Phosphine found on Venus: life?

[Muad'zin]

That’s the same evidence the ancients used to confirm the Earth is not moving lol

Notice ..? You said the Sun and moon “rises” & “sets”?

Ironically similar to the scriptures...

Ecclesiastes 1:5
“ The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.”

Psalms 113:3
“From the rising of the sun to its setting, the name of the LORD is to be praised!”

This is one of the reasons why Ptolemy developed his model and it was the held model for centuries.\

That model also tried to explain why sometimes the planets move backwards using wonky explanations. Astrology is still based on that model. Further evidence that it is nonsense.

Again there is no scientific empirical evidence that the Earth actually moves per the preferred standard model.

We are victims of the academia that prefers the cosmological model that has it move.

Here’s the leading cosmologists of today confirming.

George Ellis:


“….I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with the Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.”


“you can only exclude it on philosophical ground. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that.


What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”


George Ellis,
Famous cosmologist, in Scientific American,
“Thinking Globally, Acting Universally”, October 1995


He co-authored the book “The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time” in 1973 with Stephen Hawking. It is now a classic.
—————-

“Thus, even now, three and a half centuries after Galileo's condemnation by the Inquisition, it is still remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the earth moves, and, if so, in what precise sense.”

⁃ Julian B. Barbour, Absolute Relative Motion? p.226, 2nd paragraph

Astonishingly, there is literally no credible “settled science” of the Earth’s motion in space.

This then may play a huge factor in the opts post.

We know the Earth is a sphere and not flat. We know that the Moon journeys around the Earth in a lunar month, we have observed the Earth turning around its axis. We know that the other worlds in the solar exists, we have visited all of them with probes. All their moons orbit their worlds Comet come in from the outer solar system. We see the other planets in the solar system move around the Sun. We find more and more planets in other solar systems just by observing their transit in front of their sun. We're even observing the stars move, including the ones orbiting the supermassive black hole Sagitarius A that is at the center of our Galaxy. Why should the Earth be any different? Because some Holy Book written in ancient times says so? Because there are nutters who can't wrap their minds around being on a small ball that orbits a massive fiery ball?

Do you yell "ow" when you stub your toe with the ingrown toenail that already hurts on its own? Would you consider that act to be the act of someone "playing victim"?

That is kinda where I am at. Even Jesus, if you believe that mythology, had his moment of doubt and pain. Would you say He was "playing victim"?

There is an old Native American saying that applies:
"Great Spirit, grant that I may not judge a man until I have walked a mile in his moccasins."

Have a blessed day. Or not. Who am I to judge?

I had two such ingrown toenails, one so bad they had to cut a part of the nail and I managed to have the other outgrow again . I have been pain free ever since. Not only did it hurt like crazy, it got infected at time. I know the pain. There is a difference between this sucks and I am a victim, woo to me! I am not judging anyone on this, but please don't be a victim and tell yourself woo to me! Know, and this is what I tell myself every time I suffer a misfortune or an injury, all good things come to an end, but also all bad things. I will get through this. Persevere and never give up.

I think so to... living on Mars, moon, spacecraft for 10,000 yr? Nope
Most reasonable approach to longevity of human..... is to kill 98% of the population and start over again

If you take some of the useless planets like Mercury and take it apart for materials you can easily construct enough O'Neill cylinders to house trillions of humans. You all are thinking in terms of scarcity on Earth when you should be thinking in abundance when you can factor in the entire solar system.

Yes, I think the whole living on Mars stuff is also kind of stupid on a large scale. Living on Mars is like living in the antarctic, just much more deadly. And nobody wants to live there either ...

Unless you specifically wish to terraform Mars its biggest value right now is as a resource of building material to build space infrastructure like O'Neill cylinders for humans to live in. Or you can terraform Mars as a long term project as the Sun will gradually become bigger and hotter to the point that like Venus now, Earth will become unlivable in 600 mln years. At which point in time Mars will become far more comfortable too. You'd just have to find a way to create a magnetic field so the planet can retain its atmosphere.

