We Might Be Alone in the Universe

[Doctor Steuss]

Hi Huck,

Ethan Siegel (theoretical astrophysicist) wrote about this in December. https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang ... etc-earth/

From the article:

But there have been military transmissions that do have the right power and frequency characteristics to be detected over hundreds of light-years: the radar transmissions that were set up during the Cold War to detect any incoming ballistic missiles.

Classic earthlings.

[huckelberry]

Hi Huck,

Ethan Siegel (theoretical astrophysicist) wrote about this in December. https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang ... etc-earth/

From the article:

But there have been military transmissions that do have the right power and frequency characteristics to be detected over hundreds of light-years: the radar transmissions that were set up during the Cold War to detect any incoming ballistic missiles.

Classic earthlings.

I did read the article and that little piece jumped out. It said nothing about whether those signals would appear to be communicative or designed. Perhaps a distant radio astronomer would only see an unidentified oddity.

I focused my question on hearing Chuck Berry because I was thinking of radio activity not making a special attempt to communicate with some specific star system or group. Obviously focusing a lot of energy in on focused direction is going to be receivable a great deal further away than a broadcast of Chuck Berry. The article read like a sales pitch, yes we do not hear aliens but maybe we can try lots of special efforts. It did briefly note that our regular broadcast do not extend very far. If a world 15 light years away is rocking out to their big beat we will not hear. It might have been intending to say we would not hear Martian rock and roll broadcasts either but that is uncertain I think it might have meant.

[doubtingthomas]

He fails to address a fatal logical flaw in his argument: that characteristics of our solar system that may be unique (based on a sample size that is virtually zero) reduce the probability of finding life somewhere in the universe. He's cited absolutely no scientific literature that makes the same logical mistake.

That's not what I am saying, I agree there is no evidence that alien life doesn't exists. However, if life is possible everywhere, we likely wouldn't be living in a "cosmic oddity". Living in "cosmic oddity" is a hint that we are alone in the observable universe.

The authors characterized our sun as a "non-periodic" star, as that's how it would likely be classified if observed from a distance using Kepler. The non-periodic stars in the sample had lower variability than the periodic stars...So, the sun was "quiet" compared with the 369, but not with the other 2529. Or, in there words, the sun was typical of the vast majority of stars in the combined sample.

Okay, so I did some research and found some fatal flaws with your interpretation.

Here are some points you should consider:

1. About three-quarters of the stars in the galaxy are 1 billion years older, on average, than the Sun. Most of the non-periodic stars may simply be older than the Sun. The Milky Way is about 13 billion years old.

2. All the periodic stars selected are about the same age as the Sun. A similar rotation period is an indication that the stars are about the same age. "For the periodic sample, we select rotation periods in the range 20–30 days (Sun: Prot, = 24.47 days sidereal rotation period)."

3. Characterizing our sun as a "non-periodic" star is just speculation, according to the authors, "the Sun would probably belong to the non-periodic sample if it were observed by Kepler". However, comparing the sun with periodic stars is hard data, "These stars appear nearly identical to the Sun, except for their higher variability".

4. The authors allow for two interpretations. However, the interpretation that our Sun is currently in an unusually quiet period, is unlikely. Does Res Ipsa have any evidence that our Sun has been unusually quiet for 9,000 years?

Hi Huck,

Ethan Siegel (theoretical astrophysicist) wrote about this in December. https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang ... etc-earth/

Hey Huck,

I find it very interesting that some blog post by a theoretical astrophysicist is more reliable than a video by an exoplanet researcher on this subject.

I am the only one required to back up my arguments with peer-reviewed research.

[doubtingthomas]

Obviously, the Powerball will be won by (A), someone in the 999 cities. Folks from (B), the unique city of duck people, have a difficult time filling out the lottery forms with their feathery duck hands.

Okay, I did some serious research and found some flaws with Res Ipsa's interpretation.

Another flaw with Res Ipsa's interpretation is that some periodic stars are quieter than the Sun, but that's not the case for the vast majority of periodic stars. I could probably find more flaws if I keep doing research.

Res Ipsa really owes me an apology.

[doubtingthomas]

I corrected for spelling.

Okay, so I did some research and found some fatal flaws with your interpretation.

Here are some points you should consider:

1. About three-quarters of the stars in the galaxy are 1 billion years older, on average, than the Sun. Most of the non-periodic stars may simply be older than the Sun. The Milky Way is about 13 billion years old.

