Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: habitability of worlds

Expand Messages
  • uwrk
    ... life, ... Still, it can t be taken as proof of alien life, or convincing evidence, given the possibility of contamination, misinterpretation of worm
    Message 1 of 2 , May 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In ufonet@yahoogroups.com, "uwrk" <uwrk...> wrote:
      --- In ufonet@yahob...>
      wrote:
      > Roger> And then they found a Martian meteorite indicating possible
      life,
      > uwrk> This appears to have been discounted or disproved.
      >
      > Not by everyone.

      Still, it can't be taken as proof of alien life, or convincing
      evidence, given the possibility of contamination, misinterpretation
      of "worm" structures etc.
      >
      > ----------
      > > Roger> Hoyle + co say that viruses come from space etc.
      > > uwrk>Not a generally accepted view!
      > Roger> But still a possibility.
      > uwrk>I doubt it; it would be very difficult to withstand extreme
      cold,
      > UV and lack of sustanance.
      > Hoyle + co do not have your doubt.

      The vast bulk of scientists now do AFAIK. Hoyle was many years ago,
      and his notion isn't considered credible.
      > ------------
      > > uwrk>How can life of any kind arise in
      > > space?
      > Roger> Check what Hoyle + co say for yourself if you are interested.
      > uwrk>Others have and obviously weren't impressed.
      >
      > If some are impressed, and some are not impressed. So what. What is
      your
      > point?
      Nowadays nobody in the scientific community is AFAIK.
      > ----------
      > uwrk>True, life may have arisen on some other planetary systems
      > Yes
      > uwrk> but it is very unlikely to have arisen or survived on other
      planets in
      > our
      > solar system or near Sirius-the A0 star is far too short lived.
      >
      > Case not proved.

      A0 stars have main sequence lifespans of a mere 500 million years-
      a ninth of what is needed for life to evolve to intelligence, based
      on the example of a world where conditions are optimal.
      > ------------
      > uwrk> My views reflect up to date scientific thinking.
      >
      > Fashion that changes, based on trying to reach conclusions from
      insufficient
      > information.

      Insufficient? There is enough information about some worlds to
      assume, a priori, that they're lifeless. Venus is an example.


      > --------
      > Roger> long before the Wright Brothers, supposed Experts were saying
      > >that man would never be able to fly by heavier than air machines,
      they
      > based
      > >this reasoning upon the fact that - no one had so far been able to
      > >perform the task,
      >
      > uwrk> birds fly despite being heavier than air.
      >
      > The Supposed Experts that thought man would never fly, must have
      overlooked
      > that fact somehow. They must have been selective in what facts they
      would
      > consider, and decided to ignore the birds and deduce from faulty
      premisses
      > that man could never fly. It does not inspire confidence if that
      type of
      > people always use that methodology.
      >
      > -Roger
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "uwrk" <msdonovan66@h...>
      > To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 11:53 AM
      > Subject: [UFOnet] Re: Fwd: [Russian UFO Crashes?]
      >
      >
      > > --- In ufonet@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Anderton"
      <R.J.Anderton@b...>
      > > wrote:
      > > > uwrk>On some planets absence can definitely be assumed e.g.
      Venus,
      > > where
      > > > the temperature is broiling hot.
      > > >
      > > > Only if the tests were done properly. Can we be sure of that?
      > >
      > > Exteme heat like on Venus would immediately destroy any organic
      > > substance-trust me, no scientist thinks Venus is potentially
      > > habitable.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > > ---------------
      > > > uwrk>Nothing went wrong with the Viking missions to Mars in the
      > > > seventies. Soil sample tests indicated a complete absence of
      organic
      > > > material.
      > > >
      > > > And then they found a Martian meteorite indicating possible
      life,
      > >
      > >
      > > This appears to have been discounted or disproved.
      > >
      > >
      > > suggesting
      > > > that the 70s tests were not as good as they should have been. A
      > > check proved
      > > > to be a cock-up.
      > > >
      > > > Roger> Hoyle + co say that viruses come from space etc.
      > > >
      > > > uwrk>Not a generally accepted view!
      > > >
      > > > But still a possibility.
      > >
      > > I doubt it; it would be very difficult to withstand extreme
      cold,
      > > UV and lack of sustanance.
      > > >
      > > > uwrk>How can life of any kind arise in
      > > > space?
      > > >
      > > > Check what Hoyle + co say for yourself if you are interested.
      > >
      > > Others have and obviously weren;t impressed.
      > > > ------------------
      > > > The situation as it stands is 'we do not know' as regards life
      > > around other
      > > > stars.
      > >
      > >
      > > True, life may have arisen on some other planetary systems but
      it
      > > is very unlikely to have arisen or survived on other planets in
      our
      > > solar system or near Sirius-the A0 star is far too short lived.
      > > >
      > > > You should not ignore some facts and select only those that you
      > > like;
      > > > ignoring Hoyle+co means you are not presenting a "full picture".
      > >
      > > My views reflect up to date scientific thinking.
      > > >
      > > > By doing what you doing, you start from faulty assumptions and
      > > deduce a
      > > > faulty consequence.
      > > nope.
      > > >
      > > > The method that you are using has been repeatedly used in the
      past
      > > to deduce
      > > > faulty dogmas.
      > > > e.g. long before the Wright Brothers, supposed Experts were
      saying
      > > that man
      > > > would never be able to fly by heavier than air machines, they
      based
      > > this
      > > > reasoning upon the fact that - no one had so far been able to
      > > perform the
      > > > task,
      > >
      > > birds fly despite being heavier than air.
      > >
      > >
      > > hence by their faulty logic deduced that in the future the
      situation
      > > > would be the same.
      > > >
      > > > Absence of evidence (i.e. no one able so far fly) does not prove
      > > there is no
      > > > evidence.
      > > >
      > > > In the case of the Wright Brothers, they had a hard job getting
      > > witnesses
      > > > to their flying, because the flawed Experts all said it was
      > > impossible, and
      > > > so were persuading people to ignore the event.
      > > >
      > > > The same faulty Expert opinion has been used repeatedly to
      assure
      > > people to
      > > > ignore evidence, because of the claim that it can't possibly be.
      > > > The Rule of Arthur C Clarke applies to these flawed Experts-----
      > > whenever an
      > > > Expert says it is impossible, they are usually wrong!!!
      > > >
      > > > Man will never fly, because man has never done it in the past.
      > > Flawed!
      > > >
      > > > Man will never go faster than 20 mph, if a train went that fast
      he
      > > would
      > > > die. Flawed!!
      > > >
      > > > Stones cannot fall from the sky, it is old wives tales.
      Flawed!!!
      > > >
      > > > The Atom Bomb won't work. Flawed!!!!
      > > >
      > > > Our tests for life in outer space have been faulty, but ignore
      that
      > > they
      > > > were faulty, and point out that so far no evidence for life in
      > > outer space
      > > > has been found, and then deduce it will not then be found in the
      > > future by
      > > > other tests. Flawed again????? Some Supposed Experts never
      learn,
      > > that
      > > > sometimes there just isn't the information available to reach a
      > > conclusion
      > > > on a specific subject in which the real position is 'DON'T
      KNOW.'
      > > >
      > > > If you have proper evidence to advance from the present state of
      > > affairs
      > > > then present it, and stop trying to pretend it is otherwise.
      > > >
      > > > -Roger
      --- End forwarded message ---
    • Nydia Rivera
      remove please ... life, ... Still, it can t be taken as proof of alien life, or convincing evidence, given the possibility of contamination, misinterpretation
      Message 2 of 2 , May 2, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        remove please

