Questioning mathematically viable, theoretically cohesive, and measurably quantifiable facts without premise is quite literally ignorant. Red- and Blue-shift, field of view, and the power of human conceptualization would lead one to the conclusion that matter is organized on scales well above our immediate surroundings.

Some people enjoy doubting reality for the sake of being different, maybe out of insecurity. Whatever the reason, pseudo-science has no place among aspiring scientists.

[Archmonoth]

4 hours ago, Drax Spacex said:

The question "Do you believe in the possibility of life in other galaxies" presumes the existence of other galaxies.   What if those tightly-grouped clusters of tiny pinpoints of light in the night sky are not galaxies but instead just tightly-grouped clusters of tiny pinpoints of light in the night sky?  It would render moot the gravity / modified gravity / dark matter debate which tries to explain the structure of galaxies and the universe.  It would also put a lot of astrophysicists and cosmologists out of work.  But astronomers can keep their their jobs and telescopes.

"Question everything." - George Carlin

 

If there aren't any other galaxies, then the question is moot for the specific term, not the larger question.

Example:

"Do you believe in the possibility of life in other galaxies" as "do you believe in the possibility of life in other worlds." 

 

 

Looking at the conditions of intelligence or life, and even reframing their definitions, doesn't escape the question. 

Example:

"Do you believe in the possibility of X-quality in Y-defined systems?"

 

I think the term galaxy is a useful term, since it describes the size of the system of possibility. The variables for these large systems like galaxies involve every branch of human understanding from semantics to quantum dynamics, and of course, SPACE WEATHER! 

 

Also, belief is a spectrum, perhaps better described as credence; the amount of certainty in your knowledge. Would you bet money on the existence of life? The dollar amount, (relative to your quality of life), could reflect the amount of belief in an outcome. 

 

I am 99.99% certain the Sun will be around tomorrow. (A belief in the conditions of the solar systems, to the point I would gladly bet large amounts of money.)

I am 50% certain in a coin flip with no prior knowledge of the coin or the environment. 

I am 20% certain a X-class flare will happen in the presence of a Delta sunspot. 

 

The more information about a system the greater the certainty. With all variables controlled, certainty can approach 100%, which is the madness of determinism. 

 

Edited May 17, 2021 by Archmonoth

[Sasquatch Ontario]

6 hours ago, Christopher S. said:

Anecdotal evidence is unfortunately not sufficient enough to be considered scientific.

Anecdotal? Prints, both foot and hand, trackways, hair samples, vocal documentation, photographic documentation, witnesses, etc. is not anecdotal. Stating anecdotal without actually taking the time to go through the body of supporting evidence is about as unscientific as it gets.

[Drax Spacex]

Circular reasoning : A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true.  But B is an unproven assertion.

Example:
A=We can't see the stars moving (observation)
B=We know the stars are very far away (unproven assertion)

Circular reasoning:
We can't see the stars moving because we know the stars are very far away; and we know the stars are very far away because we can't see the stars moving.

The cosmic distance ladder is a convoluted set of methods for determining stellar distance, fraught with dubious assumptions (e.g. that distance can be inferred from luminosity).

I don't think we really know how far away are the stars, galaxies, and other celestial objects.  That doesn't stop us from guessing, or worse, asserting those guesses to be fact, knowing there is uncertainty.

Personally, I prefer the description of a fixed order of stars set in the dome of the sky.  How far away is that dome?  I don't know, but we're probably better off not trying to measure it (Jeremiah 31:37).

[Drax Spacex]

8 hours ago, Archmonoth said:

"Do you believe in the possibility of life in other galaxies" as "do you believe in the possibility of life in other worlds." 

Looking at the conditions of intelligence or life, and even reframing their definitions, doesn't escape the question. 

Example:

"Do you believe in the possibility of X-quality in Y-defined systems?"

I think the term galaxy is a useful term, since it describes the size of the system of possibility. The variables for these large systems like galaxies involve every branch of human understanding from semantics to quantum dynamics, and of course, SPACE WEATHER! 

