We Might Be Alone in the Universe

[doubtingthomas]

?

I think Res Ipsa is full of BS. He accused me of misrepresenting Reinhold's paper. However, I was only sharing Kipping's interpretation of the paper, not mine. His issue should be with Kipping! not with me.

It's like getting diagnosed with diabetes by a medical doctor, but some anonymous idiot telling you that you've misunderstood the symptoms.

Res Ipsa doesn't have to balls to accuse Kipping of misrepresenting Reinhold's paper. Res Ipsa has no background in astronomy or astrophysics, but miraculously knows more than an exoplanet researcher who went to one of the best universities in the world. Res Ipsa could get very famous by calling out Kipping.

I am very disappointed in Res Ipsa, he's blaming me for something I shouldn't be blamed for.

Here's a small transcript of the Kipping video.

aging stars is notoriously difficult but recently Timo Reinhold and colleagues found a way around this. Remember that since the spin of stars slows down with age, they decided to take a group of stars with similar masses and sizes to the Sun just like Gilliland but further constrain the sample to only those stars with similar rotation periods to the Sun 25 days. In their new paper published just recently in science, they yet again find that the Sun is quieter than average ... they showed that the sun's typical activity places it in the lowest third of quiet sun-like stars[see Figure 3]......there is an emerging picture that the Sun, at least we see it today, appears to be unusually quiet compared to stars of similar type and using indirect evidence that behavior of the Sun in the last century and a half, doesn't seem to be any different than that of the preceding 9 thousand years, we really do seem to have a quiet home star

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAQKJ41eDTs

I'll be doing more research to see if Res Ipsa didn't miss a small detail, as it's often the case with internet experts.

[Res Ipsa]

?

I think Res Ipsa is full of BS. He accused me of misrepresenting Reinhold's paper. However, I was only sharing Kipping's interpretation of the paper, not mine. His issue should be with Kipping! not with me.

It's like getting diagnosed with diabetes by a medical doctor, but some anonymous idiot telling you that you've misrepresented the symptoms.

Res Ipsa doesn't have to balls to accuse Kipping of misrepresenting Reinhold's paper. Res Ipsa doesn't have a background in astronomy or astrophysics, but miraculously knows more than an exoplanet researcher who went to one of the best universities in the world. Res Ipsa could get very famous by calling out Kipping.

I am very disappointed in Res Ipsa, he's blaming me for something I shouldn't be blamed for.

Here's a small transcript of the Kipping video.

aging stars is notoriously difficult but recently Timo Reinhold and colleagues found a way around this. Remember that since the spin of stars slows down with age, they decided to take a group of stars with similar masses and sizes to the Sun just like Gilliland but further constrain the sample to only those stars with similar rotation periods to the Sun 25 days. In their new paper published just recently in science, they yet again find that the Sun is quieter than average ... they showed that the sun's typical activity places it in the lowest third of quiet sun-like stars[see Figure 3]......there is an emerging picture that the Sun, at least we see it today, appears to be unusually quiet compared to stars of similar type and using indirect evidence that behavior of the Sun in the last century and a half, doesn't seem to be any different than that of the preceding 9 thousand years, we really do seem to have a quiet home star

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAQKJ41eDTs

You may have been parroting a portion of Kipping's comment on the paper, but you still don't understand the paper. No one who read and understood the paper as well as understanding Kipping's description of the paper would ask the the monumentally idiotic questions you just asked:

Do you believe Kipping has misrepresented Reinhold's paper? and why would the researchers call the paper "The Sun is less active than other solar-like stars" if that's not the case? https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.01401

Throughout this discussion, you've been fixated on the "periodic" subsample and the fact that sun is much quieter than those stars. Why? Because you've been equating the paper's use of the term "solar-like stars" with something like "stars that are the most like the sun." The paper only uses the term as a label to distinguish the stars for which a rotational period was determined from those whose rotational period could not be determined. It's right here:

We consider stars in our periodic sample to be solar-like, i.e. they have near-solar fundamental parameters and rotation periods. The non-periodic stars are considered only pseudo-solar, because their rotation periods are not known.

I don't know how many more times I should need to say this before it sinks in: if you'd just step back and read the paper with a stance toward understanding what it says, including the in paper context of the snippets you quote, you wouldn't draw conclusions not supported by the paper or that contradict the paper itself. If you'd read the paper for understanding, you'd have understood that, for purposes of this paper, all "solar-like" means is stars in the periodic sample that have solar-like rotational periods. Once you understand how the paper's authors define their terms, the title of the paper is not misleading in the slightest. Your question about the title reveals, once again, that you don't understand the paper.

Ever since I pointed out the existence of the non periodic sample and the study's conclusion that Kepler would likely have seen the star as belonging to the nonperiodic group, you've gone through extreme mental gymnastics to run away from the non-periodic subsample. You've claimed that the only "hard science" is the analysis of the periodic sample. You've dismissed the finding that the Kepler would have placed the sun in nonperodic group as speculation. You've claimed that the study didn't control the non-periodic sample for age. You've even made the patently absurd claim that the paper describes two different studies. And all this time that you've been purporting to just say what Kipling says, you've been using the periodic sample to support your arguments.

When you finally type up a transcript for the relevant portion of Kipping's video, we learn for the first time that Kipping reads the paper exactly the same way I do. He correctly states that the sun is quieter than average. But when he puts a number on how typical the sun is, he uses the nonperiodic (pseudo-solar) stars. He knows that the term "solar-like stars" as used in the paper does not mean "stars most like the sun." He does it by eyeballing a graph (and mentally subtracting the distribution of the total sample from the distribution of the periodic sample), which is perfectly reasonable for the way he uses the estimate in the video. I'm sure he also recognizes that, until we know the periodic rotation of those stars, we can't precise tell which most closely resemble the sun.

