Do forgive me, I forgot to format my previous post. It was in four paragraphs or something like that.
That aside, I normally do not consider attacks on a person's field of study an attack on them personally. The motivations of astrophysics in general greatly entail the reconciliation of the Big Bang and spontaneous generation of different bodies of the universe with the laws of probability. The very fact that "the vast majority of astronomers are not cosmologists; that most study the births and deaths of stars or the generation of magnetic fields or the composition of the interstellar medium or some such other random topic" is hardly surprising as I know this, and it does not contradict anything I said. Someone who specializes in stellar births seeks must reconcile the thermonuclear fusion theory of stellar energy generation with evidence blantantly pointing to an external energy source: accelerating solar winds as the leave the surface of the sun, the corona's temperature being twice that of the surface, and a dozen other readily observable phenomenon, just to make his job pallatable. Every astrophysics field, I don't care what it is, has as its foundation a model which tries to attempt to reconcile random chance with probability. (The thermonuclear fusion theory (or hypothesis, rather) of stellar generation was not one gathered by the facts, but rather one created to fit the model of a billions of years old Universe. All other theories had stars that burn out *way* too quickly. Any phenomenon studiable in astrophysics that I know of is the same way. So, I restate, the entire field of astrophysics has its roots in attempting to reconcile random chance hypotheses of Universe generation with the laws of probability. The best way to do this is to give the Universe more time to do randomly generate itself into what it is today.)
I have no idea what most of the jargon in your second paragraph is. Isotope fields cannot provide an origin of our Universe any better than the Universe's observed acceleration can. Just b/c the Universe is accelerating today doesn't mean it always has or always will. Simply winding back the Universe 20 billion years until we get infinite mass in an infinitessimal space is not a good guess about how we got to where we are. The Big Bang does a great job of predicting observations observed with the specific intention of proving the Big Bang. I've as yet to read a science article touting a new proof of the Big Bang from a research team not specifically looking for that proof. Our observations are engineered to observe what we want to observe. Not because of any conspiracy or other absurdity, but because we pursue proof of our models with religious conviction.
One last point: it doesn't matter if my quote on Venus was from Gunnar Heinsohn or Mickey Mouse. True words spoken from a scientist are no truer than those same words spoken from a cartoon. A thorough refutation of Sagan was provided in the link preceding the quote. The quote showed how ridiculous the Super Greenhouse nonsense was in the first place. It's unworkable.
I did not mean to suggestion we refrain from thinking about the topics altogether. Instead I suggested, and attempted to illustrate with my comparison to man's attempts at flight, that we fix fundamental flaws in our math before we start applying our formulae. Just like flight was not a frivolous or fruitless pursuit, astrophysics and (maybe) abiogenesis are not, either. I hesitate to call abiogenesis anything but bunk because of the math involved. We need to stop thinking about applying our useless formulae, start thinking about the problems therein, fix them, and then apply them.
To address your other concern, namely that I did not provide any new models, I did so intentionally because I realized the mere act of arguing against the methods used in the study was a long task. I will give you a general idea about the other models I to which I alluded. Current science is based upon uniformitarianism, the belief that processes observed today are processes very similar to those in either different parts of the Universe, different times in the Universe, or maybe even both. In other words, Sol is burning much like it was a billion years ago. Unfortunately, there are manifold problems with the uniformitarian model(s), so many that periods of time that fit the model are more anomalous than the anomalies.
The other school, which stands in stark contrast to uniformitarianism, is catastrophism. Immanuel Velikovsky was a pioneering astronomer in this field. Most catastophists are spending their time trying to figure out facts and derive models that incorporate those facts. While this was once what astrophysicists and biologists at large attempted, it appears now we have quite a well established doctrine and look for facts to further that doctrine. I have yet to see a school of catastophists attempt to tackle the Universe with a model (it's just too hard to observe), there are several great theories about our Solar System in particular. Try here and here if you are interested.
I would give a rundown myself, but I know moderators don't take kindly to rogue astronomy and biology. Kidding. If you need further information, just post again and I'll answer concerns you might raise.
As for your last question, btw, I have no innate dislike of abiogenesis of which I know. If life came from nonlife, then it came from nonlife and there isn't room for like or dislike. The math seems irrevocably against the concept, though. I felt its discussion pertinent to/. posters who felt that a little water and some heat was all that is necessary for self-replicating objects. Life is anything but common.