Also, belief is a spectrum, perhaps better described as credence; the amount of certainty in your knowledge. Would you bet money on the existence of life? The dollar amount, (relative to your quality of life), could reflect the amount of belief in an outcome.

I am 99.99% certain the Sun will be around tomorrow. (A belief in the conditions of the solar systems, to the point I would gladly bet large amounts of money.)

I am 50% certain in a coin flip with no prior knowledge of the coin or the environment. 

I am 20% certain a X-class flare will happen in the presence of a Delta sunspot.

The more information about a system the greater the certainty. With all variables controlled, certainty can approach 100%, which is the madness of determinism. 

 

Obviously I took some umbrage with the phrase "life in other galaxies", mainly because it evokes the Sci Fi notions that we've grown up with which tells us of course the answer is yes!

Rephrasing the question to ask do you believe in intelligent life, outside our realm of perception (and not location-specific), then I would say yes.  But my reason for saying yes has no scientific basis.  The really interesting questions, science can't answer.

As for betting money on the certainty of a belief, presuming then there will be an outcome with a potential loss or payout, yes, that is a way to ascertain the authenticity and strength of one's belief.  I generally don't bet any more than I'm willing to lose.  But there is a 100% certain sure-fire winning proposition which pays individuals to express a particular belief, regardless of whether they actually believe it.  In today's terminology they are called "influencer," "evangelist", or "expert."

And yes more information about a system should provide greater certainty, assuming that information is accurate and independently verifiable.  But in many situations that information is single-source, in which case accepting it is a matter of faith, and trust.

[Christopher S.]

14 hours ago, Sasquatch Ontario said:

Anecdotal? Prints, both foot and hand, trackways, hair samples, vocal documentation, photographic documentation, witnesses, etc. is not anecdotal. Stating anecdotal without actually taking the time to go through the body of supporting evidence is about as unscientific as it gets.

I specifically was speaking to your anecdotal statement "personal experiences" and such. If that was enough to strike a nerve, I reckon you have too many one-sided conversations.

 

[Archmonoth]

15 hours ago, Drax Spacex said:

Circular reasoning : A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true.  But B is an unproven assertion.

Example:
A=We can't see the stars moving (observation)
B=We know the stars are very far away (unproven assertion)

Circular reasoning:
We can't see the stars moving because we know the stars are very far away; and we know the stars are very far away because we can't see the stars moving.

The cosmic distance ladder is a convoluted set of methods for determining stellar distance, fraught with dubious assumptions (e.g. that distance can be inferred from luminosity).

I don't think we really know how far away are the stars, galaxies, and other celestial objects.  That doesn't stop us from guessing, or worse, asserting those guesses to be fact, knowing there is uncertainty.

Personally, I prefer the description of a fixed order of stars set in the dome of the sky.  How far away is that dome?  I don't know, but we're probably better off not trying to measure it (Jeremiah 31:37).

 

Luminosity decays from its source. The distance is based on the intensity. Here is a wiki link for the Inverse Square Law. This idea is very provable, very repeatable, and affects a variety of human technologies: electronics, medical scans, radio transmission, navigation for planes and boats, urban planning, etc. 

 

Please take a look: Inverse-square law - Wikipedia

 

A quick excerpt and picture from the link: 

"Since the surface area of a sphere (which is 4πr²) is proportional to the square of the radius, as the emitted radiation gets farther from the source, it is spread out over an area that is increasing in proportion to the square of the distance from the source."

 

If your planet is located in the bottom right square, you will only receive 1 flux (shred) of information. The first square closest to the source has the highest flux. This is perceivable with a candle, a lamp, an explosion, or a shout. 

 

Its not circular, its an observation: light is brighter when you are closer to its source. 

 

 

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by Archmonoth

[Ether000eggs]

With how many new life discoveries here on earth and discovering species we believed to be extinct, it's hard to believe we have been alone especially if other life could potentially be way smarter than us , or have adapted to hiding from us like second nature. We are limited beings with limited perception . What lies beyond our limits , right in front of our faces ?

