/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14640140
1. Polar orbits be hard an' sheeit.
2. low-priority taking high-res images of snow and ice.
3. oh look NASA actually did this anyway https://earth.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/data/lima

/sci/ isn't /pol/

also: see operation highjump, if you want to do science there then self fund your own expedition. Entry cost is at least a big boat and enough fyel for a week from either if the capes.

>>14640144
[samefag] also:
https://gizmodo.com/new-super-high-resolution-map-shows-antarctica-in-unpre-1828881343
There is a gap at the south pole precisely, but otherwise Antarctica is well-mapped by now.
Again: polar orbits be hard. Mostly orbits aim for the equator or at least the tropics, because Earth spins in the direction of the equator.

>>14640140
All these continents are yours. Except Antarctica. Attempt no landing there.

>>14640144
>1. Polar orbits be hard an' sheeit.
This imply the rotation of earth influences the 4d geometry of the gravity field vastly different at the poles than on the side?

You can't just park a satelite above the poles for a few days? The rotation of the earth forces satelites to ride with the rotation? If so does this not say something very interesting about the nature of the gravity field? That the gravity field it self is treadmill like rotating?

>>14640420
There are already stationary objects in orbit at the poles and we dont go near them.

>>14640140
It’s literally just white. What were you expecting?

There's resources there. If I had billions I would extract them and make trillions.

>>14640140
because it's just fucking ice, retard, it's a blank sheet of white

>>14640420
no, you can put something on a polar orbit, they just aren't useful for much, so there's little reason to do so

you can't make a geosynchronous polar orbit, however you can make it a very elliptical orbit so the satellite stays more or less above the pole you're targeting for a long time and then zooms around the other pole quickly before getting back above the target pole, it's called a molniya orbit if you want to read about it

>>14640693
Oh so it's not just a short round about orbit like a spinning top just over the pole, but it goes around one pole and then the other like vertical orbit?

Also the other part of my comment, does the gravity field itself rotate with the planets rotation, so the gravity field like a rushing river moat swirls around earth and drags satelites with it?

That is so relavant to gravity theory

>>14640140
Space imaging is a business, you are not entitled to them. If you want images of a specific area that is not a problem, simply call up someone like Maxar and they will provide you a price quotation.

>>14640140

>>14640420
>You can't just park a satelite above the poles for a few days?
Um... are you aware that things would just fall? Do you think that satellites just magically levitate?

>>14640913
So satelites have to constantly thrust? Or thrust a little bit to be an object in motion staying in motion? Or constantly thrust to not get to close or far away from earth?

>>14640840
>Also the other part of my comment, does the gravity field itself rotate with the planets rotation
technically yes, however it is completely negligible in the case of a planet, such an effect is only noticeable in the most extremely dense and fast-spinning objects such as neutron stars and black holes

when it comes to earth you can 100% ignore it

>>14641679
They orbit the earth so that gravity acts as a centripetal force to keep them in orbit. Geostationary satellites orbit with one revolution per 24 hours.

>>14641679
>So satelites have to constantly thrust?
>thrust
no. satelite must, infact, always maintain a horizontal velocity of thousands of meters per second.

>>14640840
>does the gravity field itself rotate with the planets rotation
no, not at all

>>14641679
they don't, they are always in freefall, thrust is only used for small course corrections

>>14641805
>Geostationary satellites orbit with one revolution per 24 hours.
So they originally accelerated to equal the velocity of Earth's rotation, becoming an object in motion at earths rotational velocity staying in motion at that velocity?

Or, the earth is rotating, a satelite is rocketed straight up, and without accelerating in the direction of Earth's rotation, the satelite starts to get swept up in the rotation until it is rotating with earth at its rotational velocity?

>>14641766
>>14641818
>>14641817
Saturn is rotating.
Do the rings of Saturn rotate with Saturn or do they stay relatively still?

