Stars Are Suns; Suns Have Planets

D

dumaurier

Registered Senior Member
The trillions upon trillions of twinkling lights in the sky are stars, according to astronomers (nearer to home we can also see with the naked eye several moons reflecting the sun's light). Assuming this to be correct, then we can assume that most (if not all) suns have planets. There should be many times more planets than suns, therefore. This being the case, there must be intelligent life on many of these planets out there. Of course, if you ask me to prove this to you i will have to say that i cannot do this. On the other hand, as a defensive counter arguement, i would have to ask you to prove to me the existence of the mind, which thing not even science can prove. Where is imagination? Where is memory? You see, we cannot prove the existence of either imagination, memory or the mind yet they exist because we see or experience their effect. Consequently, we cannot prove the existence of intelligent life on some of the planets circling the trillions of stars in the heavens, but they exist!
Does anyone here have information regarding "scientific" evidence leaning toward proof that most stars have planets? Carl Sagan was a believer in this idea, if i'm not mistaken.

------------------
dumaurier
 
duMaurier, I'd recommend you do a web search on "Drake's Equation", named after Frank Drake, astronomer and now of Seti. It takes a stab at calculating the probability of intelligent life. One of the parameters is your question.
 
Thank you Aloysius.

Yes, i remember Frank Drake the astronomer. I believe he even made it into one of the "Believe It or Not" type of publications sometime in the early 70's. If i remember correctly, his conclusions leaned in favour of the probability of intelligent life in the universe outside the earth.

Thanks for your post.

------------------
dumaurier
 
I have to object to the stipulation that imagination, memory, or mind in general are not scientifically identifiable!

Memory substructures, for example, have been pinpointed very well within the brain! Granted, imagination or consciousness are a bit more abstract and distributed, but we'll nail them down within the next couple of decades -- mark my word ;)

------------------
I am; therefore I think.
 
Hello Boris:

You object "...to the stipulation that imagination, memory, or mind in general are not scientifically identifiable!"

I believe they are "identifiable" only by the effects they produce, but we will never be able to say, "here, this is imagination; look at its form, shape, colour, size!" We can measure what seem to be electrical frequencies in certain regions of the brain when the thought is active but we cannot say, "here, this is thought!" What i am saying is that we can always measure the effect but not the entity itself.
Likewise, we have a glimpse of the grandeur of the universe through its effects (the panorama all about us), but what this "universe" is, exactly, we don't know.
However, in my post i said that i would have to ask you to "prove to me the existence of the mind... Where is imagination? Where is memory? You see, we cannot prove the existence of either imagination, memory or the mind yet they exist because we see or experience their effect." It is an old philosophical debate, really.

Imagination and consciousness are abstract, as you confess, and i doubt we will ever understand these elements of human existence. Yet, through their effects we know that they exist.

------------------
dumaurier
 
Consider replacing "thought" with "quark", and one finds oneself in essentially the same jam.

Welcome to ontology.
In other words, one can argue that - despite our professed "understanding" of the quark - we know it by its effects, but not what it is. And if you (maybe via string theory) tie spacetime to quarks in some kind of unified theory, the same applies to spacetime.
 
Dumaurier:

Bad news, I'm afraid. Whereas, as Aloysius points out, the fundamental physical reality may never be known, the brain will eventually be known in its entirety. This is because to understand the brain we needn't go below the molecular level.

The brain is a computational device; its neurons are analogous to transistors in computer circuits. Up to now, we've only been able to measure magnetic fields around those circuits -- which wouldn't be enough to decipher how a Pentium processor works, for example. However, if one takes the right instruments and performs a detailed examination, coupled with some circuit theory, one can eventually deduce the functional structures of a Pentium processor -- essentually retro-engineering its technology. The same can, and will, be done for the brain.

