Impossible to tell what is center of solar system?

[Sufjon]

The solar system is not all there is.

Perhaps you could look at the odds of our fine tuned universe for life and see how the earth fits in.

Hi Buffalo: I’m not understanding your point, but based on simple math alone, it is mathematically nearly impossible that there is not sentient life on other planets. There are trillions upon trillions of starts out there. If the chances for other planets having life are only one in a trillion, that would mean that there are at least billions of planets with life.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[buffalo]

Hi Buffalo: I’m not understanding your point, but based on simple math alone, it is mathematically nearly impossible that there is not sentient life on other planets. There are trillions upon trillions of starts out there. If the chances for other planets having life are only one in a trillion, that would mean that there are at least billions of planets with life.

Your friend
Sufjon

Incorporate the fine tuning aspects and show me the math.

 

[Skeptic92]

Incorporate the fine tuning aspects and show me the math.

Life on other planets (i.e bacteria) is a mathematical certainty, as no matter how small the odds, theres still a huge possibility it exists, complex life (i.e humans) has significantly smaller odds, so that is why we hunt for it. even though it is likely that it does exist, there is so many parameters for a planet to support complex life as we know it (for example the presence of liquid water, which is incredibly rare), it will be interesting to see if complex life does exist elsewhere.

 

[buffalo]

Life on other planets (i.e bacteria) is a mathematical certainty, as no matter how small the odds, theres still a huge possibility it exists, complex life (i.e humans) has significantly smaller odds, so that is why we hunt for it. even though it is likely that it does exist, there is so many parameters for a planet to support complex life as we know it (for example the presence of liquid water, which is incredibly rare), it will be interesting to see if complex life does exist elsewhere.

Sources, details and the math please.

 

[Skeptic92]

Sources, details and the math please.

blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/12/01/the-estimated-number-of-stars-in-the-universe-just-tripled/ Number of stars (estimated) is “100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, or 100 sextillion”

If we take a conservative estimate, and say all those stars have five planets
there is 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe (give or take a fat lot)

lets make the odds of simple life forming on any of those planets infinitely small, so lets say

1:200,000,000,000,000,000
So we divide 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 by 200,000,000,000,000,000

500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000/200,000,000,000,000,000=2,500,000

And that is with such small odds it would normally be deemed an impossibility, now thats simple life like bacteria, you would be hard pressed to find any credible scientist that actually says that no life exists, complex life other then us? maybe, but simple life ? it exists in the universe, and every credible scientist and astronomer will agree.

 

[vz71]

Life on other planets (i.e bacteria) is a mathematical certainty, as no matter how small the odds, theres still a huge possibility it exists, complex life (i.e humans) has significantly smaller odds, so that is why we hunt for it.

Possibility, however likely, is not a certainty.

 

[buffalo]

blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/12/01/the-estimated-number-of-stars-in-the-universe-just-tripled/ Number of stars (estimated) is “100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, or 100 sextillion”

If we take a conservative estimate, and say all those stars have five planets
there is 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe (give or take a fat lot)

lets make the odds of simple life forming on any of those planets infinitely small, so lets say

1:200,000,000,000,000,000
So we divide 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 by 200,000,000,000,000,000

500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000/200,000,000,000,000,000=2,500,000

And that is with such small odds it would normally be deemed an impossibility, now thats simple life like bacteria, you would be hard pressed to find any credible scientist that actually says that no life exists, complex life other then us? maybe, but simple life ? it exists in the universe, and every credible scientist and astronomer will agree.

Bacteria - simple life??

Is this an argument from popularity?

 

[rossum]

Redshift periodicity data shows galaxies are in concentric rings about the earth.

Correct. In our universe this will appear the same from all points. If we were in the Andromeda galaxy we would see the same effect. It is a result of the expansion of space.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Incorporate the fine tuning aspects and show me the math.

See Kepler Finds 5 Earth-sized Planets in Habitable Zone.

