beecee

Is that right? Perhaps then you need to review your concepts of what science is, what a hypothesis is, what a scientific theory is and what philosophy is. In the mean time here's a nice simplistic picture for you........http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/whatisscience_01 "Science is both a body of knowledge and a process. In school, science may sometimes seem like a collection of isolated and static factslisted in a textbook, but that's only a small part of the story. Just as importantly, science is also a process of discovery that allows us to link isolated facts into coherent and comprehensive understandings of the natural world". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis "A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research". http://www.philosophybasics.com/general_whatis.html "At its simplest, philosophy (from the Greek or phílosophía, meaning ‘the love of wisdom’) is the study of knowledge, or "thinking about thinking", although the breadth of what it covers is perhaps best illustrated by a selection of other alternative definitions": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments.[1][2]Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.

All mass/energy bends/warps spacetime.....Note spacetime not space. Spacetime is simply the multi-dimensional framework within which we locate events and describe the relationships between them in terms of length, breadth height and time. The concept of spacetime follows from the observation that the speed of light is invariant, i.e. it does not vary with the motion of the emitter or the observer. Intervals of space and time considered separately are not the same for all observers. In GR, gravitation is described and reflected in the GR equations as the warping/curving/bending/twisting of spacetime.

I hope its appropriate to post one of my all time favourite speech, uttered in such dulcet, meaningful tones and a knowledge and wisdom that imo makes him one of the greatest educators of the 20th century: I'm in total agreement with one of the comments thus "I miss Carl Sagan. His books and TV shows taught me so much awe inspiring stuff. World Leaders should be made to watch 'Pale Blue Dot', if only to make them see how utterly unimportant and insignificant they actually are in the great scheme of things. Everything Carl Sagan says in it is an absolute fact, which is what makes it so compelling, chilling, and ultimately, shattering. Children should be shown this in school, too. It would probably scare the bejesus out of them, but they'd never forget it".

Ahh New Zealand, just across the ditch from Australia...pretty good Rugby players most of the time..reported to have more sheep then people...and often proposed as a state of Australia [Apologies to my Kiwi friends on my poor humour. ] All jokes aside, on the video, I will certainly watch in its entirety when I have time, but I really don't see to much logic in why scientists would want to or need to hide anything..... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5511224/ Storyline 60,000 skeletons ground up for fertilizer, giant skeletons removed from their resting places and destroyed, 2000 bound skeletons covered over by bulldozers and buried without respect under modern buildings - WHAT IS GOING ON IN NEW ZEALAND? ' Plot Summary | Add Synopsis Taglines: New Zealand's History rewritten for political expediency https://www.plummtreeproductions.com/single-post/2016/1/13/Mike-Butler-comments-on-New-Zealand-Skeletons-in-the-Cupboard-documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hgh-rC80ZPc

Nothing is really proven with scientific theories, but they do grow in certainty over time. Such theories as the BB, SR, GR, have so far stood the test of time and have been shown to be correct each within their zones of applicability. The BB and GR are totally complimentary of each other, although it is worth noting that each is only valid from t+10-43 seconds up to what we see today. Scientists/Physicists are attempting at this time to formulate a observable quantum gravity theory that covers that first 10-43 seconds. Such a theory would not confine GR to the dustbin nor invlidate it, rather extend the zone of applicability outside of which GR operates. Newton's theory of gravity remains "correct" within its zone of applicability, [it is still exclusively used on most Earth based calculations and also sufficiently accurate for most space endeavours. We could in effect use GR and obtain the same answers with far greater accuracy and precision, but that precision is not needed in the main, and the simplicity of Newtons mathematics compared to the mathematics of GR, makes Newton the obvious choice. Spacetime warpage and curvature in the presence of matter/energy is validated by the maths of GR. The latest illustration and discovered prediction of spacetime warpage/curvature is of course gravitational waves from colliding/merging BH binaries by aLIGO and its sister observatory. http://www.hawking.org.uk/space-and-time-warps.html https://www.quora.com/Why-do-objects-with-mass-warp-space-time Let me now give you this excellent summary on the question of why which I have mentioned and shown before on other threads...a short 7 minute video by one of the greats of the 20th century. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

Firstly, the BB has never been shown to be wrong, rather some modifications at times has been needed: That's why a scientific theory always remains a scientific theory and the best explanation for what we observe.