Astrophysics and abiogenetical biology are the two most FUBAR branches in all of Science. Both branches religiously attempt to rectify random creation with probability. When the attempt fails, they brush aside the entire problem, as they believe their models are the only possible explanation short of God. The fact of the matter is that we know nothing about how our universe came into existence, or how life began in the Universe, save that all our current models could not be true. Unfortunately, instead of trying to find new models, we have defended them with a fervor rivaling the most devout zealots of any religion (with less excuse for doing so than any religious person.)
What many people forget is that one solid piece of negative evidence absolutely refutes a theory, regardless of how much favorable evidence that theory has behind it. For example, the equation:
(bn - 1)/(b - 1) = b(n-1) +... + b2 + b + 1
works for all b and n. Well, all b and n except b = 1, and all n > 0. That's an incredible success rate for the equation. There are literally infinte conditions it satisfies. Yet, Mathematicians would rightfully scorn anyone who suggested that the formula was viable and that just because it didn't work in a few anonomalous circumstances doesn't mean that it shouldn't be adopted as a general rule. To suggest such a thing shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the Scientific Method.
Yet the great majority of astrophysicists and geneticists/evolutionists (whom I collectively called abiogenetical biologists, those who concern themselves with the origins of life from nonlife) carry this misunderstanding. I will list some general problems with which the two branches have yet to contend (and will never be able to do so as long as they adhere to their current models) and then--for the dimmer of you--explain why basic flaws in our models mean that the conjecture about a "habitable zone" is a waste of our time, bandwidth, and brainpower.
From the Realm of Astrophysics
I have seen many posts attempting to describe planetary surface temperature as a function of atmospheric gases and distance from the sun. This has been tried with Venus (viz. Sagan et al.) and has failed miserably. Sagan attempted to explain Venus' 800 degrees Fahrenheit surface temperature by attributing it to a "Super Greenhouse" effect. Gunnar Heinsohn had a nice response to that absurdity:
If the Venus gases enable a runaway greenhouse effect of 800 degrees F wouldn't that allow us to solve all our energy problems, i.e., wouldn't that give us a perpetuum mobile? Shouldn't we put a Venus gas mix in a glass box, expose it to the sun and, then, reach a temperature sufficient to heat steam up to the level of driving turbines? Wouldn't we even have an advantage over Venus which, after all, cannot put a glass lid on its atmosphere?
I am not attempting to suggest that planetary surface temperature as a function of distance from the sun and atmospheric makeup is always false. The Earth seems to perform fairly well under the function. However, one solid piece of evidence negating the calculus is enough to render the entire thing moot. It would be senseless to use such a method to try to estimate appropriate planetary distances for conditions favorable to life.
On an even more roguish note, we don't even understand gravity (for those of you who don't understand nerd-authored physics, see this simplification), much less are we prepared to use our understanding to calculate life-favoring gravitational conditions as a functions of planetary size and density. If someone attempts to dispute this, I will be happy to illustrate further with tangible examples.
From the Realm of Abiogenesis
Planetary conditions can never be suitable for the spotaneous generation of life. At least, not so long as our Universe is only 20 billion years old. I cut and paste from this site, which is a discussion of abiogenesis by Alexander Mebane:
Dismissing
as unrealistic the idea that either DNA or RNA could ever have spontaneously "evolved", because of the complexity of those purine base + sugar + phosphoric acid structures,t he asks what could have been the simplest possible "pre-living" chemical assemblage that might have been able to generate the essential quality of life, self-replication. Generously oversimplifying to the maximum degree credible (or beyond), he proposes (p. 296) that the first "proto-life" might conceivably have emerged from a set of as few as ten very small "primitive enzymes", each one a mini-protein of only 25 links, and all constructed from a set of only four amino acids, rather than the twenty that Nature now employs. Assuming for the purpose the real natural occurrence of a "primordial soup" that consisted exclusively of those four amino acids (which is of
course, a simply ridiculous postulate), he proceeds to show that, under these absurdly favorable conditions, the probability of "spontaneously", or accidentally, forming the requisite set of molecules would be about 1 in 10^150. So, if something like 10^150 random trials were available, the thing might really have
happened. But he had previously calculated (p. 126) that, if one assumes that the Earth was covered by a 10-km-deep layer of "soup", and that random trials went on at the rate of one billion per second in every cubic micrometer (billionth of a cubic millimeter) of that ocean for one billion years (the maximum time that really elapsed before life appeared), only 1.5 x 10^62 separate tries could be made. (I have checked this calculation, and found it correct.) This number is so invisibly tiny compared to 10^150 (far tinier than a bacterium compared to the whole Solar System!) that the spontaneous natural
formation of the ten mini-enzymes is thus demonstrated to be strictly impossible. This amounts to a proof that, even when making the most favorable assumptions conceivable, one is simply forbidden to take seriously the proposition that "Life on Earth must have
arisen spontaneously, in some natural and unintentional way...
