Space Dudes

[kent_white]

Keep your eyes out for Prof Nikku Madhusudhan in the news. 

He and his team at Cambridge have discovered an expo planet (K2-18b) that is within it's stars habitable zone and is potentially giving off bio-signals. 

He's estimating the odds of this proving to be due to life at about 50/50. They're just starting to analyse the data which they expect to have completed in about 6 months. 

Aliens in October would make winter a lot more interesting next year...... 😁

[MancWanderer]

My man with the BiL at James Webb says that he reckons that it’s a case of when, not if, we find “life” out there based on what the telescope is sending. 

[bolty58]

1 hour ago, kent_white said:

Keep your eyes out for Prof Nikku Madhusudhan in the news. 

He and his team at Cambridge have discovered an expo planet (K2-18b) that is within it's stars habitable zone and is potentially giving off bio-signals. 

He's estimating the odds of this proving to be due to life at about 50/50. They're just starting to analyse the data which they expect to have completed in about 6 months. 

Aliens in October would make winter a lot more interesting next year...... 😁

This isn't the same Mad Nikku who reports for the National Enquirer is it? "An alien ate my underwear"?

 

[Underpants]

2 hours ago, MancWanderer said:

My man with the BiL at James Webb says that he reckons that it’s a case of when, not if, we find “life” out there based on what the telescope is sending.

How does that work with a telescope?  Can this telescope zoom on to a planet light-years away and see houses? Or does it work like a microscope and can see amoeba type things scurrying about in a puddle? It's a very ambiguous comment.

[MancWanderer]

8 hours ago, Underpants said:

How does that work with a telescope?  Can this telescope zoom on to a planet light-years away and see houses? Or does it work like a microscope and can see amoeba type things scurrying about in a puddle? It's a very ambiguous comment.

Tbh it’s way beyond me but he works on the infra red stuff that can detect “life”. As for the definition of that life, I have absolutely no idea but is suspect that amoeba are nearer the mark than folk with pointy fingers and heads 

[Cheese]

8 hours ago, Underpants said:

How does that work with a telescope?  Can this telescope zoom on to a planet light-years away and see houses? Or does it work like a microscope and can see amoeba type things scurrying about in a puddle? It's a very ambiguous comment.

https://science.nasa.gov/exoplanets/can-we-find-life/

[kent_white]

8 hours ago, Underpants said:

How does that work with a telescope?  Can this telescope zoom on to a planet light-years away and see houses? Or does it work like a microscope and can see amoeba type things scurrying about in a puddle? It's a very ambiguous comment.

In layman's terms - it and other telescopes can detect things like what gasses are being emitted from planets. 

And there are some gases which are only produced as a consequence of life (as far as we currently understand). 

Much more likely that if this IS confirmed (and it's a very big if) that the life will be microbial. Rather than a civilization with theme parks, pasty barms and K2-18bways 😁

[Underpants]

1 hour ago, kent_white said:

In layman's terms - it and other telescopes can detect things like what gasses are being emitted from planets. 

And there are some gases which are only produced as a consequence of life (as far as we currently understand). 

Much more likely that if this IS confirmed (and it's a very big if) that the life will be microbial. Rather than a civilization with theme parks, pasty barms and K2-18bways 😁

So basically they are making a scientific guess on the evidence provided. My perception of finding life is actually seeing it. Guessing doesn't count for me.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

It isn't a guess.

It is observation and analysis based on our current scientific understanding. 

If in time they observe/learn something new, that offers an alternative way of these gases being created/emitted then that will add to the current scientific understanding. 

A radar system can detect an aircraft beyond visual range- does that mean it's not there because you can't see it?

[kent_white]

15 minutes ago, Underpants said:

So basically they are making a scientific guess on the evidence provided. My perception of finding life is actually seeing it. Guessing doesn't count for me.

This would be seeing. It just wouldn't be seeing using visible light. 

It's a bit like how we use infrared to understand what's happening on planets that are covered by dust and clouds. 

I doubt we'll ever get the resolution to 'look' at the surface of a planet outside our solar system. 

[Cheese]

30 minutes ago, Underpants said:

So basically they are making a scientific guess on the evidence provided. My perception of finding life is actually seeing it. Guessing doesn't count for me.

It's not "guessing", it's the exact opposite. Your perception is daft.

[Zico]

1 hour ago, Underpants said:

So basically they are making a scientific guess on the evidence provided. My perception of finding life is actually seeing it. Guessing doesn't count for me.

we (humans) will never see it, it's simply too far away, and if it's biological as we understand it, it will never see us

life could range from bacteria or microcosms to something biological as we know it (like one of the many species of life on this plante), or something biological that doesn't exist on this planet

so we can detect signs life as we might know it but that's it

what it might look like is where the guesswork starts

 

[Underpants]

1 hour ago, Cheese said:

It's not "guessing", it's the exact opposite. Your perception is daft.

