the asinine cretin

You've essentially restated the first half of post #4.

Obviously they weren't the most robust in terms of surviving that particular mass extinction event. Evolution is not deterministic and there is no reason why it should have brought them back. The dynamics of gene pools are pretty stochastic. Also, following the catastrophe one would expect it would be easier (i.e., quicker, simpler) for surviving species to fill whatever niches had been occupied by dinosaurs (largely by mammals as it turns out) than that dinosaurs would evolve anew.

The impact event hypothesis explains much more of the data than could such an overkill hypothesis. If the extinction revolved around species that were possible prey of T. rex it might be a good hypothesis, but good luck actually accounting for plants, marine life, microbial life, and explaining other data such as the K-T boundary. Assuming multiple causes, is there any evidence whatsoever that implicates T. rex on some level? Even if there were suggestive evidence it might be difficult to establish cause. For example, there is evidence of cannibalism among T. rex but was this a normal behavior, a result of overkill, a result of external forces lowering prey populations, etcetera? But anyway, I doubt the niche that T. rex filled could have such a substantial impact and your ideas would need to be based on the preponderance of evidence. Armchair speculation doesn't count for much.

This strikes me as a major overstatement. That research refers to the asteroid family thought to be a major candidate for the source of the killer asteroid, the hypothesis does not rest on that detail. Is there a shred of evidence for such a scenario? And what might have predated on the top-of-the-food-chain dinosaurs? Long story short, I think if you were familiar with the basic evidence for the cretaceous-tertiary extinction event this question would thereby be resolved.

The energy could theoretically be transferred to Earth via collimated low frequency EM radiation (perhaps radio or microwave). I'm not sure how you hope to get around the law of conservation of energy though. I do like the general idea of space-based power generation. Solar radiation, the momentum of the Earth and moon, their gravitational fields, tidal forces, solar wind... I imagine some plausible megastructures could be conceived that convert some of these to energy for our direct consumption. Certainly solar radiation. I've heard of space-based solar power anyway.

Very briefly, 1. If you look at my original post you will see that I alluded to solar system orientation (it's my first numbered item). The entire purpose of this thread was to consider ALL of the major factors related to detectability, orientation probabilities alone are not enough. 2. I don't agree with your interpretation of the wiki article. It describes the orientation factor as a simple geometry problem, but that doesn't lead one to make the kind of extrapolation you're suggesting. 3. Again, I'm familiar with the wikipedia article and the gist of Kepler and I made this thread hoping to interact with experts or pseudo-experts (I know, a tall order). 4. The following video is a decent (though introductory) talk followed by an absolutely phenomenal Q&A which has addressed most of my questions so this thread is now obsolete from my standpoint. I highly recommend this video. Regards.

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/au:+Katsnelson/0/1/0/all/0/1

Cryptography is the first thing that comes to mind for me.

I went to a conservative Catholic university years ago and remember being taught that the New Testament has a kind of interpretive priority over the Old. From this point of view the entire Bible is not taken to be a perspicuous guide for theology and morality but requires careful and learned interpretation. Basically (I imagine Jewish people may resent this), the idea was that the New Testament completes and sheds light on the Old Testament scriptures. Also, I remember taking a course on the Old Testament and we were taught about the importance of genre, source criticism, textual variants, historical criticism, and other things. I can also recall learning about Patristic and medieval exegesis and modern exegetical methodologies relating the Old and New Testaments, as well as elements of the larger Christian tradition (e.g., Apostolic Fathers, extra-biblical Jewish literature, etcetera). It was all pretty interesting anyway. Fundamentalists do a disservice to Christianity in my opinion.

I'm familiar with the wiki article and I don't agree that it supports your earlier statement. "You can extrapolate Kepler's findings by multiplying the numbers it detects by approx 200." The orientation of the planetary orbit is just one criterion of detectability. I was hoping someone on this forum knew more about Kepler than I do. Oh well.

This came out yesterday. News from Exteme Solar Systems II.

I would be happier if I were immortal, or at least graced with extreme longevity. I often lament the shortness of the human lifespan as I would like to see the ages of history, the far future, to study much more of human knowledge than is practical now, to travel in space, to see alien worlds... The wonders untold that must await in this vast universe. They do not await such as us. A virtual infinity of possibilities that is unattainable due to the fact that we will soon wisp away like every other forgotten ape who has eaten, shat, and perished on this little speck of rock. Oh, says the naysayer, but for all you know the future will be ages upon ages of stagnant barbarism and drudgery, or the accessible universe may prove ultimately monotonous and empty after all. Sure, but it is the hope and the possibility of living to see a Type II civilization, and the rest of it, that would make me happy, and should any of it come to pass then all the more. Being utterly denied the possibility of transcending this world and this lowly state is the worst bitterness. To see the fringes of infinity and know that my existence will be a minuscule sequence of mundane chores and worthless prattle, unto oblivion... And so it is.