People also don't fully understand relativity.
Interstellar travel will be possible for sure. But not for humans. Every interstellar journey would be without a ticket back home.

Sure its possible for humans. But like you said, without that return ticket. You can send out colonizing fleets, which solely exist to prepare and seed star systems they come across. People that would live their entire lives in the interstellar regions of space. Or you can even send out robot fleets that will colonize other systems for us so all we have to do is move in.

There’s helium on the moon, tho, and a valuable isotope thereof. Plus the Moon has a much shallower gravity well which makes it easier to launch stuff to Earth from there. This was explored in great detail by Heinlein in “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”. Technically it’d be super easy to destroy Earth by launching projectiles from the Moon. They’d be accelerated to hypersonic speeds by the Earth’s gravity well. And you can’t do jack shit about whoever is launching it. Hence why a military base of some sort is inevitable there within this century.

Thing is though, any Earth power that would try to do such a thing would also destroy itself because the vast majority of its population would be Earth based. It's the equivalent of starting global nuclear war. You're bound to destroy yourself with it.

The value of the moon is, as you correctly said our industrial zone in space from which to build up space infrastructure around Earth and as a launching pad to the rest of the Solar System.

Just don't store yer spent fission materials there....

Would you really want to launch such material knowing that if the launch were to fail, it still happens after all, it could spread that material over large parts of this planet?

There is no place in space to live that can support human life. If there is it would take many lifetimes to get there. That's not to say we shouldn't look. But knowing is far different than going. I think the distances are on purpose. Additionally, if your concerned about 600 million years from now I wonder what you worry about now. sarc

You're thinking in planets with breathable atmospheres. I'm thinking in O'Neill cylinders, La Grange points and Dyson swarms. We can park trillions of human beings in space by building O'Neill cylinders by dismantling planets like Mercury or the many comets and asteroids that make up the Asteroid belt, Kuijper belt and Oord cloud. And we are already discovering planets that may have Earth like atmospheres. Proxima B is already one of the most promising prospects, orbiting Proxima Centauri, only 4 lightyears from us. In the end we have to get off this rock eventually cause the Sun will make in uninhabitable in 600 mln years, unless we come up with a form of giant sun screen, and even then eventually in 4 bln years when the Sun becomes a red giant. Red Dwarfs offer the best long term prospect because they will last for trillions of years, until even in the Black Hole Era.

 

[Muad'zin]

Doomsayers and naysayers have been predicting the end of everything since like forever. And yet we cheerfully keep on going. In my lifetime I grew up with the spectre of our oil supplies running out in the 70's, Malthusian predictions of global famine because of overpopulation, thermonuclear war being possible at ANY time, acid rain destroying all our forests, the hole in the ozone layer would give us all cancer, Y2K would cause all our computers to apeshit and possibly nuclear arsenals to launch, and now we have climate change. And I for one do not deny the climate is changing, but every other doom scenario has failed to materialize. The doom sayers have been proven wrong time after time after time. Yeah, stuff is happening, but lets cut ourselves some slack too. We're still up to our necks in oil, we're feeding more people and there are less famines then ever, WW3 did not happen, we stopped acid rain, we stopped producing the stuff that caused the hole in the ozone layer, Y2k was a giant scam to extort money from us. I think we can handle climate change too once we stop acting like headless chickens and start using our brains. Stop listening to doom sayers, stop being victims and become winners! We can save this planet by winning. Winners deserve all. Which includes the solar system and the whole Milky Way.

 

[Dave Merrill]

Y2K wasn't a disaster because much effort was made on mitigation before the deadline, which in that case was specific and known, as were the needed actions. COVID is also responding to focused human effort, at least to some extent. Global warming has yet to receive that degree of actionable attention.

But I'm with you, the universe hasn't flushed us away in any of its previous opportunities, hopefully that pattern will continue.

 

[crdark]

Unless you specifically wish to terraform Mars its biggest value right now is as a resource of building material to build space infrastructure like O'Neill cylinders for humans to live in. Or you can terraform Mars as a long term project as the Sun will gradually become bigger and hotter to the point that like Venus now, Earth will become unlivable in 600 mln years. At which point in time Mars will become far more comfortable too. You'd just have to find a way to create a magnetic field so the planet can retain its atmosphere.