2. All the periodic stars selected are about the same age as the Sun. A similar rotation period is an indication that the stars are about the same age. "For the periodic sample, we select rotation periods in the range 20–30 days (Sun: Prot, = 24.47 days sidereal rotation period)."

3. Characterizing our sun as a "non-periodic" star is just speculation, according to the authors, "the Sun would probably belong to the non-periodic sample if it were observed by Kepler". However, comparing the sun with periodic stars is hard data, "These stars appear nearly identical to the Sun, except for their higher variability".

4. The authors allow for two interpretations. However, the interpretation that our Sun is currently in an unusually quiet period, is unlikely. Does Res Ipsa have any evidence that our Sun has been unusually quiet for 9,000 years?

[Doctor Steuss]

Hey Huck,

I find it very interesting that some blog post by a theoretical astrophysicist is more reliable than a video by an exoplanet researcher on this subject.

I am the only one required to back up my arguments with peer-reviewed research.

I must have missed the video of an exoplanet researcher addressing the specific question regarding broadcast radio waves.

[Res Ipsa]

He fails to address a fatal logical flaw in his argument: that characteristics of our solar system that may be unique (based on a sample size that is virtually zero) reduce the probability of finding life somewhere in the universe. He's cited absolutely no scientific literature that makes the same logical mistake.

That's not what I am saying, I agree there is no evidence that alien life doesn't exists. However, if life is possible everywhere, we likely wouldn't be living in a "cosmic oddity". Living in "cosmic oddity" is a hint that we are alone in the observable universe.

The authors characterized our sun as a "non-periodic" star, as that's how it would likely be classified if observed from a distance using Kepler. The non-periodic stars in the sample had lower variability than the periodic stars...So, the sun was "quiet" compared with the 369, but not with the other 2529. Or, in there words, the sun was typical of the vast majority of stars in the combined sample.

Okay, so I did some research and found some fatal flaws with your interpretation.

1. About three-quarters of the stars in the galaxy are 1 billion years older, on average, than the Sun. Most of the non-periodic stars may simply be older than the Sun. The Milky Way is about 13 billion years old.

2. All the periodic stars selected are about the same age as the Sun. A similar rotation period is an indication that the stars are about the same age. "For the periodic sample, we select rotation periods in the range 20–30 days (Sun: Prot, = 24.47 days sidereal rotation period)."

3. Characterizing our sun as a "non-periodic" star is just speculation, according to the authors, "the Sun would probably belong to the non-periodic sample if it were observed by Kepler". However, comparing the sun with periodic stars is hard data, "These stars appear nearly identical to the Sun, except for their higher variability".

4. The authors allow for two interpretations. However, the interpretation that our Sun is currently in an unusually quiet period, is unlikely. Does Res Ipsa have any evidence that our Sun has been unusually quiet for 9,000 years?

Hi Huck,

Ethan Siegel (theoretical astrophysicist) wrote about this in December. https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang ... etc-earth/

Hey Huck,

I find it very interesting that some blog post by a theoretical astrophysicist is more reliable than a video by an exoplanet researcher on this subject.

I am the only one required to back up my arguments with peer-reviewed research.

My interpretation of exactly what? If you want to have a discussion, please specify what I’m interpreting, what exactly it is that you are claiming I got wrong, what you think the correct interpretation is, and the sources you are citing for information. Also, please provide a link to your peer reviewed source that contradicts the content of the blog entry I posted.

[doubtingthomas]

Also, please provide a link to your peer reviewed source that contradicts the content of the blog entry I posted.

Why would you read blog entries, but not educational videos? I am just wondering, one of the videos I shared was a lecture at Columbia University.

Is it because your browser doesn't allow you to access Youtube?

My interpretation of exactly what?

1. Your interpretation that my snippets are misleading.

2. Your statements ignore important context and information.

Of course, there are several ways to interpret the data, but keep in mind it's nearly impossible to prove anything in Science.

Anyways, I would really like you to respond to this points

1. About three-quarters of the stars in the galaxy are 1 billion years older, on average, than the Sun. Most of the non-periodic stars may simply be older than the Sun. The Milky Way is about 13 billion years old.

Your claim that "the Sun was typical of the vast majority of stars in the combined sample" of the study leaves out important context and information.

