Mark bothered to try and find a reference. I looked at the link and decided he had a point. You seem to have not clicked on the link. Surely you are not at the point where you don't want to learn something new?
Weren't their amps supposed to be used with specific cables and speakers?
I did, it seems unnecessarily/overly specific though, I did use confirmation bias as well because I wasn't sure which was the correct term
Could be that I misunderstood scott wurcer as he might have been talking only about alien visitors to earth. I thought about any kind of (more or less) advanced life overall and afair the number of detected planets being in the optimal zone was rising in the recent years.
That is happening in your imagination. After all, this is an audio forum so a question on audible aspect is only natural, not a deflection. As for the answer, do you have one?
In our perception.
With the airy waffly use of words such as 'fast bass' describing audio I would personally welcome at least ONE specific term being used, esp when we are trying to politely point out that some people hear things because they believe in magic, fairies and Bybees.
Not sure that is true, not long ago (though it may seem obvious) there was no solid evidence that exoplanets existed in any particular frequency. I might be wrong but there is disagreement as to how many may have potential intelligent life. I don't think folks quite understand how tenuous our existence is here.
By coincidence and irony my first boss is now in charge of TESS, I could call him and get his opinion. TESS - Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite | NASA
This seems ok?
How would we make sure no one uses it wrongly if we took it? 😉
"I don't think folks quite understand how tenuous our existence is here."
Exceedingly so. Nearly wiped out by asteroids numerous times in the last billion years, it appears our planet, the size of the sun, and our proximity to it are a very unique combination for photosynthesis and it appears many times over the last 2 billion years the development of life which ultimately led to us could very easily tipped in a very different direction. Life on Earth has, it appears, passed through the eye of the needle so to speak many times over the last 3.5 billion years. The fact we are here is a miracle - but I say this as someone with zero spiritual beliefs.
One other point raised in the same TED talk (IIRC), the Milky Way seems quite unique in the amount of iodine present in its stars. It happens to be one of the elements critical to life as we understand it. It seems everywhere else we look in the universe, there's a dearth of the stuff Iodine in biology - Wikipedia
Lots of exoplanets but we know little about their chemistry (at this stage) and a lot of them are around red dwarfs which are not always conducive to life Habitability of red dwarf systems - Wikipedia
Exceedingly so. Nearly wiped out by asteroids numerous times in the last billion years, it appears our planet, the size of the sun, and our proximity to it are a very unique combination for photosynthesis and it appears many times over the last 2 billion years the development of life which ultimately led to us could very easily tipped in a very different direction. Life on Earth has, it appears, passed through the eye of the needle so to speak many times over the last 3.5 billion years. The fact we are here is a miracle - but I say this as someone with zero spiritual beliefs.
One other point raised in the same TED talk (IIRC), the Milky Way seems quite unique in the amount of iodine present in its stars. It happens to be one of the elements critical to life as we understand it. It seems everywhere else we look in the universe, there's a dearth of the stuff Iodine in biology - Wikipedia
Lots of exoplanets but we know little about their chemistry (at this stage) and a lot of them are around red dwarfs which are not always conducive to life Habitability of red dwarf systems - Wikipedia
I'm sure, that there is a lot of disagreement as any reasoning has to be based on many variables and the assignment of values is quite subjective. (IMO of course)
Ah, the joy of coincidence.
Would be interesting, as I had something like TESS in mind, although thinking that it had started before 2018......
Of course, but I'll try to keep in mind that this way the search (and results) are restricted to our current understanding of life, which might be true as set of premises, but must not.
Nah, seems that my post on that wasn't clear enough (again); but combined with my recent posts (and others from the past) about the usage of terms like "psychoacoustics" it should have been clear enough, though. 😉
I was referring to it relating to published material, you didn't seem so dogmatic about that?
Or photosynthesis developed as a natural mechanism, because of the size of our sun and the relative earth position. Causality can be a bitch to deal with.
No, it is only that exoplanets around red dwarfs are much easier to detect with our existing instruments. No evidence that exoplanets prefer red dwarfs stars, once again causality is playing tricks.
new article about TESS in the NYT Science Times today.
NASA’s TESS Satellite Spots ‘Missing Link’ Exoplanets - The New York Times
Alan
NASA’s TESS Satellite Spots ‘Missing Link’ Exoplanets - The New York Times
Alan
Last edited:
I think that's exactly what was inferred. The issue is had the conditions not been within a rather narrow window, it may not have developed. And yes, causality is a bitch to deal with.
No. ~70% of all stars as far as we know fall into the red dwarf class. It therefore follows that most exoplanets will be orbiting red dwarfs and Keppler has indeed shown that.
No. ~70% of all stars as far as we know fall into the red dwarf class. It therefore follows that most exoplanets will be orbiting red dwarfs and Keppler has indeed shown that.
Doesn't mean that an alternative to photosynthesis doesn't exist.
Irrelevant as long as we don't know the probability of a red dwarf or a larger principal sequence star to have planets. There are some arguments why habitable (to our standards) planets around a red dwarf may have a lower probability to host life (for example the tidal lock of close planets, much like Mercury around sun or the moon around earth) but this still doesn't exclude alternative life forms, if we give up extrapolating our experience with Earth.
I don't think we disagree that there are potentially many alternative lifeforms. The discussion was about highly intelligent life forms (defined in some places as having exponential technology growth). The thinking in some quarters is that it is 1 per galaxy.
Humpty Dumpty - Wikipedia
I've been thinking of scientific ways to evaluate PRAT. It will involve measuring DBT (Double Blind Toe-tapping).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.