>>14641965
>Or, the earth is rotating, a satelite is rocketed straight up, and without accelerating in the direction of Earth's rotation, the satelite starts to get swept up in the rotation until it is rotating with earth at its rotational velocity?
That would be Jon Mandlbaur's understanding. In reality, they have to accelerate quite a bit to keep up with Earth's rotation at 36000 km

>>14641965
the first one
is this the power of public education?

>>14641970
They are rotating. Otherwise they would fall into Saturn.

>>14641970
the rings of saturn are definitely in orbit around saturn

>>14641970
they are made up of countless pieces that are each in their own different orbit around saturn

>>14642014
>>14641977
>>14641979
Ok, I thought this would be evidence that the gravity field itself may be rotating, but I geuss it could just be that; a bunch of stuff crashed into Saturn or entered it's gravity well at an angle, and so started to orbit.

Heres a question: in a thought experiment to attempt to enrich an understanding of the fundamental mechanics of gravity field existence and function:

Let's say a massive body the size of saturn existed stationary in free space; no forward motion, no sun orbiting, no rotation.

And then you shot different debris and rocks and asteroids at different angles around Saturn, that stuff would just continuously orbit for millions of years?

Let's say you had the quantity of stuff that made up the saturn ring, and shot it in at the location and angle of Saturns ring;

Would it aproximate Saturn's ring?

I'm trying to comprehend how much of gravitation effects may be due to a bodies momentum, revolution, and rotation, and if the gravity field may have the degree of freedom of revolution, rotation itself (in the way that water can whirlpool)

>>14642192
frame dragging is negligible for something as small as saturn, but go look it up if you're so interested in it anyway

>>14641977
>>14641979
>>14642014

Forget 2d depictions of gravity wells, gravity wells are 4d phenomenon, so imagine a gravity well as a sphere of sorts extending beyond a planets body; (though this is likely even faulty, because I am not sure a planet or star equally influences the gravity field out Infront of it as much as behind it, just like a submarine makes more of an impression on the water state behind it than Infront of it)

You take some objects and throw them alone the inner surface of the sphere, and they ride around;

Would there not be a difference if that sphere was now moving?

I sense the response of equally stationary in consistent reference frames;.


But traveling the rotation around the inside of the sphere, can this really be said to be object in motion stays in motion? Why is it thought there would be no friction of any kind?

I think they have a mockup of the USA built down there. I thibk all that contoversial language in the Patriot Act about arbitray, indefinite, chargeless detention (which you never hear about anymore) is about kidnapping people and taking them to the slave hole in Antarctica. They'll "gangstalking" suddenly started without even realizing that they're not in North America anymore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZfg1Gtcg08&t=92s

I think they have a mockup of the USA built down there. I thibk all that contoversial language in the Patriot Act about arbitray, indefinite, chargeless detention (which you never hear about anymore) is about kidnapping people and taking them to the slave hole in Antarctica. They'll "gangstalking" suddenly started without even realizing that they're not in North America anymore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZfg1Gtcg08&t=92

For instance, I did this pendulum experiment (and five others) in a location that looked just Long Island, NY, but the counterclockwise precession of the pendulum suggested I was actually in the southern hemisphere (as is everyone else in this thread, probably.)

Here's another one. IIRC, I completely disassemlbed the pendulum and set everything up again between this one and the previous one so as to avoid systematics. The result was identical, and I got the same result several more times. After I got CCW precession in about six consecutive experiments, the CIA moved me or replaced my weight with a gyroscope because then I started getting nothing but CW precession. In either case, the lack of back of forth in one regime or the other, meaning all counterclockwise and then all clockwise, suggests that experimental errors were not contributing to the result. If errors were involved, I would have gotten mixed results between CCW and CW.

There's a lot of pic related sort of thing in the "sky" over he mock up in Antarcia too. This base is what Scientologists supposedly call the "Int Base." The real thing is the "Ant Base" like they say scientology is the "science of knowing" when really it was someone saying "Sig Int-ologists" in a European accent to refer to signals intelligence personnel after WWII.