But 'just'creating a magnetic field' is the problematic part

Sure its possible for humans. But like you said, without that return ticket. You can send out colonizing fleets, which solely exist to prepare and seed star systems they come across. People that would live their entire lives in the interstellar regions of space. Or you can even send out robot fleets that will colonize other systems for us so all we have to do is move in.

When you could make such a trip you probably don't need another planet. That interstellar starship provides everything you need.
Sustaining a large enough population over hundreds of years in interstellar space, without any external source of energy, is ... difficult. Nuclear reactors with enough fuel for the whole trip would be needed. I don't know how the hydrogen concentrations are in interstellar space. If you fly through nebulas, you probably could harvest some. Transforming cosmic radiation into electricity, maybe .... seems all very inefficient to me.

I'm not quite a physicist.

 

[Muad'zin]

Y2K wasn't a disaster because much effort was made on mitigation before the deadline, which in that case was specific and known, as were the needed actions. COVID is also responding to focused human effort, at least to some extent. Global warming has yet to receive that degree of actionable attention.

But I'm with you, the universe hasn't flushed us away in any of its previous opportunities, hopefully that pattern will continue.

Some countries spend billions on combating Y2K, others spend next to nothing. Nothing happened there. I'll bow to superior evidence to the contrary but I can't help but escape the notion that a lot of money was pumped into a scam, a lot of people became rich of it, and nobody ever investigated it afterwards because those who ordered it will never admit they wasted a lot of money for nothing.

But 'just'creating a magnetic field' is the problematic part

When you could make such a trip you probably don't need another planet. That interstellar starship provides everything you need.
Sustaining a large enough population over hundreds of years in interstellar space, without any external source of energy, is ... difficult. Nuclear reactors with enough fuel for the whole trip would be needed. I don't know how the hydrogen concentrations are in interstellar space. If you fly through nebulas, you probably could harvest some. Transforming cosmic radiation into electricity, maybe .... seems all very inefficient to me.

I'm not quite a physicist.

You should watch Isaac Arthur. He comes up with solutions to that and has an unshakable optimism that makes you look forward to the future rather then fear it. Which is what we humans should do. Terrorizing our children into thinking the Earth will end has been one of the greatest crimes of this century and the people who did this should be in jail over this.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZFipeZtQM5CKUjx6grh54g/videos

 

[crdark]

You should watch Isaac Arthur. He comes up with solutions to that and has an unshakable optimism that makes you look forward to the future rather then fear it. Which is what we humans should do. Terrorizing our children into thinking the Earth will end has been one of the greatest crimes of this century and the people who did this should be in jail over this.

The earth will end, but probably long after us. That's just a fact.
I'm all for progress, science and space exploration, but I'm also realistic. It's all about time scales...

 

[Muad'zin]

The earth will end, but probably long after us. That's just a fact.
I'm all for progress, science and space exploration, but I'm also realistic. It's all about time scales...

Why after us? Unlike normal animals we are aware that things can change and we have the technology to spread beyond our planet. The dinosaurs disappeared because they couldn't adapt to changing environments after that asteroid hit the Earth. We can. Humans can live everywhere, from the hottest desert to the coldest arctic desert. Once we spread to other worlds and space colonies a single planetary disaster is no longer a threat to us. And once we spread beyond the solar system not even its end is a threat to our species. But we have to get off Earth first. As long as we are here, we will be vulnerable.

 

[reclavea]

We know the Earth is a sphere and not flat. We know that the Moon journeys around the Earth in a lunar month, we have observed the Earth turning around its axis. We know that the other worlds in the solar exists, we have visited all of them with probes. All their moons orbit their worlds Comet come in from the outer solar system. We see the other planets in the solar system move around the Sun. We find more and more planets in other solar systems just by observing their transit in front of their sun. We're even observing the stars move, including the ones orbiting the supermassive black hole Sagitarius A that is at the center of our Galaxy. Why should the Earth be any different? Because some Holy Book written in ancient times says so? Because there are nutters who can't wrap their minds around being on a small ball that orbits a massive fiery ball?