You've falsely accused me of contradicting Kipping before precisely because you didn't understand what I was saying and what the paper was saying. Now you've just doubled down. Now that we can all see Kipping's actual words, nothing I have said contradicts in the slightest way what Kipping says about the paper in that transcript. Kipping's comments about the paper confirm that I have been describing it correctly. The entire problem is that you may be able to parrot a snippet from the paper or from Kipping, but you don't understand a goddam thing about what Kipping, the paper and I are actually saying.

You trying to blame your repeated false, ridiculous assertions about the paper on Kipping is beyond disingenuous. It's nothing more than the childish trolling of someone who got caught making a bunch of stupid claims and tries to duck responsibility for them.

[Doctor Steuss]

I'll be doing more research to see if Res Ipsa didn't miss a small detail, as it's often the case with internet experts.

You appear to be compulsively rage posting from emotion again.

Go for a walk, listen to some music, eat a burrito. Cleanse the ole catecholamines from your innards.

I don't know nearly enough chemistry even to speculate about biochemistry based on a different suite of elements. I even wonder how different life with the same set of atoms could be from terrestrial life, through using different big molecules. Are there any potential competitors, in particular, to DNA or ATP?

You might find the realm of XNA research interesting. Most of it is currently geared toward pharmaceutical fun (that's where research moolah tends to flow the most freely, I'm guessing), but I imagine there's probably some groups out there tinkering with it, and the idea of life forming elsewhere using the various structures/backbones/polymers/nucleotides/etc.

Whether they could potentially occur "naturally" (somewhere other than earth, that is) in a way that could encode genetic information is probably speculative at best, but there have been several different types that have not only successfully had genetic information from DNA transcribed onto them, but also had the genetic information handed on back to ole DNA.

[Res Ipsa]

I'll be doing more research to see if Res Ipsa didn't miss a small detail, as it's often the case with internet experts.

You appear to be compulsively rage posting from emotion again.

Go for a walk, listen to some music, eat a burrito. Cleanse the ole catecholamines from your innards.

I don't know nearly enough chemistry even to speculate about biochemistry based on a different suite of elements. I even wonder how different life with the same set of atoms could be from terrestrial life, through using different big molecules. Are there any potential competitors, in particular, to DNA or ATP?

You might find the realm of XNA research interesting. Most of it is currently geared toward pharmaceutical fun (that's where research moolah tends to flow the most freely), but I imagine there's probably some groups tinkering with it, and the idea of life forming elsewhere using the various structures/backbones/polymers/nucleotides/etc.

Whether they could potentially occur "naturally" (somewhere other than earth, that is) in a way that could encode genetic information is probably speculative at best, but there have been several different types that have not only successfully had genetic information from DNA transcribed onto them, but also had the genetic information handed on back to ole DNA.

All I know is that Mr. Spock had green blood. Anything's possible.

[Doctor Steuss]

All I know is that Mr. Spock had green blood. Anything's possible.

*laughs in horseshoe crab*

[doubtingthomas]

You may have been parroting a portion of Kipping's comment on the paper, but you still don't understand the paper. No one who read and understood the paper as well as understanding Kipping's description of the paper would ask the the monumentally idiotic questions you just asked:

No sir, you are straight-up lying now. Let's go back, here's when I shared the link to the paper

"Is the Solar System Special?" by exoplanet researcher Dr. Kipping
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ixuftVYC5o

References:
.
.
.
.

3. Only about five percent of stars are solar-like. To make things crazier, "The Sun is less active than other solar-like stars". That means only about 0.5% of stars are truly sun-like.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020S ... R/abstract'

And you replied

3. Only about five percent of stars are solar-like. To make things crazier, "The Sun is less active than other solar-like stars". That means only about 0.5% of stars are truly sun-like.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020S ... R/abstract'

Same problem, only worse. You reached a conclusion opposite to that suggested by the paper. Here is the full abstract:

I simply quoted the title, but you quickly accused me of misrepresenting the paper.

And you are right, I haven't fully read the paper. So what? To truly understand a paper you have to take notes, understand the methods, check the data, and check the references. Do you understand all the math and modeling? It takes time. If you miss just a small detail, you'll misunderstand it.

What I did was much simpler, I shared the reference that Kipping provided.

[Res Ipsa]

I haven't fully read the paper.

I rest my case.

[Marcus]

You may have been parroting a portion of Kipping's comment on the paper, but you still don't understand the paper. No one who read and understood the paper as well as understanding Kipping's description of the paper would ask the the monumentally idiotic questions you just asked:

...And you are right, I haven't fully read the paper. So what?

i don't think my eyes can physically roll as far back as they should for this comment.

[doubtingthomas]

Throughout this discussion, you've been fixated on the "periodic" subsample and the fact that sun is much quieter than those stars. Why? Because you've been equating the paper's use of the term "solar-like stars" with something like "stars that are the most like the sun." The paper only uses the term as a label to distinguish the stars for which a rotational period was determined from those whose rotational period could not be determined. It's right here:

Read the Transcript I made for you, Kipping said, "Remember that since the spin of stars slows down with age". Kipping did talk several times about the rotation of stars in the video and why it is important to know their rotation period.

So again, your issue is with Kipping.

[doubtingthomas]

i don't think my eyes can physically roll as far back as they should for this comment.

And I said, "What I did was much simpler, I shared the reference that Kipping provided."

And "His issue should be with Kipping"

It's not like you read the paper Marcus. You didn't know the researchers used Hertzsprung-Russell diagrams