For memory, we've got simple neural network models already that demonstrate short-term storage and long-term storage with graceful degradation. Computational models of the brain are making huge strides even as we speak. Short-term memory has been pinpointed to the hippocampus and the parahippocampal and perirhinal corteci; long-term auditory and motor memories have similarly been traced. There are convergent lines of investigation -- from cellular neurobiology, to computational neuroscience, to cognitive neuropsychology, to neuropathology, to developmental biology -- which are zeroing down on brain function from different perspectives and using diverse, constantly improving tools. So you see, while we don't yet know *exactly* how the brain works, nothing precludes us from obtaining such knowledge in the relatively near future.


------------------
I am; therefore I think.
 
Of course, we are only hoping we don't have to go down to the molecular level, we are not realy sure at the moment, are we ? :)

------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato
 
There is no such thing as quarks.

Positrons would be it.

my $0.04 ( inflation)

------------------
Just waiting for my peabrain to boot into English :\
 
Excuse me if I mess up this post. This is my first attempt at using this format.

"There should be many times more planets than suns, therefore. This being the case, there must be intelligent life on many of these planets out there." Isn't this statement a huge leap in logic. The fact that there are billions of star and even more planets does not support that statement.
If one considers the requirements for life to exist, the those star/planet numbers begin to be greatly reduced. For example, most stars are binary systems, one star rotating another. Any planet is that system would have an environment to extreme for life. Most stars are located in the crowded center or within the arms of spirils and are too influenced by intense radiation and tidal effects to support intelligent life. There are many, many other special conditions needed for life, any life to exist, well off intelligent life.
It seems to be the standard argument by those who accept intelligent alien life that the numbers of stars/planets require it. Yet, there is not one iota of evidence to support the idea of intelligent alien life to date.
If one watches the TV programs on this subject it's always assumed that ET exist. However, of what entertainment value would there be to such programs that didn't conclude alien life. How much research money goes into finding alien life? No doubt it's in the multiple billions. That provides a lot of jobs to a lot of people.
My view is that we're being programmed to assume intelligent alien life with little scientific evidence, i.e. the numbers game, to support that conclusion.
Paul
 
Paul,
You mustn't take my words out of context. I also said in that same paragraph: "Of course, if you ask me to prove this to you i will have to say that i cannot do this."

I most certainly agree with you that "there is not one iota of evidence to support the idea of intelligent alien life to date." But this does not necessarily negate the concept nor the possibility and/or probability.

On the other hand, we do have reports of people who have experienced "contact" with beings of an extraordinary nature (i'm thinking of the humanoid cases, here). We also have cases of strange and unexplainable aerial craft which defy known physical laws. I'm not saying this is proof of any kind in favour of extraterrestrial life; but it does make one think of the possibilities inherent within the connection of both theory and reports.

Then too, there is the philosophical questions the human mind must tackle; it is frightening to think that we are the only intelligent life forms in this enormously vast and gargantuan universe. And, of course, there are also the religious implications to be considered with regards God's Omnipotence and Omniscience.

In addition, one must consider the question of what exactly it is that constitutes "proof" which, by the way, leads us into philosophy again. For example, is "proof" considered solely valid based on material considerations or are there exceptions to the rule; can immaterial proof be considered "proof," as well, as is the case in certain indirect phenomena observed by science of which there is no physical explanation?

In brief, then, it is important to define "evidence" at the outset and on the basis of this mutual criteria establish parameters of acceptance or rejection.

------------------
dumaurier
 
I suppose that proof would be the discovery of a life form on another planet/moon that is truly alien from earth based life, i.e. dna, or communications from outside our solar system.
I really don't know of any religious significance if there is a discovery of alien life. I've not heard that it is addressed in anyway in the Bible. Lets just say I'm a skeptic about intelligent alien life based on probabilities. I recognize that most people accept the existance of an ET and find the idea exciting. But, for me, there are no Romulans or Klingons out there. :)

------------------
Paul
 
Paul,
You should check up on the ACTUAL amount being spent on the S.E.T.I. Project.
It isn't billions, it isn't even millions...

Dave.
 
Paul,

I suppose that proof would be the discovery of a life form on another planet/moon that is truly alien from earth based life, i.e. dna, or communications from outside our solar system.
Click to expand...