[Drax Spacex]

I'm very familiar with the inverse square law.  And yes for a known source luminosity, at a known distance from it, you can calculate apparent brightness.

A star of a given apparent magnitude as we see it from Earth can be either 1) high luminosity and very far away; or 2) low luminosity and close by; or 3) any combination of luminosity and distance that yields the same apparent magnitude.

We're dealing with one known value, apparent brightness; and two parameters which are unknown: source luminosity and distance.   Mathematically to solve for two unknowns, you need two independent equations.  But in this case, we only have one equation - the inverse square law.

[Christopher S.]

I feel as though we're getting derailed here, as much as I enjoy a good "nerd-off"(I don't mean the term pejoratively, mind you)

[wesfieldmike]

I'm quite shocked at the posts. The recent fighter pilot evidence in video and voice and other submissions from US fighter pilots is ignored then? One pilot when asked how many times they see these 'vehicles performing impossible manouvres' replied 'just about every day along the Californian coast'.

Having seen the videos I cannot see how sceptics cannot be convinced. Hundreds of commercial pilots have seen incredible craft, backed up by co-pilot or passenger statements , yet there is still a wall of disbelief. Why is that?

[Christopher S.]

1 hour ago, wesfieldmike said:

I'm quite shocked at the posts. The recent fighter pilot evidence in video and voice and other submissions from US fighter pilots is ignored then? One pilot when asked how many times they see these 'vehicles performing impossible manouvres' replied 'just about every day along the Californian coast'.

Having seen the videos I cannot see how sceptics cannot be convinced. Hundreds of commercial pilots have seen incredible craft, backed up by co-pilot or passenger statements , yet there is still a wall of disbelief. Why is that?

The abundance of doctored/fabricated photos and videos, the lack of specialized knowledge to confirm what is said or described of these UFOs, etc.

There's nothing to suggest something extra-terrestrial. It's on Earth where it was witnessed, so... we have no reason to suspect aliens in another system or even galaxy based on that video. You can try really hard to say "it's so crazy, it must be alien" but such things can also be said about thousands of things on our very planet.

Besides that, this is just people believing in a connection to aliens, despite a lack of evidence. It's irrational to make a case for life elsewhere using this example.

[wesfieldmike]

4 hours ago, Christopher S. said:

The abundance of doctored/fabricated photos and videos, the lack of specialized knowledge to confirm what is said or described of these UFOs, etc.

There's nothing to suggest something extra-terrestrial. It's on Earth where it was witnessed, so... we have no reason to suspect aliens in another system or even galaxy based on that video. You can try really hard to say "it's so crazy, it must be alien" but such things can also be said about thousands of things on our very planet.

Besides that, this is just people believing in a connection to aliens, despite a lack of evidence. It's irrational to make a case for life elsewhere using this example.

So what in your opinion is the saucer shaped object that the fighter jet has locked onto? It performed manoeuvres that are impossible for any craft that man has made.

[Archmonoth]

On 5/18/2021 at 9:02 PM, Drax Spacex said:

I'm very familiar with the inverse square law.  And yes for a known source luminosity, at a known distance from it, you can calculate apparent brightness.

 

When Nova occur, we see them in telescopes. Nova - Wikipedia

"The rise to peak brightness may be very rapid, or gradual. This is related to the speed class of the nova; yet after the peak, the brightness declines steadily.^[4] The time taken for a nova to decay by around 2 or 3 magnitudes from maximum optical brightness is used for classification, via its speed class. Fast novae typically will take fewer than 25 days to decay by 2 magnitudes, while slow novae will take more than 80 days.^[5]"

 

The rate of decay of luminosity is important for understand the concept for understanding cosmic distance, and the use of Nova for distance measuring is very robust: Cosmic distance ladder - Wikipedia

 

I would love to hear any critique of how the distance is calculated.

Also, what do you think is seen with telescopes and arrays and such? Are Novae just smears on the lens? Your previous post suggests some flat-Earth or religious nonsense. 

