Our Solar System and Life Out There

[arturo.v.dominguez@gmail.]

Life out there …And beyond our position, at greater galactic radii, we find a deserted wasteland. And so, it seems that life would almost inevitably arise here, on this world, around this sun, in this region of the Milky Way galaxy. There's little else that we could conceivably call home.



Even if we accept the premise of this article. The only real conclusion, to be drawn from it, is that the existence of life outside our solar system and its location within our galaxy; makes that possibility improbable. Improbable not impossible; science can’t explain what makes our hearts beat. How Yes, Why No.



I would say that very simple inability; should give as pause to accept that we should assume life does not exist anywhere else.

 

[billslugg]

I believe life is abundant in the cosmos, the nearest one simply being too far away to detect. With better telescopes we might succeed some day.

 

[arturo.v.dominguez@gmail.]

I believe life is abundant in the cosmos, the nearest one simply being too far away to detect. With better telescopes we might succeed some day.

I agree we may be able to determine that with better telescopes, I however also believe we will need more than just better telescopes. We will need dedicated probes not just fly-bys.

 

[Catastrophe]

See also

Unveiling the Cosmic Archive: Hunting for Advanced Alien Civilizations

Light's Time Travel: When we gaze at distant stars and exoplanets, we're essentially looking back in time. This is because light, though incredibly fast, still takes time to travel across the vast cosmic distances. So, when we observe a star or planet thousands of light-years away, we're peering...

forums.space.com

Cat

 

[arturo.v.dominguez@gmail.]

See also

Unveiling the Cosmic Archive: Hunting for Advanced Alien Civilizations

Light's Time Travel: When we gaze at distant stars and exoplanets, we're essentially looking back in time. This is because light, though incredibly fast, still takes time to travel across the vast cosmic distances. So, when we observe a star or planet thousands of light-years away, we're peering...

forums.space.com

Cat

True we're seeing the past today. Not quite the same as being able to see into the past. Well, that is if we define seeing into the past as being able to come back to a point closer to the present and then using that newly acquired past knowledge to manipulate that past present(?)

 

[billslugg]

We can see arbitrarily far into the past when looking far away. Sadly, there is no way to do it locally, like right here on Earth. We can't see into the past and look at dinosaurs.

We can travel arbitrarily far into the future simply by acellerating our reference frame. Sadly we cannot see into the future. If we could see into the future, we could make a killing in the stock market.

 

[arturo.v.dominguez@gmail.]

I know what you mean ...hey, do me a favor .... promise not to tell anyone ok???

I use my crystal ball to see what I need to do vis-a- vis the stock market.

Sadly, it doesn't seem to be doing any better than when I was using tea leaves.

 

[billslugg]

There was a 2012 study done by Research Associates at Princeton where 98 of 100 simulated monkeys throwing darts at the newspaper beat the experts.

"...the company randomly selected 100 portfolios containing 30 stocks from a 1,000 stock universe. They repeated this processes every year, from 1964 to 2010, and tracked the results. The process replicated 100 monkeys throwing darts at the stock pages each year. Amazingly, on average, 98 of the 100 monkey portfolios beat the 1,000 stock capitalization weighted stock universe each year."

Any Monkey Can Beat The Market

Give a monkey enough darts and they’ll beat the market. So says a draft article by Research Affiliates highlighting the simulated results of 100 monkeys throwing darts at the stock pages in a newspaper. The average monkey outperformed the index by an average of 1.7 percent per year since 1964. [...]

www.forbes.com

 

[arturo.v.dominguez@gmail.]

I believe life is abundant in the cosmos, the nearest one simply being too far away to detect. With better telescopes we might succeed some day.

Speaking of abundant life the odd just got better. And that’s just in our galaxy multiply that per galaxy and …well what can I say …that Enrico Fermi didn’t already say.

 

[arturo.v.dominguez@gmail.]

There was a 2012 study done by Research Associates at Princeton where 98 of 100 simulated monkeys throwing darts at the newspaper beat the experts.

"...the company randomly selected 100 portfolios containing 30 stocks from a 1,000 stock universe. They repeated this processes every year, from 1964 to 2010, and tracked the results. The process replicated 100 monkeys throwing darts at the stock pages each year. Amazingly, on average, 98 of the 100 monkey portfolios beat the 1,000 stock capitalization weighted stock universe each year."

Any Monkey Can Beat The Market

Give a monkey enough darts and they’ll beat the market. So says a draft article by Research Affiliates highlighting the simulated results of 100 monkeys throwing darts at the stock pages in a newspaper. The average monkey outperformed the index by an average of 1.7 percent per year since 1964. [...]

www.forbes.com

Ok I need to buy me some darts. Got it.

 

[arturo.v.dominguez@gmail.]

Well that was an interesting read. Who knows maybe later once and or/if a delimiter of/for warm debris disks is found the study can become a real jaw dropping.

 

[Catastrophe]

See also

Unveiling the Cosmic Archive: Hunting for Advanced Alien Civilizations

Light's Time Travel: When we gaze at distant stars and exoplanets, we're essentially looking back in time. This is because light, though incredibly fast, still takes time to travel across the vast cosmic distances. So, when we observe a star or planet thousands of light-years away, we're peering...

forums.space.com

Cat

I believe that the quoted reference shows very clearly that receipt of alien communication is not to be expected, except as an extraordinarily unusual occurrence, however densely this galaxy may be populated.