Why would alien DNA necessarily be different from human DNA? What if we came from them in some way, i.e., as clones or hybrids? (Just a side note here - does anyone else find it interesting that the medical profession uses the caduceus as its symbol - two intertwined snakes that coincidentally resemble the double helix of DNA?)

I really don't know of any religious significance if there is a discovery of alien life. I've not heard that it is addressed in anyway in the Bible.
Click to expand...

Then you obviously have never read the Bible - it's all over the place! You can start in Genesis 1:26, which says:

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...


Then read Genesis 6:1-4:

1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.


There are many places throughout Exodus that refer to the "pillar of a cloud" or "cloudy pillar" or "pillar of fire" that was seen hovering overhead, and protected the Hebrews from the Egyptians. I find Exodus 33:9-11 particularly interesting:

9 And it came to pass, as Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the LORD talked with Moses.

10 And all the people saw the cloudy pillar stand at the tabernacle door: and all the people rose up and worshipped, every man in his tent door.

11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.


I haven't even mentioned the most interesting parts yet, and this post would be way too long if I did. Trust me - it's there!

[This message has been edited by Searcher (edited November 07, 1999).]
 
Searcher, you need to realize the bible is not literal. It is a series of stories and parables used to show gods will, and how things came to be. When god refers to people that are not human, he is speaking to the angels in heaven.
 
If I may contradict one of the very first statements in dumaurier's post - "Assuming this to be correct, then we can assume that most (if not all) suns have planets."

I don't believe this is the case. Most stars do not have planets, in fact very few have anything resembling our solar system at all.

On (yet another) side note - did you guys know that our own solar system is almost a dual solar system? Jupiter puts out it's own heat and light. If it put out just a little more visible light, it would be classified as a star, and it's moons would then become classified as planets, it's moons' satalites would then be classified as moons themselves. I found that to be very interesting.

Regarding Paul's comments about planets too hostile for intelligent life - my theory is that any life could eventually evolve into intelligent life. A planet far to hostile for human life may easily support some other kind of life. Perhaps there are lifeforms that can thrive in intense radiation and just love the fresh, clean, 350 degree breeze of amonia that washes over their biomass. We've never set foot on another planet yet! Not even the ones next door to us in our own solar system. Until we've done a little more exploration, I would really hesitate to say what is and isn't possible for other life forms to live on. Just because we can't imagine it, doesn't mean it's impossible.
 
SkyeBlue,

I don't believe this is the case. Most stars do not have planets, in fact very few have anything resembling our solar system at all.
Click to expand...

You don't find it strange that even our own unremarkable Sun has <u>nine</u> major planets with lots of satellites? Why would you think that most of the stars do not even have <u>at least</u> one?

It is true that a vast majority of star systems are actually binary, and our own is just shy of that. But think about the dynamics of a forming star. You've got an accretion disk, with all sorts of junk slowly spiralling into the center. Under no circumstances will the disk be uniform; in real life it will always have lumps of higher density in it. These lumps slowly collapse upon themselves, and suck up the neighboring matter -- voila, you've got planets! I, for one, find this story so believable that it's hard for me to conceive why it couldn't be so!

------------------
I am; therefore I think.
 
Corp. Hudson,

Searcher, you need to realize the bible is not literal. It is a series of stories and parables used to show gods will, and how things came to be. When god refers to people that are not human, he is speaking to the angels in heaven.
Click to expand...

Why is it whenever I point out something in the Bible that indicates that our makers were actually beings from another planet, Christians (I'm making an assumption about your beliefs here - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) say that what I'm quoting can't be taken literally, and yet they take it quite literally when the Bible says something utterly ridiculous and completely unbelievable when taken literally?

For example, when Eve was chatting with her newfound friend, the snake, he talked her into eating from the tree that stood in the center of the Garden. She, in turn, passed the favor on to her husband, Adam. For this horrible sin, they were both kicked out of the Garden of Eden, and women were to be ruled over by men from then on. Are you one of those people who takes this story literally? Or is this your idea of God's good will? Come on, Corporal! Give me a break!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top