Has anyone suggested that they can't, and have not? Look at the text you're quoting from me. I don't say that Kepler hasn't detected gas giants, only that it has detected far more Neptune-sized and smaller worlds. This fact can be confirmed by going to the Kepler mission site or just glancing at the Kepler wikipedia article. What makes you say that Kepler isn't looking for gas giants? The majority of gas giants in existence have already been discovered? When did this happen? My understanding of the transit method and the design of the Kepler spacecraft suggests that it is perfectly equipped to detect gas giants so long as their orbital period is favorable.

Kepler has found very few gas giants compared to the number of Neptune-size and smaller worlds, but, my entire curiosity hear is with the parameters in which Kepler can detect. Can we really say that gas giants are less common? Maybe they tend to be outside of Kepler's range. For example, would our outer planets be detectable? How have you determined this? Do you have a source and or reasoning? I am familiar with the gist of the Kepler mission (including its field of view), and I wasn't asserting that Kepler watches our solar system, it was a hypothetical question. But thank you.

+1

I just imagine the FOIL process in my mind and try factors that make sense given the numerical coefficients. For encouragement I'll say that after practicing enough you can usually glance at a polynomial like that one and figure it out. This page might be helpful. http://www.jamesbren...polynomials.htm

Indeed.

Does light have its own frame of reference? I'm just speculating, but try to make sense of space and time in terms of special relativity from the pov of light. What happens at the speed of light?

I think if you could attain the speed of light you would experience all of time instantaneously. You would essential be outside of time. I imagine from light's perspective "now" is both now in our sense and the now of the big bang. I'm not a physicist and am just speculating though, for what it's worth. lol.

THE EXOPLANET CENSUS: A GENERAL METHOD, APPLIED TO KEPLER ABSTRACT We develop a general method to fit the planetary distribution function (PLDF) to exoplanet survey data. This maximum likelihood method accommodates more than one planet per star and any number of planet or target star properties. Application to Kepler data relies on estimates of the efficiency of discovering transits around Solar type stars by Howard et al. (2011). These estimates are shown to agree with theoretical predictions for an ideal transit survey. Using announced Kepler planet candidates, we fit the PLDF as a joint powerlaw in planet radius, down to 0.5R⊕, and orbital period, up to 50 days. The estimated number of planets per star in this sample is ∼ 0.7 —1.4, where the broad range covers systematic uncertainties in the detection efficiency. To analyze trends in the PLDF we consider four planet samples, divided between shorter and longer periods at 7 days and between large and small radii at 3 R⊕. At longer periods, the size distribution of the small planets, with index α ≃ −1.2 ± 0.2 steepens to α ≃ −2.0 ± 0.2 for the larger planet sample. For shorter periods, the opposite is seen: smaller planets follow a steep powerlaw, α ≃ −1.9 ± 0.2 that is much shallower, α ≃ −0.7 ± 0.2 at large radii. The observed deficit of intermediate-sized planets at the shortest periods may arise from the evaporation and sublimation of Neptune and Saturn-like planets. If the trend and explanation hold, it would be spectacular observational confirmation of the core accretion and migration hypotheses, and allow refinement of these theories. Here's a brief summary of the paper. Astrobites: The Kepler Exoplanet Consensus "Extrapolating the occurrence rate of small planets out to one year orbital periods, Youdin finds that the average solar-like star hosts ~3 Earth-like planets with orbital periods less than one year." Damn.

The emergence of the eukaryotic cell and sexual reproduction trip me out.

Isn't it possible to "stop" photons with a Bose-Einstein condensate or a Fermionic condensate? What's the story on that?

I don't know that much about it, but I was just imaging what might happen if Kepler were many light years away with Sol in its field of view. I imagine: 1. A very small probability that Venus and/or Earth could be detected via transit (considering their diameters and orbits and the chances of favorable orientation with far away Kepler spacecraft). 2. I may be wrong, but I suspect that Mercury and Mars may not be detectable by Kepler. 3. The planets in the outer solar system seem to be too distant from the sun to be detected by Kepler (guess based on what I know of the transmit method). 4. The many fascinating moons in the solar system would obviously go undetected (Galilean satellites, Titan, etc). Again, I don't know the details on this and am only speculating. I wouldn't mind learning the details. If the above is true then the exoplanets Kepler has been able to detect may be a mere tip of the iceberg, no? ETA: I mean, we might say "Kepler discovers Jupiter-sized world in orbit of such and such star," but the reality could be a solar system containing many other worlds and perhaps an array of super fascinating moons in orbit of that lone detected planet. My hunch: Detection of one planet does not rule out many more; failure to detect rules out nothing. Again, if Kepler were to include Sol in its field of view from some remote vantage point, what might it find?