Do you mean scientific laws? They are simply man made structures that describe what we observe, make successful predictions time and time again. eg: Newton's law of gravity dictates that if you jump up in the air, you will come back down to Earth: we are pretty certain of that. Or are you referring to Universal constants? Things like the speed of light in a vacuum, at "c" or the gravitational constant, or the fine structure constant. These are just part and parcel of the nature of the universe/spacetime at the most basic fundamental level. They are what they are, although finely tuned to the extent that any variation in them would see a vastly different universe to the one we currently inhabit, possibly making it totally unfit for life as we know it.. Someone more qualified then me is bound to give you a more extended and probably more correct answer.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1607/1607.04901.pdf ABSTRACT: Utilisation of the material and energy resources of the Solar System will be essential for the development of a sustainable space economy and associated infrastructure. Science will be a major beneficiary of a space economy, even if its major elements (e.g. space tourism, resource extraction activities on the Moon or asteroids, and large-scale in-space construction capabilities) are not developed with science primarily in mind. Examples of scientific activities that would be facilitated by the development of space infrastructure include the construction of large space telescopes, ambitious space missions (including human missions) to the outer Solar System, and the establishment of scientific research stations on the Moon and Mars (and perhaps elsewhere). In the more distant future, an important scientific application of a well-developed space infrastructure may be the construction of interstellar space probes for the exploration of planets around nearby stars. Conclusions The solar system is rich in energy and material resources which could potentially support a vibrant future space economy. Although many aspects of this economic activity will probably be pursued for purely commercial reasons (e.g. space tourism, and the mining of the Moon and asteroids for economically valuable materials), science will nevertheless be a major beneficiary. Indeed, science will benefit from all stages in the ‘bootstrapping’ of a space economy, from initial prospecting activities on the Moon and asteroids, through to the utilisation of the resulting resources to expand space activities. In particular, science will benefit from the infrastructure developed to support a space economy, which will help facilitate the construction of large space telescopes, the establishment of scientific research stations on the Moon and Mars (and perhaps elsewhere), and the mounting of ambitious space missions (including human missions) to the outer Solar System. In the more distant future, an important scientific benefit of a well-developed space infrastructure may be the construction of interstellar space probes for the exploration of planets around nearby stars.

I have just been over this thread rather quickly, and something has struck me. While I have claimed further space exploration is inevitable, it has been objected to and raised the hackles in some. I suppose technically that person maybe right. How can anyone claim anything in the future is inevitable...I mean in effect the Earth itself may be obliterated. We, any of us may get hit by a bus tomorrow morning. Some well supported theory like the BB, SR, GR, evolution maybe shown to be invalid. But any of that negativity to be validated is, well a long shot...a real long shot! In fact for many reasons, extremely unlikely. We do have space watch scenario in action and no potential hit is imminent.....Most of us are taught to look to the left and right before crossing the road, to avoid getting hit by a bus......the well supported theories I mentioned are well accepted and in some cases damn well "near certain" and as we know while theories continue to make successful predictions and match observations, they do grow in certainty over time. What are the chances that technological advancements will not continue? Will we stagnate? or go back to swinging in the trees? Again not certain [particularly with at least two ratbag leaders of nations at this time] but avoiding any MAD, continued technological advancements is near certain. As I have harped on from post one, all we need is the time. I at this time want to bring to notice an early post as I believe it says it all...... It absolutely makes no sense to claim that space exploration has not economically benefited us..it makes no sense to claim that it will not benefit us in the future...it makes no sense to say that there is any reasonable doubt that technological progress and advancement will not continue....it makes no sense to ignore the possibility nad importance of life's big questions being answered by continued space exploration... It makes no sense to ignore human nature and the qualities of exploration, gathering knowledge, and going where no man has gone before...given the time of course! Space exploration, both robotic and human is going to happen, it is only a question of when.