        uwrk <uwrk@...> wrote:--- In ufonet@yahoogroups.com, "uwrk" <uwrk...> wrote:
        --- In ufonet@yahob...>
        wrote:
        > Roger> And then they found a Martian meteorite indicating possible
        life,
        > uwrk> This appears to have been discounted or disproved.
        >
        > Not by everyone.

        Still, it can't be taken as proof of alien life, or convincing
        evidence, given the possibility of contamination, misinterpretation
        of "worm" structures etc.
        >
        > ----------
        > > Roger> Hoyle + co say that viruses come from space etc.
        > > uwrk>Not a generally accepted view!
        > Roger> But still a possibility.
        > uwrk>I doubt it; it would be very difficult to withstand extreme
        cold,
        > UV and lack of sustanance.
        > Hoyle + co do not have your doubt.

        The vast bulk of scientists now do AFAIK. Hoyle was many years ago,
        and his notion isn't considered credible.
        > ------------
        > > uwrk>How can life of any kind arise in
        > > space?
        > Roger> Check what Hoyle + co say for yourself if you are interested.
        > uwrk>Others have and obviously weren't impressed.
        >
        > If some are impressed, and some are not impressed. So what. What is
        your
        > point?
        Nowadays nobody in the scientific community is AFAIK.
        > ----------
        > uwrk>True, life may have arisen on some other planetary systems
        > Yes
        > uwrk> but it is very unlikely to have arisen or survived on other
        planets in
        > our
        > solar system or near Sirius-the A0 star is far too short lived.
        >
        > Case not proved.

        A0 stars have main sequence lifespans of a mere 500 million years-
        a ninth of what is needed for life to evolve to intelligence, based
        on the example of a world where conditions are optimal.
        > ------------
        > uwrk> My views reflect up to date scientific thinking.
        >
        > Fashion that changes, based on trying to reach conclusions from
        insufficient
        > information.

        Insufficient? There is enough information about some worlds to
        assume, a priori, that they're lifeless. Venus is an example.