 

Quote

A star of a given apparent magnitude as we see it from Earth can be either 1) high luminosity and very far away; or 2) low luminosity and close by; or 3) any combination of luminosity and distance that yields the same apparent magnitude.

 

This is why the candle method is used. We can measure the flux and any changes in flux/emission and see how they match predictions. I understand the candle model isn't complete, but it is useful, even when brightness and distance are too similar for distinction. These cases are extreme and provoke us to look at the object/distance from another method or angle. 

 

There are other ways:

Pulsars which have the most regular emissions.

 Pulsar - Wikipedia "In 1983, certain types of pulsars were detected that at that time exceeded the accuracy of atomic clocks in keeping time.^[3]"

 

Nebulas which contain many dynamic objects which can be used to calculate distances between them, as well as Gamma and X-Rays. 

Crab Nebula - Wikipedia "Tracing the expansion back revealed that the nebula must have become visible on Earth about 900 years before. Historical records revealed that a new star bright enough to be seen in the daytime had been recorded in the same part of the sky by Chinese astronomers on 4 July 1054, and probably also by Japanese observers."

 

Globular Clusters have little or no spin, which makes them a fixed point like a Nova.

Globular cluster - Wikipedia "Early in the 20th century, the distribution of globular clusters in the sky was some of the first evidence that the Sun is far from the center of the Milky Way."

 

 

Quote

We're dealing with one known value, apparent brightness; and two parameters which are unknown: source luminosity and distance.   Mathematically to solve for two unknowns, you need two independent equations.  But in this case, we only have one equation - the inverse square law.

 

Distance of source intensity is relative to us. We know our planet's velocity enough to measure, move and measure again. Just like the idea of eyesight, multiple perspectives while we move allows us to triangulate objects in space/dome. 

 

I am only an enthusiast and I could be wrong on many of these subjects.

 

On 5/20/2021 at 7:52 AM, wesfieldmike said:

So what in your opinion is the saucer shaped object that the fighter jet has locked onto? It performed manoeuvres that are impossible for any craft that man has made.

 

Your presumption of manmade technology might need some updating.  Drone technology has been around for years, mimiced from humming birds, dragon flies etc. The movement is not alien, but typical of efficient systems. 

Hummingbird - Wikipedia : "In natural settings full of highly complex background motion, hummingbirds are able to precisely hover in place by rapid coordination of vision with body position."

 

Stabilization technology exists in much finer detail. We can stabilize things down to incredibly small scales with the LIGO: LIGO Lab | Caltech | MIT 

 

Your awe and wonder over lights and dazzling objects is understood. Yet the operators of these flyers are UNKNOWN and could easily be any number of things. 

 

Here are some lights which have been unexplained for a fantastically long time:

Upper-atmospheric lightning - Wikipedia  Sprites Elves and Pixies!

Edited May 21, 2021 by Archmonoth

[monty]

So, with Billions of years of possibility ... you are ready to give up in forty years?

[Archmonoth]

23 hours ago, monty said:

So, with Billions of years of possibility ... you are ready to give up in forty years?

 

Sure ill bite.

First of all, I'm not sure who you are talking to. 

 

Secondly, comparing time scales, doesn't presume giving up. 

 

Thirdly, I am always ready to give up. 

 

[Rocky Raybell]

I'm leaning towards life in all Galaxies, throughout the Universe.  It's just a long, long ways away.  Considering how well we get along here it's just as well we are all protected by distance and time.

[Jacob_CX_Cooper]

Of course there's life in other galaxies. I don't know what it is: people, bacterie or any other creatures, but I'm sure it exists. 

[Archmonoth]

20 hours ago, Jacob_CX_Cooper said:

Of course there's life in other galaxies. I don't know what it is: people, bacterie or any other creatures, but I'm sure it exists. 

 

The certainty is in question. We could  be the first, or the last to travel into space. There could also be no life anywhere, by our current definitions. 

 

However, as of June 3rd (today) Space X and NASA are sending some baby bioluminescent squids and tardigrades to the ISS (International Space Station) for observation.