You could have surprised me then: There have been countless realistic assessments given to you as to why space exploration[note I am interested in space exploration as opposed to space tourism] should not only take place but most certainly will take place, irrespective of the poor tax payer and his money which mostly anyway, speaking globally goes towards militaristic endeavours. And of course you don't have to accept what you mistakenly claim as over-hyped expectations, just as those opposing your own unsupported rhetoric, do not need to accept your own hype. I do though agree that being 2017 we do have a better understanding of not only what is possible, and what is required, but the benefits in the past and the future of space travel and exploration, as well as optimism. ??? Did they??? The three that I have in mind are examples shining examples of successes, although the treatment of indigenous cultures in achieving such success could be questioned. The rest of your over-hyped, baseless expectations are best discarded at this time. In fact, all I'm seeing is obstinence and an apparent resolute stubborness in countering the many reasons why space exploration, will always take place, that possibly reflects an agenda, whatever that agenda maybe. I have seen similar elsewhere. I know its all been covered before, but since you continually raise it... [1]How much per head is spent on space endeavours? [2] How much do we spend per head on alcohol, tobacco or any other drug that some maybe dependent on? [3] How much do we spend on military defence and attack systems, based on what we imagine our supposed enemies are spending?

Absolutely not, and I'm not sure why you would even think that. DM is simply what was needed to explain gravitational effects and rotational curves. Space is simply what exists between mass/matter: If we had no space everything would be together. Time stops everything from happening at the same instant to put it as simply as possible. Spacetime on the other hand, is the framework within which it is possible to locate events and describe relationships between them in terms of spatial coordinates and time. The concept of spacetime follows from the observation that the speed of light is invariant, i.e. it does not vary with the motion of the emitter or the observer. Spacetime allows a description of reality that is common for all observers regardless of their relative motion. Intervals of space and time considered separately are not the same for all observers. "The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality". — Hermann Minkowski, 1908, 1909

As MigL has said the observable universe is certainly finite, and around 96 billion L/years in diameter. The WMAP probe showed the universe to be very nearly flat within small error bars, and that in the main points to an infinite universe, although a universe shaped like a torus which is also flat, is obviously finite. The other point to remember is the "flatness" as per WMAP did have error bars, albeit small, which in effect could mean that the flatness measured is simply an arc of a much larger closed universe. In any respect though the universe is pretty big or as I like saying [and have been taken to task over it] near infinite in extent and content.

Actually a nice post except imo for the above. I'm pretty sure the reasons for accepting any god or creator is diminishing all the time, even as we speak/type. But the media needs to start promoting more science programs based on cosmology, and get it out to the masses that science can now reasonably and logically explain how the universe came to be, at least back to 10-43 seconds after the BB. I went to a Catholic school, and at our last 57th old boys reunion, I had plenty of genuine interest from a couple of my old mates, who still were rather religious in their outlook, on the scientific account and the evidence of how the universe came to be and that a creator was not really needed. The fact that science could not as yet explain with evidence the how or the why of the BB was though some comfort to them in the end. Both also were taken aback somewhat with my revelation to them that the Catholic church has now virtually accepted the BB explanation and also evolution. It's a painfully slow process, and of course groups like the YEC will occasionally kick and scream at such "scientific blasphemy" but I do see people slowly coming around to the proper scientific way of thinking and rejecting the myth.

I would question the validity of any survey that said 100 million people still believe the Earth is only 10,000 years old...Either that or question the education system that could ever lead to such ignorance! IMHO also I believe many so called Christians in western countries, seem to admit to a belief in a deity more out of convention and fear. I am also of the opinion that scientists of all persuasions need to be far more vocal in putting down and scientifically invalidating such ignorant nonsense as that sold by these YEC. Finally I offer my apologies to USA citizens for us Aussies for the likes of Ken Ham who probably is partly responsible for such nonsensical ignorance and who now lives in your country... Although this could be in retaliation for the many TV evangelistic shows on Fox and the likes of Billy Graham that once toured Australia preaching fire and brimstone to those gullible enough to accept it.

Thanks fellas! Like I said, biology/astrobiology is not my forte I'm afraid....thanks for the replies.