Cat

 

[arturo.v.dominguez@gmail.]

I have no doubt about the validity of that statement. That we will not and cannot communicate with an advanced civilization; perhaps never.

At least not with the rules physics imposes on us. If and when it happens the best, we can expect is that we will have intercepted a message sent out to the universe in general. Which is and can be proven as something a civilization has already been done; well, the transmission thereof, that is.

That notwithstanding I’ve always wondered whether when Star Trek speaks of Subspace (aka FTL) Communication and or transmissions other than with in and in close proximity to their ship.

They are not speaking of some sort of carrier wave that can be directed via a folding of, oh I don’t know, micro sections of space, perhaps even the creation of micro worm holes?

 

[billslugg]

There is always talk of "subspace" or "extra dimensions" within which another universe might exist. We cannot prove that something does not exist somewhere, but if there was a "folded dimension" with hidden mass, we would see its gravity.

 

[arturo.v.dominguez@gmail.]

"Extra dimensions" that's a heady subject that takes almost faith like belief, to get into, and as you say so far are neither provable nor disprovable. But as I fail to specify, I guess I should clarify that I am postulating the ability to use the space that exist and is equal to the space between/within atoms.

 

[Catastrophe]

"Extra dimensions" that's a heady subject that takes almost faith like belief, to get into, and as you say so far are neither provable nor disprovable. But as I fail to specify, I guess I should clarify that I am postulating the ability to use the space that exist and is equal to the space between/within atoms.

As I posted above:

To explain a little . . . . . .
To a flatlander, the surface of a sphere (viable consideration of a two-dimensional surface existing in three space dimensions) is "all there is". To a higher dimensional being, the surface of a sphere expands (compare expansion of "a universe" - this equates to observed universe of a flatlander in time) as the radius of the sphere expands, This explains "expands into" question by invoking a higher dimensional observer.

I accept that this is an analogy, but it does suggest relativity in the question of dimensions.

Cat

 

[billslugg]

I'm no expert but here is how I look at "extra dimensions". There are only 3 dimensions needed to describe a volume, but a fourth, time, is also helpful. People who need extra dimensions to describe volume are not adding any volume that we could magically use, they are adding dimensions whose only function is to make the math work. In real life we add dimensions of temperature, smell, noise, etc. You might need a dozen dimensions for some purposes.

 

[Atlan0001]

I'm no expert but here is how I look at "extra dimensions". There are only 3 dimensions needed to describe a volume, but a fourth, time, is also helpful. People who need extra dimensions to describe volume are not adding any volume that we could magically use, they are adding dimensions whos only function is to make the math work. In real life we add dimensions of temperature, smell, noise, etc. You might need a dozen dimensions for some purposes.

And, yes, those are all dimensions of the universes (u)!

 

[Catastrophe]

Yes, yet more dimensions, and as I pointed out elsewhere, there are just far too many meanings attached to too few words, and then too many crosses (too many words with different meanings attached). The maps are not the territories.

1. a measurement of something in a particular direction, especially its height, length, or width:
Please specify the dimensions (= the height, length and width) of the room.
a building of vast dimensions (= size)

2. a part or feature or way of considering something:
His personality has several dimensions.
These weapons add a new dimension to modern warfare.
There is a spiritual dimension to her poetry.

Cat

 

[arturo.v.dominguez@gmail.]

The fog created by trying to communicate without defining your terms.

 

[Atlan0001]

Yes, yet more dimensions, and as I pointed out elsewhere, there are just far too many meanings attached to too few words, and then too many crosses (too many words with different meanings attached). The maps are not the territories.



Cat

Cat, I see it this way: The limits of the 'physical brain' versus the 'infinity of the mind.' The fewer the rules, the stronger the rules, the greater the liberty and freedom, but the less the tyranny and anarchy.

As Will Durant said in his Volume 1 (of 11 volumes) of the 'Story of Civilization', Savagery has many more rules ruling virtually every activity of adult children than Civilization has ruling adults.

As the Roman Cicero said, any nation having accumulated too many laws is essentially lawless!

The analogy: Too many straws, too much straw, loaded on the camel's back will break the camel's back. The last least, most inconsequential seeming, straw of countless straws will be the breaking point.
------------------------

"God does not play dice with the universe!" -- Albert Einstein.
"Yes, God does play dice with the universe, but they're loaded!" -- Stephen Hawking.

 

[Catastrophe]

The fog created by trying to communicate without defining your terms.

The fog created by words having different meanings, making it necessary to define terms, which should not be necessary.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

A brief comment. Crucially, I want to contrast the difference between artistic literature and precise communication.

I have a fault in that (when not really necessary) I tend to be more than necessarily precise. Some of this comes from my scientific background. Here it is a good thing. But in my admiration for Korzybski, I (the map is not the territory) tend to be a bit over fussy over the precise usage of words. In everyday communication, I think that this can be somewhat annoying, when definitely not intended.

I have not had a great exposure to 'artistic literature' and everything I have published has definitely been 'strictly factual' scientific in nature. I have noticed the contrast when I lived close to Oxford, where some of the language was, in my opinion, rather 'artistic'. The content sometimes modified by sound, rhyme, aesthetics - rather than accuracy.

Anyway, I hope that might help to explain how I might appear to 'come across' in unintended ways, and I will try to keep an eye on this.

Cat