Yes....the Earth is not flat.

Muad'zin:
"we have observed the Earth turning around its axis."

uh.....no....we have NOT.

Muad'zin:
"We see the other planets in the solar system move around the Sun."

That has no bearing whatsoever on the "actual condition" off the Earth whether static or not. One may hypothesize as Ellis postulates and hold as a philosophical position.

Muad'zin:
"Why should the Earth be any different? Because some Holy Book written in ancient times says so? Because there are nutters who can't wrap their minds around being on a small ball that orbits a massive fiery ball?"

No.....because empirical evidence needs to be provided for such a conclusion, in which they have never been provided for. Just because I may see a fly or a bunch of flies buzzing around a bumble bee that is flying in a circle around me.... doesn't mean i'm circling anything and not static sitting in a chair in my living room. Likewise and at the same time I see outside my window a mile away a humming bird or bunch of humming birds flying around an eagle that is flying in a circle around my house.....doesn't mean I too am circling anything.

These are only assumptions and again as Ellis states ..."preferred philosophical models"

 

[Muad'zin]

Yes....the Earth is not flat.

Muad'zin:
"we have observed the Earth turning around its axis."

uh.....no....we have NOT.

Go ask any astronaut, ESPECIALLY the ones who have watched the Earth when going to the moon. You can see that thing rotate from space. After all, the moon turns around in a lunar month. It takes three days to get to the moon, lets say one day to land there and take off again and three days to return. They saw the Earth go around its axis at least 7 times.

Muad'zin:
"We see the other planets in the solar system move around the Sun."

That has no bearing whatsoever on the "actual condition" off the Earth whether static or not. One may hypothesize as Ellis postulates and hold as a philosophical position.

I don't give a f*** what Ellis postulates, the other planets have been observed to move around the sun for millennia. It was the going back and forth of certain planets because the Earth moved too that makes the old Sumerian/Astrological model such bullshit. All the other planets move around the sun. They all turn around their axis. We do not observe the Sun to move around the Earth. Go ask any astronaut who has been into space if they saw this happening.

Muad'zin:
"Why should the Earth be any different? Because some Holy Book written in ancient times says so? Because there are nutters who can't wrap their minds around being on a small ball that orbits a massive fiery ball?

No.....because empirical evidence needs to be provided for such a conclusion, in which they have never been provided for. Just because I may see a fly or a bunch of flies buzzing around a bumble bee that is flying in a circle around me.... doesn't mean i'm circling anything and not static sitting in a chair in my living room. Likewise and at the same time I see outside my window a mile away a humming bird or bunch of humming birds flying around an eagle that is flying in a circle around my house.....doesn't mean I too am circling anything.

These are only assumptions and again as Ellis states ..."preferred philosophical models"

I don't give a f*** about philosophical models. The old Sumerian Ptolemaean model has been debunked for centuries, because it doesn't fit the universe as we observed it. Planets don't move forward most of the time and then backwards because they didn't factor in that the Earth moved too. The heliocentric model as advanced by Newton fit the observations better then the Ptolemaen model, and the current models where the sun is part of a galaxy that is part of galactic superclusters fit our current observations better. You can play philosophical word games all you want but we have have all kinds of satellites and probes in orbit and to other planets. All the planets have been visited, using mathematics based on the observations that planets move in orbits around the sun and turn around their axis. That's how probes like Voyager and New Horizons got where they are now, by picking up speed by using slingshots around those planets. Using the movements and gravity of the planets to gain speed. You want to shrink this magnificent massive universe down to just this world, be my guest, I prefer to live in this massive universe and to have humanity walk among the stars!

 

[Stratoblaster]

The time to fix things was 50 years ago, but we just munched popcorn and watched.

You're 100% right in that we just munched popcorn and carried on 50 years ago when there were definite warning shots across the bow.