If a search of 150,000 stars finds 5 earth sized planets in the habitable zone, i.e. with liquid water on the surface, and there are about 5e22 stars in the universe then there are about 5 x 5e22 / 1.5e5 = 1.7e18 planets in the habitable zone. That is about 1,700,000,000,000,000,000 earth sized planets with liquid water. If we include the non-earth sized planets then there are about ten times as many in the habitable zone.

rossum

 

[Skeptic92]

Bacteria - simple life??

Is this an argument from popularity?

Bacteria isn’t simple life? So it’s completely sentinent, able to make rational decisions, and is made of many millions (if not billions or more) cells?

Bacteria is a single cell organism, irrational, and is generally microscopic, yes Bacteria is simple life, where as Humanity, mammals, reptiles etc, are all complex life, requiring specific parameters to be met, for life as we know it to develop, where as Bacteria is extremely adaptable, for instance being able to survive in sulphur rich environment, where complex life as we know it, can not survive.

 

[You]

Life on other planets (i.e bacteria) is a mathematical certainty, as no matter how small the odds, theres still a huge possibility it exists, complex life (i.e humans) has significantly smaller odds, so that is why we hunt for it. even though it is likely that it does exist, there is so many parameters for a planet to support complex life as we know it (for example the presence of liquid water, which is incredibly rare), it will be interesting to see if complex life does exist elsewhere.

Experiment: (I have not tried this)
There are many chemical suppliers around these days and as there are about 90 or so elements on this earth it would not be impossible to purchase, over several years, a packet of totally pure sample of almost all of the common elements.
When you have collected them all run them through some sort of sterilizing transmogrifier so as to kill all life forms and remove all organic material.
Tip all of the purified elements, in no particular order into a sterilized glass milk bottle. Top up with sterilized distilled water and seal the milk bottle shut. Keep the milk bottle at about 20 degrees C and sit back, have a coffee, and wait for life to form from this mixture of elements.
After 300,000,000 years, when life may have first appeared on earth, (or so they say I think), after 300 million years I say, when life still has not formed from the elements in your milk bottle recalculate the odds of life forming from your samples of elements.
I am not a gambler yet but if I were I think I would bet that life never forms in that milk bottle.
Interestingly, I think it was one of those ancient greek pagan writers who thought worms spontaneously formed in soil overnight, or something. This, of course, is ridiculed by scientists today who hold that life spontaneously formed, possibly during some night, 300,000,000 years or so after earth formed.

Its all very mysterious.

 

[buffalo]

Bacteria isn’t simple life? So it’s completely sentinent, able to make rational decisions, and is made of many millions (if not billions or more) cells?

Bacteria is a single cell organism, irrational, and is generally microscopic, yes Bacteria is simple life, where as Humanity, mammals, reptiles etc, are all complex life, requiring specific parameters to be met, for life as we know it to develop, where as Bacteria is extremely adaptable, for instance being able to survive in sulphur rich environment, where complex life as we know it, can not survive.

Do you consider the ATP Synthase motor simple?

 

[Touchstone]

Not really. It would be sort of true if the question was about the center of the universe, but it’s not true about the solar system alone.

The most accurate description of the center of the solar system is that it lies at the centroid of the mass of everything in it, but because the centroid lies well within the volume of the sun it’s accurate to say that the sun is the center.

That isn’t the case. The barycenter – the center of mass – of the solar system moves around in large distances, well beyond the volume of the sun itself. See here:



Or here’s a decent video that shows the moving barycenter in relation to the sun:
youtube.com/watch?v=_IHXj8k2jqc

I don’t have the figures handy but IIRC, the center of mass will be inside the radius of the sun for just less than 40% of the time during this century.

-TS

 

[aball1035]

Hello all, could we please stay on topic? The possibility of life on other planets wasn’t the issue, it was the impossibility of telling the center of the solar system. If you want to talk about life, please start a different topic.