2. All the periodic stars selected are about the same age as the Sun. A similar rotation period is an indication that the stars are about the same age. "For the periodic sample, we select rotation periods in the range 20–30 days (Sun: Prot, = 24.47 days sidereal rotation period)."

3. Characterizing our sun as a "non-periodic" star is just speculation, according to the authors, "the Sun would probably belong to the non-periodic sample if it were observed by Kepler". However, comparing the sun with periodic stars is hard data, "These stars appear nearly identical to the Sun, except for their higher variability".

4. The authors allow for two interpretations. However, the interpretation that our Sun is currently in an unusually quiet period, is unlikely. Does Res Ipsa have any evidence that our Sun has been unusually quiet for 9,000 years?

[huckelberry]

.., I agree there is no evidence that alien life doesn't exists. However, if life is possible everywhere, we likely wouldn't be living in a "cosmic oddity". Living in "cosmic oddity" is a hint that we are alone in the observable universe.
........
Hey Huck,

I find it very interesting that some blog post by a theoretical astrophysicist is more reliable than a video by an exoplanet researcher on this subject.

I am the only one required to back up my arguments with peer-reviewed research.

Thomas, Physics Guy has explained,

"Logical inferences from observations on Earth can only ever tell us about the probability of intelligent life to be here; they can say nothing about its probability anywhere else."

[Res Ipsa]

Also, please provide a link to your peer reviewed source that contradicts the content of the blog entry I posted.

Why would you read blog entries, but not educational videos? I am just wondering, one of the videos I shared was a lecture at Columbia University.

Is it because your browser doesn't allow you to access Youtube?

My interpretation of exactly what?

1. Your interpretation that my snippets are misleading.

2. Your statements ignore important context and information.

Of course, there are several ways to interpret the data, but keep in mind it's nearly impossible to prove anything in Science.

Anyways, I would really like you to respond to this points

1. About three-quarters of the stars in the galaxy are 1 billion years older, on average, than the Sun. Most of the non-periodic stars may simply be older than the Sun. The Milky Way is about 13 billion years old.

Your claim that "the Sun was typical of the vast majority of stars in the combined sample" of the study leaves out important context and information.

2. All the periodic stars selected are about the same age as the Sun. A similar rotation period is an indication that the stars are about the same age. "For the periodic sample, we select rotation periods in the range 20–30 days (Sun: Prot, = 24.47 days sidereal rotation period)."

3. Characterizing our sun as a "non-periodic" star is just speculation, according to the authors, "the Sun would probably belong to the non-periodic sample if it were observed by Kepler". However, comparing the sun with periodic stars is hard data, "These stars appear nearly identical to the Sun, except for their higher variability".

4. The authors allow for two interpretations. However, the interpretation that our Sun is currently in an unusually quiet period, is unlikely. Does Res Ipsa have any evidence that our Sun has been unusually quiet for 9,000 years?

You're going to have to be specific. Which of your snippets are we talking about? What statement or statements are you talking about? Pick a specific example where you think my criticism of you was "full of crap" and I'll be happy to discuss it. Also, you still haven't linked to the source or sources you are relying on for points 1-4.

I don't rely on youtube videos for the same reasons articulated by Chap and PG. Having the entire paper in front of me helps me make sure I'm understanding what the author is saying in context. If I have any question, I can easily refer back to the appropriate section of the paper and find the answer. I don't have to rely on my memory of what was said 30 minutes before in a video. I don't have to hunt for what I think I remembered earlier in the recording. I also avoid the potential effects of the quality of the presentation on what I think about it. Using writing is much more efficient in terms of understanding what an author is saying and is more likely to result in me actually understanding what the author is saying than is the case with watching a video. Also, if I'm presenting an argument, I can easily cut and paste quotes, so anyone following the discussion can see exactly what I'm talking about without having to stop, go to another site, and watch a video.

It's not that I consider the category "Youtube videos" as inherently untrustworthy. If you linked me to a transcript of one of Dr. Kipping's videos, I'd be happy to review it.

I'm assuming that, in fact, you don't have a peer-reviewed study that contradicts the post by Sigel. You're just miffed that I posted a blog entry by a qualified expert but won't watch a video you want me to watch.

I'll also note that I find this "laying a mattress" interesting:

Of course, there are several ways to interpret the data, but keep in mind it's nearly impossible to prove anything in Science.

Up to this point, you've made some pretty strong claims without this type of qualification. I'll be watching closely for goalpost shifting.