I've been thinking for the last several years that every scary, apocalyptic sci-fi movie I watched as a kid in the 70's (and there were plenty) is starting to come true to one degree or another...massive overpopulation, climate change, food issues, dwindling resources, short term corporate greed over long term sustainable efforts, rampant environmental mismanagement, Orwell/1984, the brainwashing of society at large (enter "Social Media"), crumbling infrastructure, societal fragmentation...all of that.

I used to think "nah, there is no way any of this is going to happen", but 50 years later and here we are...there were indeed a lot of clear warning signs back then that we should start to take immediate steps to ensure a better future but noooooooo. We just kicked the can further down the road for a future generation to pick up and deal with. Trouble is, in a lot of ways, kicking the can isn't an option anymore.

I've always said one of the only mandates the world/society has, as a whole, is to leave the world in a better place then we found it for the generations ahead of us...

It is encouraging though that there has been a lot of positive progress in some ways as outlined in previous posts.

Never forget, a flat-earther's greatest fear is sphere itself....

 

[Dave Merrill]

The astronauts in space can't actually tell what's rotating around what, any more than the guy on the train can tell if the train on the opposite side is moving. Bad analogy maybe, but the point is, all we perceive is relative motion. Absent verifiable fixed objects, which I'm pretty sure current theories don't think actually exist, how would we measure absolute motion?

 

[crdark]

It is encouraging though that there has been a lot of positive progress in some ways as outlined in previous posts.

That's true. We live a better and longer life than any generations prior to us.

Why after us? Unlike normal animals we are aware that things can change and we have the technology to spread beyond our planet. The dinosaurs disappeared because they couldn't adapt to changing environments after that asteroid hit the Earth. We can. Humans can live everywhere, from the hottest desert to the coldest arctic desert. Once we spread to other worlds and space colonies a single planetary disaster is no longer a threat to us. And once we spread beyond the solar system not even its end is a threat to our species. But we have to get off Earth first. As long as we are here, we will be vulnerable.

Do we really have the technology to colonize another star system? Or even get there alive?
Technology is one thing, determination to 'get shit done' is somenthing else. We all were well aware of the fact, that a virus will someday have the potential to go pandemic. That worked out great. I actually thought we were a lot better prepared for stuff like that ... boy was I wrong.


About the whole motion and stationary planet stuff ... that's some first physics lecture stuff ...

 

[Stratoblaster]

Bad analogy maybe, but the point is, all we perceive is relative motion. Absent verifiable fixed objects, which I'm pretty sure current theories don't think actually exist, how would we measure absolute motion?

I'm not so sure such a thing is possible, given that a central concept of "The Theory of Relativity" is that there is no one, absolute frame of reference of any kind in the universe...all motion is 'relative' to something else and you need to define a frame since there isn't one frame-to-rule-them-all.

 

[reclavea]

Go ask any astronaut, ESPECIALLY the ones who have watched the Earth when going to the moon. You can see that thing rotate from space. After all, the moon turns around in a lunar month. It takes three days to get to the moon, lets say one day to land there and take off again and three days to return. They saw the Earth go around its axis at least 7 times.


I don't give a f*** what Ellis postulates, the other planets have been observed to move around the sun for millennia. It was the going back and forth of certain planets because the Earth moved too that makes the old Sumerian/Astrological model such bullshit. All the other planets move around the sun. They all turn around their axis. We do not observe the Sun to move around the Earth. Go ask any astronaut who has been into space if they saw this happening.


I don't give a f*** about philosophical models. The old Sumerian Ptolemaean model has been debunked for centuries, because it doesn't fit the universe as we observed it. Planets don't move forward most of the time and then backwards because they didn't factor in that the Earth moved too. The heliocentric model as advanced by Newton fit the observations better then the Ptolemaen model, and the current models where the sun is part of a galaxy that is part of galactic superclusters fit our current observations better. You can play philosophical word games all you want but we have have all kinds of satellites and probes in orbit and to other planets. All the planets have been visited, using mathematics based on the observations that planets move in orbits around the sun and turn around their axis. That's how probes like Voyager and New Horizons got where they are now, by picking up speed by using slingshots around those planets. Using the movements and gravity of the planets to gain speed. You want to shrink this magnificent massive universe down to just this world, be my guest, I prefer to live in this massive universe and to have humanity walk among the stars!