What needs to be remembered here is that it seems that some see optimism as some sort of magical ingredient. That is just plainly wrong. As I previously said, is that any optimistic outlook is essential to human evolutionary development, and has been essential for yonks. We need to be optimistic to survive...sometimes we need to take risks...it is part and parcel of who we are and again is essential for continued development: With those risks of course, comes the knowledge that we also must take all necessary precautions to prevent accidents etc, but even then, as humans, failure sometimes happens, and we learn from those failures. Without optimism and progress, we stagnate. I see the fact everyday, not the least in the orginizations like NASA and some of the others which I previously mentioned, that most thinking people would see the cycle of negativity that others show for whatever reason or agenda, as demoralizing at best, and stagnation at worst. We all want change, we all need change!...for the better... in our schools, communities, nations and world, and the way that can best be achieved is in further and continued space exploration. There are solutions to the many problems facing us here on Earth, and as has happened in the past, space exploration will solve many of them. While obviously space exploration and a viable space industry is not a panacea for all our problems, it is a principle part of our nature to continue what we started in the late fifties and honour those original pioneers both living and dead for their efforts and bravery. Any other alternative, talk or unsupported claims re politics, economics, and our Earthly problems to discontinue or reign in space exploration, is imo grossly in error and will never succeed. Given the time, we are going to go to Mars and further afield...given the time, we will solve and find the solutions to the many vexing problems confronting space exploration and also the problems here on Earth... But we certainly wont by suggesting that optimism is some sort of magical ingredient and inferring that the money be redirected directly to our problems on Earth, while at the same time ignoring the trillions of dollars spent on military endeavours and such. The answers to our many questions are out there...the solutions to our problems are out there, as long as GR and the laws of physics are not contravened...Stagnation is not an alternative: Neither is pessimism.

Lord Kelvin only 10 years before the first heavier than air flight, also did not know how the gap/s could be closed or eliminated to achieve flight. Such pessimism thankfully was not taken too seriously. In the mean time, irrespective of personal opinions the inevitable progress, efforts, advancements, and improvements continues. Here's one example ... https://phys.org/news/2017-07-space-systemthe-powerful-rocket-built.html extracts: "Since the cancellation of the shuttle, NASA's workforce of engineers and rocket scientists has been developing the next heavy lift vehicle in NASA's line up: the Space Launch System. The very first configuration of the SLS, known as the Block 1, should have the ability to put about 70 metric tonnes into Low Earth Orbit. And that's just the beginning, and it's just an estimate. Over time, NASA will increase its capabilities and launch power to match more and more ambitious missions and destinations. With more launches, they'll get a better sense of what this thing is capable of. Finally, there's the Block 2, with an even larger launch fairing, and more powerful upper stage. It should blast 143 tonnes into low Earth orbit. Probably. NASA is developing this version as a 130 tonne-class rocket. The main goal for SLS is to send humans out, beyond low Earth orbit. Ideally to Mars in the 2030s, but it could also go to asteroids, the moon, whatever you like. And as you'll read later on in this article, it could send some amazing scientific missions out there too. The very first flight for SLS, called Exploration Mission 1, will be to put the new Orion crew module into a trajectory that takes it around the moon. In a very similar flight to Apollo 8. But there won't be any humans, just the unmanned Orion module and a bunch of cubesats coming along for the ride. Orion will spend about 3 weeks in space, including about 6 days in a retrograde orbit around the moon. If all goes well, the first use of the SLS with the Orion crew module will happen some time in 2019. But also, don't be surprised if it gets pushed back, that's the name of the game. After Exploration Mission 1, there's be EM-2, which should happen a few years after that. This'll be the first time humans get into an Orion crew module and take a flight to space. They'll spend 21 days in a lunar orbit, and deliver the first component of the future Deep Space Gateway, which will be the subject of a future article. From there, the future is unclear, but SLS will provide the capability to put various habitats and space stations into cislunar space, opening up the future of human space exploration of the Solar System." Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-07-space-systemthe-powerful-rocket-built.html#jCp

Aint that the truth!!! Nice post. I mean, really why worry about something that is inevitable and may occur in 5 mins or in 70 years time! When you're dead, you're dead...life ceases, no realization/s, no dreams, no anything...that's it, pure and simple...back to star dust! If people are concerned about the fact that they are going to die one day, and cannot accept the fact that all realizations/thoughts/dreams etc will cease, and need religion to support there concerns, then they have that choice.

OK, biology is not a strong point of mine,[if I have any strong points at all!] but I have always been attracted to Panspermia, and I saw the following phrase from the article as supporting that hypothesis... My reasoning is along the lines that this "stable membrane" would protect the chemical reactions inside [and eventual emergence of life] from environments that maybe harmful to it...eg: depths of inter stellar and inter galactic space, harmful radiation etc. What do you think?