>>14642266
>pic related sort of thing in the "sky"

>>14642232
>>14642242
>>14642254
>>14642266
>>14642267
Meds

>>14642192
It would form a moon and/or rings. It cant fall into the planet due to conservation of angular momentum.

>>14641679
Does the moon constantly thrust to not fall down to earth? Dumbass.

>>14642232
>>14642242
>>14642254
>>14642266
>>14642267
holy schizo

>>14642333
>Does the moon constantly thrust to not fall down to earth? Dumbass
Does the Earth travel around the galactic center, around the sun, and rotate all at velocities? How do you know how relvant those movements are as to how the gravity field is effected to effect the moon? How dynamic is the gravity field to masses various velocities and rotations?

what if earth were the center of the universe

>>14643399
it is

any arbitrary location can be considered the center of the universe

>>14643434
so why is there only life here on earth

>>14643446
why not

>>14643451
who cares what any other arbitrary point in the universe sees
also how is it humanly recordable whether or not it is true that any other point would observe expansion the same.

also have you measured expansion or is it just some made up shit some nigger made up that you believe blindly

>>14643462
relativity has been experimentally confirmed in countless ways anon, why are you seething about this

>>14643467
speed of light doesn't exist so no lol

>>14643471
that's silly, light can easily be proven to move at a speed, since a reflection is more delayed the further away it is reflected from

>>14643474
that is a false statement

>>14643477
the abortion your mother tried to do to you was a false statement

>>14643479
your father forgot to pull out literally 1 time

>>14643446
How do you know? Isn't it an extremely arrogant idea to think that Earth is the only place where life has formed?

>>14643662
appealing to arrogance is a fallacy

>>14640840
Gravitational field acts uniformly, what you mean is the geomagnetic field, which has no influence on gravity at all. Theres also slightly more gravity on the poles due to earths oblate spheroidness caused by its spin, causing the poles to be slightly closer to the core, and having less rotational velocity than the equator for example. Thats why you want that equatorial delta v bonus when launching rockets. Launching from the poles will need way more fuel since you cant use as much spin of the earth to gain speed.

>>14640693
Also, gravitational field is not spinning with the body distorting the surrounding space. Imagine space as a sand pit. Push a marble into the sand, the sand which gets displaced to the sides is your gravity, when you turn spin that marble, it does not influence gravity by the spin of the body, whst influences it might be uneven mass distribution, causing ghe field to change its shape with the rotation, but it does not rotate itself.

>>14640840
Also, gravitational field is not spinning with the body, the body is just distorting the surrounding space. Imagine space as a sand pit. Push a marble into the sand, the sand which gets displaced to the sides is your gravity, when you turn spin that marble, it does not influence gravity by the spin of the body, whst influences it might be uneven mass distribution, causing ghe field to change its shape with the rotation, but it does not rotate itself

>>14643668
So is assuming that we are special in any way. This thinking is what got Galileo killed.

>>14643771
not being special in any way whatsoever would actually make us extremely special, there is practically no such thing as a completely average location, there's always a few things that stand out

it seems like one thing in particular stands out on earth

>>14643782
>it seems like one thing in particular stands out on earth
What is it? God? Or just the coincidence of the right organic molecules coming together in the primeval soup in the right concentrations? I recently read a theory that bubbles from volcanic activity might have acted as some sort of petri dish, increasing the chances of reactions that could be considered the formation of life. If that's true, then you need a few things, a habitable zone, a very volcanic early period of the planet, possibly the right uranium/thorium concentrations, maybe an event like the formation of the moon that kept the Earth hot etc.
For sure not every star system has a planet like that, but in the universe? Not a single one?