Again,

So to be clear, it’s not a sound argument because the bigger the object (whether it be sun or planets), the more gravity? Therefore smaller objects would have to rotate around larger objects?

One more thing-is it proven without a doubt that larger objects in space (again, such as planets or the sun) have more of a pull than smaller objects?

 

[Touchstone]

Hello all, could we please stay on topic? The possibility of life on other planets wasn’t the issue, it was the impossibility of telling the center of the solar system. If you want to talk about life, please start a different topic.

Again,

So to be clear, it’s not a sound argument because the bigger the object (whether it be sun or planets), the more gravity? Therefore smaller objects would have to rotate around larger objects?

Yes, but the terms are too casual. Size is not mass. They generally track, but are not the same thing. I suppose you could have a gaseous planet that was bigger than an a smaller all-metal planet in terms of dimension, but the metal planet could have more mass. Mass is what determines the gravitational acceleration, not size. They just roughly correlate.

If you restate this as “the more mass, the more gravity”, you are on very solid ground.

One more thing-is it proven without a doubt that larger objects in space (again, such as planets or the sun) have more of a pull than smaller objects?

Again, “the more mass, the more gravity”. That’s as solid as anything we know in terms of physics. Size isn’t a good measure to use. Mass is what you want to refer to.

-TS

 

[John21652]

Experiment: (I have not tried this)
There are many chemical suppliers around these days and as there are about 90 or so elements on this earth it would not be impossible to purchase, over several years, a packet of totally pure sample of almost all of the common elements.
When you have collected them all run them through some sort of sterilizing transmogrifier so as to kill all life forms and remove all organic material.
Tip all of the purified elements, in no particular order into a sterilized glass milk bottle. Top up with sterilized distilled water and seal the milk bottle shut. Keep the milk bottle at about 20 degrees C and sit back, have a coffee, and wait for life to form from this mixture of elements.
After 300,000,000 years, when life may have first appeared on earth, (or so they say I think), after 300 million years I say, when life still has not formed from the elements in your milk bottle recalculate the odds of life forming from your samples of elements.
I am not a gambler yet but if I were I think I would bet that life never forms in that milk bottle.
Interestingly, I think it was one of those ancient greek pagan writers who thought worms spontaneously formed in soil overnight, or something. This, of course, is ridiculed by scientists today who hold that life spontaneously formed, possibly during some night, 300,000,000 years or so after earth formed.

Its all very mysterious.

Fail.

You were supposed to shake the bottle a couple of times, not sit back and drink coffee.

 

[buffalo]

Hello all, could we please stay on topic? The possibility of life on other planets wasn’t the issue, it was the impossibility of telling the center of the solar system. If you want to talk about life, please start a different topic.

Again,

So to be clear, it’s not a sound argument because the bigger the object (whether it be sun or planets), the more gravity? Therefore smaller objects would have to rotate around larger objects?

One more thing-is it proven without a doubt that larger objects in space (again, such as planets or the sun) have more of a pull than smaller objects?

Multibody systems are way more complicated.

 

[lemondiesel]

What does the sun revolve around?

 

[You]

Hello all, could we please stay on topic? The possibility of life on other planets wasn’t the issue, it was the impossibility of telling the center of the solar system. If you want to talk about life, please start a different topic.

Again,

So to be clear, it’s not a sound argument because the bigger the object (whether it be sun or planets), the more gravity? Therefore smaller objects would have to rotate around larger objects?

One more thing-is it proven without a doubt that larger objects in space (again, such as planets or the sun) have more of a pull than smaller objects?

Well. To start off simply with just two objects in space. If they are of equal mass then either could be said to orbit the other. If one is of greater mass than the other then it should still make no difference. Objectively and disinterestedly there is no reason to pick one and say it orbits the other. As far as I know there are no permanent solid actual unmoving fixed points in the universe which cannot orbit.

 

[You]

Fail.

You were supposed to shake the bottle a couple of times, not sit back and drink coffee.

durn