Conclusion
Now, for those of you who don't understand why all of these problems with the methods of the scientists who dedicated themselves to this frivolous study render the study a complete waste of human resources, I will explain. This kind of conjecture is much like man's early attempts to fly by pasting feathers onto one's arms and jumping off a cliff. This was a waste of time, perfectly good paste and feathers, and a waste of a (debatably) valuable human life. No scientific progress was gained by performing this feat. It was based upon erroneous presuppositions. The only good it did was to serve as an example of what not to do.
Leave conjecture to SciFi writers. They're better at it (and they don't spend nearly so much time or energy doing so.)
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you, I had a very nice day.
Do forgive me, I forgot to format my previous post. It was in four paragraphs or something like that.
That aside, I normally do not consider attacks on a person's field of study an attack on them personally. The motivations of astrophysics in general greatly entail the reconciliation of the Big Bang and spontaneous generation of different bodies of the universe with the laws of probability. The very fact that "the vast majority of astronomers are not cosmologists; that most study the births and deaths of stars or the generation of magnetic fields or the composition of the interstellar medium or some such other random topic" is hardly surprising as I know this, and it does not contradict anything I said. Someone who specializes in stellar births seeks must reconcile the thermonuclear fusion theory of stellar energy generation with evidence blantantly pointing to an external energy source: accelerating solar winds as the leave the surface of the sun, the corona's temperature being twice that of the surface, and a dozen other readily observable phenomenon, just to make his job pallatable. Every astrophysics field, I don't care what it is, has as its foundation a model which tries to attempt to reconcile random chance with probability. (The thermonuclear fusion theory (or hypothesis, rather) of stellar generation was not one gathered by the facts, but rather one created to fit the model of a billions of years old Universe. All other theories had stars that burn out *way* too quickly. Any phenomenon studiable in astrophysics that I know of is the same way. So, I restate, the entire field of astrophysics has its roots in attempting to reconcile random chance hypotheses of Universe generation with the laws of probability. The best way to do this is to give the Universe more time to do randomly generate itself into what it is today.)
I have no idea what most of the jargon in your second paragraph is. Isotope fields cannot provide an origin of our Universe any better than the Universe's observed acceleration can. Just b/c the Universe is accelerating today doesn't mean it always has or always will. Simply winding back the Universe 20 billion years until we get infinite mass in an infinitessimal space is not a good guess about how we got to where we are. The Big Bang does a great job of predicting observations observed with the specific intention of proving the Big Bang. I've as yet to read a science article touting a new proof of the Big Bang from a research team not specifically looking for that proof. Our observations are engineered to observe what we want to observe. Not because of any conspiracy or other absurdity, but because we pursue proof of our models with religious conviction.
One last point: it doesn't matter if my quote on Venus was from Gunnar Heinsohn or Mickey Mouse. True words spoken from a scientist are no truer than those same words spoken from a cartoon. A thorough refutation of Sagan was provided in the link preceding the quote. The quote showed how ridiculous the Super Greenhouse nonsense was in the first place. It's unworkable.