Robotics will certainly lead the way for manned space exploration. Two other sciences I see as being rather helpful in man's inevitable push beyond Earth's environment is Nanotechnology and 3D Printing.

There are many motivations to further space exploration and they have not yet realistically been invalidated or realistically countered. Not the least of those were mentioned in the following post...... These reasons alone are why space exploration is inevitable, irrespective of variable political and economic circumstances.

The only unwillingness I see is a refusal to admit that in any extended time frame at least, further space exploration is certainly inevitable and essential and possible in line with inevitable technological advances, and [wait for it!!.] irrespective of any profitability or otherwise...it's who we are and it's the knowledge and questions we need answering, along with the obvious, inevitable benefits to human kind in general. Stagnation is not an alternative. No, I don't know how the gap can be closed at this time, but then again, I'm not privy to all the research that is being done, all the experiments that are being carried out, and all the advances that are being made, and neither are you...Lord Kelvin only 10 years before the first heavier than air flight, also did not know how the gap/s could be closed or eliminated to achieve flight. Such pessimism thankfully was not taken too seriously. Whether I'm just being an optimist or realist is the question. What I do know is that any optimistic outlook is essential to human evolutionary development, and has been essential for yonks. We need to be optimistic to survive...sometimes we need to take risks...it is part and parcel of who we are and again is essential for continued development: With those risks of course, comes the knowledge that we also must take all necessary precautions to prevent accidents etc, but even then, as humans, failure sometimes happens, and we learn from those failures. Pessimism is not an alternative. The denying of the inevitability of continued space exploration, without any fixed time frame, is contradictory to what we know, what is observed today, and the efforts world wide. My only suggestion is that it should be an International effort and all stops pulled out to achieve the goals we envisage as soon as is practically and safely possible. NASA: ESA: Roscosmos: Space program of the People's Republic of China: Planetary Resources: Space X:Tau Zero: 1OO Year Star Ship Co:Japanese Rocket Society:Virgin Galactic: Sierra Nevada Corp:Mars One:

The actual research article....... http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/7/e1700022 ALMA detection and astrobiological potential of vinyl cyanide on Titan. Abstract Recent simulations have indicated that vinyl cyanide is the best candidate molecule for the formation of cell membranes/vesicle structures in Titan’s hydrocarbon-rich lakes and seas. Although the existence of vinyl cyanide (C2H3CN) on Titan was previously inferred using Cassini mass spectrometry, a definitive detection has been lacking until now. We report the first spectroscopic detection of vinyl cyanide in Titan’s atmosphere, obtained using archival data from the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA), collected from February to May 2014. We detect the three strongest rotational lines of C2H3CN in the frequency range of 230 to 232 GHz, each with >4σ confidence. Radiative transfer modeling suggests that most of the C2H3CN emission originates at altitudes of ≳200 km, in agreement with recent photochemical models. The vertical column densities implied by our best-fitting models lie in the range of 3.7 × 1013 to 1.4 × 1014 cm−2. The corresponding production rate of vinyl cyanide and its saturation mole fraction imply the availability of sufficient dissolved material to form ~107 cell membranes/cm3 in Titan’s sea Ligeia Mare.

https://phys.org/news/2017-07-scientists-moon-saturn-chemical-membranes.html NASA scientists have definitively detected the chemical acrylonitrile in the atmosphere of Saturn's moon Titan, a place that has long intrigued scientists investigating the chemical precursors of life. On Earth, acrylonitrile, also known as vinyl cyanide, is useful in the manufacture of plastics. Under the harsh conditions of Saturn's largest moon, this chemical is thought to be capable of forming stable, flexible structures similar to cell membranes. Other researchers have previously suggested that acrylonitrile is an ingredient of Titan's atmosphere, but they did not report an unambiguous detection of the chemical in the smorgasbord of organic, or carbon-rich, molecules found there.Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-07-scientists-moon-saturn-chemical-membranes.html#jCp An extract from the article says..... Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-07-scientists-moon-saturn-chemical-membranes.html#jCp Or am I reading too much into this rather exciting discovery?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8