It doesn't matter what you don't give a f*** for or what I don't give a f*** for. It's whatever the cosmology actually is....that is of concern. The noted observations of the Ptolemaic Model is what IS OBSERVED. But not necessarily is what is actually happening. Copernicus in the mid 1500s put the Earth in motion around the Sun as the rest of the planets thereby accounting for the perceived retrogrades of Mars and the other planets, though they are not actually going backwards.

However, Tycho Brahe who also was around at the same time as Galileo....placed all the planets going around the Sun while the Sun was going around the Earth. So he also accounted for the retrogrades as did Copernicus yet Tycho kept the Earth static in the center.

Muad'zin:
"The heliocentric model as advanced by Newton fit the observations better then the Ptolemaen model, and the current models where the sun is part of a galaxy that is part of galactic superclusters fit our current observations better."

Not so in the way you think. Newton's equations all dealt with the "center of mass" of bodies and systems....ie..."Barycenter". In Newton's time...they had no idea what the stars were, what they were made of, how far they are and how big they are. They also had no idea of stars being part of galaxies or galaxy clusters or superclusters for that matter. Hence Newton limited his equations to just the Solar System and by doing so would definitely have the Sun in the approximate center of the Solar System.

But in the 1800s ...scientists realized via Ernst Mach that Newton could not do that. Mach effectively showed that Newton MUST include and factor in the entire mass of the universe to determine the results.

Mach correctly showed that with the entire mass of the universe included and accounted for ...the Earth can occupy the Barycenter or "center of mass" of the universe and be static with Newtonian mechanics. This is Mach's Principle. Again Einstein factored in Mach's Principle into his 1915 GTR which JUSTIFIES the Earth static in the center of the universe!

So NO PHILOSOPHICAL word games here.

Muad'zin:
"I don't give a f*** what Ellis postulates, the other planets have been observed to move around the sun for millennia."

George Ellis is a highly esteemed cosmologist and physicist. He co-authored the book "The large scale structure of space-time" with Stephen Hawking in 1973. No one disputes his claim I posted above. Every physicist worth their weight agree with Ellis and some choose as a PREFERENCE the heliocentric model. Besides Ellis model DOES HAVE the planets too revolving around the Sun and the Sun going around a static Earth.

Muad'zin:
"All the other planets move around the sun. They all turn around their axis."

No one disputes that today. Again, Tycho accounts for this and has this too in his geocentric model with the planets going around the Sun while the Sun goes around the Earth. For over 30 years he carefully and painstakingly documented the motions of the heavens and formulated his Geocentric Model. The Neo-Tycho Model of today is the model that actually best fits the observations and scientific empirical evidence.

Muad'zin:
"We do not observe the Sun to move around the Earth. Go ask any astronaut who has been into space if they saw this happening."

Yes we do observe the sun going around the Earth. Go outside in the morning and log in the position of the Sun in the sky in the morning to dusk. Notice the Sun moving across the sky? ...then repeating again the following morning. And as Dave Merrill correctly pointed out.....the astronauts in orbit around the Earth will see an "apparent" rotation of the Earth. This does not prove the Earth is actually moving in any manner. It can just show the astronauts are going around the Earth.

This is precisely why Ellis makes his claim. This is his field and expertise. Anyone can disagree and not give an f*** but they would be doing so without any credible conclusive empirical evidence and as Ellis asserts would be making a philosophical preference for a cosmology model.

Again there is no credible unambiquous conclusive type evidence the Earth is in motion in space.

Again the great George Ellis:


George Ellis:

“….I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with the Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.”

“you can only exclude it on philosophical ground. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that.

What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”

George Ellis,

Famous cosmologist, in Scientific American,

“Thinking Globally, Acting Universally”, October 1995

Evidence is evidence and the way the universe is...is the way it is...whether we like it or not or whether we prefer another model or not.