Have a nice day, too. :-)
I did not mean to suggestion we refrain from thinking about the topics altogether. Instead I suggested, and attempted to illustrate with my comparison to man's attempts at flight, that we fix fundamental flaws in our math before we start applying our formulae. Just like flight was not a frivolous or fruitless pursuit, astrophysics and (maybe) abiogenesis are not, either. I hesitate to call abiogenesis anything but bunk because of the math involved. We need to stop thinking about applying our useless formulae, start thinking about the problems therein, fix them, and then apply them. To address your other concern, namely that I did not provide any new models, I did so intentionally because I realized the mere act of arguing against the methods used in the study was a long task. I will give you a general idea about the other models I to which I alluded. Current science is based upon uniformitarianism, the belief that processes observed today are processes very similar to those in either different parts of the Universe, different times in the Universe, or maybe even both. In other words, Sol is burning much like it was a billion years ago. Unfortunately, there are manifold problems with the uniformitarian model(s), so many that periods of time that fit the model are more anomalous than the anomalies. The other school, which stands in stark contrast to uniformitarianism, is catastrophism. Immanuel Velikovsky was a pioneering astronomer in this field. Most catastophists are spending their time trying to figure out facts and derive models that incorporate those facts. While this was once what astrophysicists and biologists at large attempted, it appears now we have quite a well established doctrine and look for facts to further that doctrine. I have yet to see a school of catastophists attempt to tackle the Universe with a model (it's just too hard to observe), there are several great theories about our Solar System in particular. Try here and here if you are interested. I would give a rundown myself, but I know moderators don't take kindly to rogue astronomy and biology. Kidding. If you need further information, just post again and I'll answer concerns you might raise. As for your last question, btw, I have no innate dislike of abiogenesis of which I know. If life came from nonlife, then it came from nonlife and there isn't room for like or dislike. The math seems irrevocably against the concept, though. I felt its discussion pertinent to /. posters who felt that a little water and some heat was all that is necessary for self-replicating objects. Life is anything but common.
Astrophysics and abiogenetical biology are the two most FUBAR branches in all of Science. Both branches religiously attempt to rectify random creation with probability. When the attempt fails, they brush aside the entire problem, as they believe their models are the only possible explanation short of God. The fact of the matter is that we know nothing about how our universe came into existence, or how life began in the Universe, save that all our current models could not be true. Unfortunately, instead of trying to find new models, we have defended them with a fervor rivaling the most devout zealots of any religion (with less excuse for doing so than any religious person.)
What many people forget is that one solid piece of negative evidence absolutely refutes a theory, regardless of how much favorable evidence that theory has behind it. For example, the equation:
(bn - 1)/(b - 1) = b(n-1) + ... + b2 + b + 1
works for all b and n. Well, all b and n except b = 1, and all n > 0. That's an incredible success rate for the equation. There are literally infinte conditions it satisfies. Yet, Mathematicians would rightfully scorn anyone who suggested that the formula was viable and that just because it didn't work in a few anonomalous circumstances doesn't mean that it shouldn't be adopted as a general rule. To suggest such a thing shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the Scientific Method.
Yet the great majority of astrophysicists and geneticists/evolutionists (whom I collectively called abiogenetical biologists, those who concern themselves with the origins of life from nonlife) carry this misunderstanding. I will list some general problems with which the two branches have yet to contend (and will never be able to do so as long as they adhere to their current models) and then--for the dimmer of you--explain why basic flaws in our models mean that the conjecture about a "habitable zone" is a waste of our time, bandwidth, and brainpower.
From the Realm of Astrophysics
I have seen many posts attempting to describe planetary surface temperature as a function of atmospheric gases and distance from the sun. This has been tried with Venus (viz. Sagan et al.) and has failed miserably. Sagan attempted to explain Venus' 800 degrees Fahrenheit surface temperature by attributing it to a "Super Greenhouse" effect. Gunnar Heinsohn had a nice response to that absurdity:
I am not attempting to suggest that planetary surface temperature as a function of distance from the sun and atmospheric makeup is always false. The Earth seems to perform fairly well under the function. However, one solid piece of evidence negating the calculus is enough to render the entire thing moot. It would be senseless to use such a method to try to estimate appropriate planetary distances for conditions favorable to life.On an even more roguish note, we don't even understand gravity (for those of you who don't understand nerd-authored physics, see this simplification), much less are we prepared to use our understanding to calculate life-favoring gravitational conditions as a functions of planetary size and density. If someone attempts to dispute this, I will be happy to illustrate further with tangible examples.
From the Realm of Abiogenesis
Planetary conditions can never be suitable for the spotaneous generation of life. At least, not so long as our Universe is only 20 billion years old. I cut and paste from this site, which is a discussion of abiogenesis by Alexander Mebane:
Conclusion
Now, for those of you who don't understand why all of these problems with the methods of the scientists who dedicated themselves to this frivolous study render the study a complete waste of human resources, I will explain. This kind of conjecture is much like man's early attempts to fly by pasting feathers onto one's arms and jumping off a cliff. This was a waste of time, perfectly good paste and feathers, and a waste of a (debatably) valuable human life. No scientific progress was gained by performing this feat. It was based upon erroneous presuppositions. The only good it did was to serve as an example of what not to do.
Leave conjecture to SciFi writers. They're better at it (and they don't spend nearly so much time or energy doing so.)