        > --------
        > Roger> long before the Wright Brothers, supposed Experts were saying
        > >that man would never be able to fly by heavier than air machines,
        they
        > based
        > >this reasoning upon the fact that - no one had so far been able to
        > >perform the task,
        >
        > uwrk> birds fly despite being heavier than air.
        >
        > The Supposed Experts that thought man would never fly, must have
        overlooked
        > that fact somehow. They must have been selective in what facts they
        would
        > consider, and decided to ignore the birds and deduce from faulty
        premisses
        > that man could never fly. It does not inspire confidence if that
        type of
        > people always use that methodology.
        >
        > -Roger
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "uwrk" <msdonovan66@h...>
        > To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 11:53 AM
        > Subject: [UFOnet] Re: Fwd: [Russian UFO Crashes?]
        >
        >
        > > --- In ufonet@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Anderton"
        <R.J.Anderton@b...>
        > > wrote:
        > > > uwrk>On some planets absence can definitely be assumed e.g.
        Venus,
        > > where
        > > > the temperature is broiling hot.
        > > >
        > > > Only if the tests were done properly. Can we be sure of that?
        > >
        > > Exteme heat like on Venus would immediately destroy any organic
        > > substance-trust me, no scientist thinks Venus is potentially
        > > habitable.
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > > ---------------
        > > > uwrk>Nothing went wrong with the Viking missions to Mars in the
        > > > seventies. Soil sample tests indicated a complete absence of
        organic
        > > > material.
        > > >
        > > > And then they found a Martian meteorite indicating possible
        life,
        > >
        > >
        > > This appears to have been discounted or disproved.
        > >
        > >
        > > suggesting
        > > > that the 70s tests were not as good as they should have been. A
        > > check proved
        > > > to be a cock-up.
        > > >
        > > > Roger> Hoyle + co say that viruses come from space etc.
        > > >
        > > > uwrk>Not a generally accepted view!
        > > >
        > > > But still a possibility.
        > >
        > > I doubt it; it would be very difficult to withstand extreme
        cold,
        > > UV and lack of sustanance.
        > > >
        > > > uwrk>How can life of any kind arise in
        > > > space?
        > > >
        > > > Check what Hoyle + co say for yourself if you are interested.
        > >
        > > Others have and obviously weren;t impressed.
        > > > ------------------
        > > > The situation as it stands is 'we do not know' as regards life
        > > around other
        > > > stars.
        > >
        > >
        > > True, life may have arisen on some other planetary systems but
        it
        > > is very unlikely to have arisen or survived on other planets in
        our
        > > solar system or near Sirius-the A0 star is far too short lived.
        > > >
        > > > You should not ignore some facts and select only those that you
        > > like;
        > > > ignoring Hoyle+co means you are not presenting a "full picture".
        > >
        > > My views reflect up to date scientific thinking.
        > > >
        > > > By doing what you doing, you start from faulty assumptions and
        > > deduce a
        > > > faulty consequence.
        > > nope.
        > > >
        > > > The method that you are using has been repeatedly used in the
        past
        > > to deduce
        > > > faulty dogmas.
        > > > e.g. long before the Wright Brothers, supposed Experts were
        saying
        > > that man
        > > > would never be able to fly by heavier than air machines, they
        based
        > > this
        > > > reasoning upon the fact that - no one had so far been able to
        > > perform the
        > > > task,
        > >
        > > birds fly despite being heavier than air.
        > >
        > >
        > > hence by their faulty logic deduced that in the future the
        situation
        > > > would be the same.
        > > >
        > > > Absence of evidence (i.e. no one able so far fly) does not prove
        > > there is no
        > > > evidence.
        > > >
        > > > In the case of the Wright Brothers, they had a hard job getting
        > > witnesses
        > > > to their flying, because the flawed Experts all said it was
        > > impossible, and
        > > > so were persuading people to ignore the event.
        > > >
        > > > The same faulty Expert opinion has been used repeatedly to
        assure
        > > people to
        > > > ignore evidence, because of the claim that it can't possibly be.
        > > > The Rule of Arthur C Clarke applies to these flawed Experts-----
        > > whenever an
        > > > Expert says it is impossible, they are usually wrong!!!
        > > >
        > > > Man will never fly, because man has never done it in the past.
        > > Flawed!
        > > >
        > > > Man will never go faster than 20 mph, if a train went that fast
        he
        > > would
        > > > die. Flawed!!
        > > >
        > > > Stones cannot fall from the sky, it is old wives tales.
        Flawed!!!
        > > >
        > > > The Atom Bomb won't work. Flawed!!!!
        > > >
        > > > Our tests for life in outer space have been faulty, but ignore
        that
        > > they
        > > > were faulty, and point out that so far no evidence for life in
        > > outer space
        > > > has been found, and then deduce it will not then be found in the
        > > future by
        > > > other tests. Flawed again????? Some Supposed Experts never
        learn,
        > > that
        > > > sometimes there just isn't the information available to reach a
        > > conclusion
        > > > on a specific subject in which the real position is 'DON'T
        KNOW.'
        > > >
        > > > If you have proper evidence to advance from the present state of
        > > affairs
        > > > then present it, and stop trying to pretend it is otherwise.
        > > >
        > > > -Roger
        --- End forwarded message ---



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        darkufo-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


        ---------------------------------
        Do you Yahoo!?
        The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.