So it's fact. You're on form today.

It's a hypotheses. That is a fancy scientific word for guessing.

[Cheese]

1 minute ago, Underpants said:

So it's fact. You're on form today.

It's a hypotheses. That is a fancy scientific word for guessing.

You don't understand the science, which is perfectly understandable. It takes a lot of reading and learning to get your head around it.

[Underpants]

2 minutes ago, Cheese said:

You don't understand the science, which is perfectly understandable. It takes a lot of reading and learning to get your head around it.

I don't understand science. I'll admit it. Maybe you can enlightened me. How is it a fact and not a fancy guess? 

[Cheese]

7 minutes ago, Underpants said:

I don't understand science. I'll admit it. Maybe you can enlightened me. How is it a fact and not a fancy guess? 

It wouldn't be a "fact", and nobody has claimed that (apart from you). But the evidence would have to overwhelmingly suggest it's more likely than not, until other evidence is brought to light that either reinforces it, or sheds doubt. That's how science works.

Edited April 29, 2024 by Cheese

[kent_white]

35 minutes ago, Underpants said:

So it's fact. You're on form today.

It's a hypotheses. That is a fancy scientific word for guessing.

You have a hypothesis and make predictions about what you should find based on that hypothesis. 

You then design a test to challenge your hypothesis and see whether the data agrees with your prediction.

You then wrote this up into a paper for it to be peer reviewed by the most qualified people in the world to pick your ideas to shreds. 

And if it holds up after all that - then your hypothesis (or guess) is likely right. At which point it becomes a theory. 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

Which also confirms that the data received is just that.

My observations say that your use of the word is totally misplaced.

[Underpants]

7 hours ago, kent_white said:

You have a hypothesis and make predictions about what you should find based on that hypothesis. 

You then design a test to challenge your hypothesis and see whether the data agrees with your prediction.

You then wrote this up into a paper for it to be peer reviewed by the most qualified people in the world to pick your ideas to shreds. 

And if it holds up after all that - then your hypothesis (or guess) is likely right. At which point it becomes a theory. 

Surely a fact goes beyond any theory. No matter how you garnish it up it is still a guess.

I can rattle off thousands of facts and no one would argue. Well, maybe you or Prof Cheese would. But all theory's are fancy guesses. And theories have come unstuck.

Look, given the probabilities the big brains may well be correct. But we won't know for sure until Mork comes knocking.

[Cheese]

4 minutes ago, Underpants said:

Surely a fact goes beyond any theory. No matter how you garnish it up it is still a guess.

I can rattle off thousands of facts and no one would argue. Well, maybe you or Prof Cheese would. But all theory's are fancy guesses. And theories have come unstuck.

Look, given the probabilities the big brains may well be correct. But we won't know for sure until Mork comes knocking.

You're the only one who keeps using the word "fact".

[Underpants]

8 hours ago, Cheese said:

It wouldn't be a "fact", and nobody has claimed that (apart from you). But the evidence would have to overwhelmingly suggest it's more likely than not, until other evidence is brought to light that either reinforces it, or sheds doubt. That's how science works.

Ok, you said it's not guessing, it's the complete opposite. To which I said it must be a fact then. You argued it's not a fact (no surprise there). So, what is the complete opposite to guess?

[Cheese]

Just now, Underpants said:

Ok, you said it's not guessing, it's the complete opposite. To which I said it must be a fact then. You argued it's not a fact (no surprise there). So, what is the complete opposite to guess?

guess

/ɡɛs/

verb
estimate or conclude (something) without sufficient information to be sure of being correct.

[kent_white]

7 minutes ago, Underpants said:

Surely a fact goes beyond any theory. No matter how you garnish it up it is still a guess.

I can rattle off thousands of facts and no one would argue. Well, maybe you or Prof Cheese would. But all theory's are fancy guesses. And theories have come unstuck.

Look, given the probabilities the big brains may well be correct. But we won't know for sure until Mork comes knocking.

The word theory in science means something different than theory in common parlance. 

Theory in scientific terms means something is almost absolutely certain. Although they will rarely call it a 'fact' because there is always room for improvement in a theory. 

Just like Isaac Newton came up with the theory of universal gravitation, which worked perfectly well for hundreds of years (and still does most of the time) but was improved on by Einstein's theory that gravity was curved space time. And someone some day will probably refine that too. 

So a theory is about as solid as the scientific evidence currently allows. That's why we have......

A theory of evolution, or plate tectonic theory, or germ theory, or quantum theory, or heliocentric theory, or the theory of anthropomorphic climate change, or the theory of electo magnetism.

It doesn't mean someone has just had a stab in the dark and 'come up' with a theory. 

[Underpants]

9 minutes ago, Cheese said:

You're the only one who keeps using the word "fact".

I refer you to my post above.

[Cheese]

5 minutes ago, Underpants said:

I refer you to my post above.

The one I've already replied to?