>>14643788
>For sure not every star system has a planet like that, but in the universe? Not a single one?
this is the problem in your reasoning

the basis of your argument is statistical, however to make a statistical argument you need more than one data point

we only have one data point, that of the existence of life on earth, therefore we know that life is possible, however we have absolutely no idea how likely it is for it to arise, therefore life only arising once in the entire universe is equally likely as any other number

a good approximation of the number of planets in the observable universe is one septillion; if the likelihood of life arising is for example one in octillion, then it was one in a thousand that life arose even once in the observable universe, and we are alone

of course, it's also possible that there's plenty of life out there, but we don't know that, and so we can't make statistically-backed arguments like "surely there's too many planets out there for ours to be the only one with life", because that is fallacious reasoning

>>14643801
>if the likelihood of life arising is for example one in octillion, then it was one in a thousand that life arose even once in the observable universe, and we are alone
Yes, so it's necessary to estimate the likelihood. Not doing that and just saying "we are special" is like rolling a die once, getting a 6 and feeling like the power of god ran through your arms when you rolled that die.

>>14643815
we don't have the data needed to estimate the likelihood of life arising, no matter how necessary you think it is

>>14640140
Or the moon

>>14643815
here, i recommend watching these videos if you're interested in this topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqEmYU8Y_rI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLbbpRYRW5Y

>>14643824
Thanks. I know, this sounds stupid if I hang around on 4chan, but I don't feel like I have the time for such videos. But I appreciate it.

>>14640144
What's LIMA?

>>14644688
LIMA balls

>>14640144
Doesn't matter polar orbits are hard, there are still quite a number satellites in this type of orbit and it's the only satellites I see from my latitude (Ireland) so there should be lots of pictures.

>>14642213
Respond this

Gravity well is not motionless, it is moving, does this not give constant extra energy, by the walls of the well dragging an object in that well?

>>14642333
>Does the moon constantly thrust to not fall down to earth? Dumbass.
The Earth moves, meaning the earths gravity well moves, meaning the earths moving gravity well thrusts the moon

>>14643675
I'm more so wondering how much the earths multiple motions (revolutions, rotation) at velocities, effect the phenomenon of gravity.

I'm having a hard time thinking, if Earth existed entirely motionless in free space (between galaxies, let's say god gave us this space to experiment in) it would effect the surrounding gravity field in a way;

That a mass could more easily travel in this extent than breaking through the wall at the limit of the extent of this well.

And if you threw masses around this motionless earth, they would just orbit for a million years;

I don't see how that could be so, I don't see how the gravity fields walls can be frictionless;

Whereas there is a range of friction that would be negligible if the walls were moving (possibly also rotating) in a direction.

>>14643817
We do have an awareness of pattern repetition, a relatively small amount of elements, and the robustness and variety that a single style of organism, DNA variety developed and flourished on Earth.

If we were only in one small community of earth, before contacting other societies, and aware of how large the earth was, what would have encouraged our betting one way or the other that there was other types of humans on the earth, let alone animals

>>14640140
>why can't you explore it freely? what are they hiding there?
Pyramids and other Atlantean ruins.

>>14640149
>Again: polar orbits be hard.
No they aren't, we've had satellites in polar orbits for more than 50 years.

>>14640420
>You can't just park a satelite above the poles for a few days?
Of course not. The only place that works is directly over the equator. And the only reason that works is because the earth is spinning at the same speed, keeping pace with the satellite orbiting around it.

>>14644777
Wrong. The earth provides thrust to the moon through tidal forces, because the earth spins 30x faster than the moon orbits.

The moon is artificial and hollow it was placed in our orbit for a purpose.

>spend billions of dollars sending robots into space to find frozen water maybe
>We still have fuck all clue what goes on in our own oceans

I don't get it either

>>14644809
we don't know if life on earth started only once or several times, so what you're saying is moving the discussion into the viability of life traveling to distant places instead of how likely it is for life to start in separate places

if you were as ignorant about the viability of travel to distant islands on earth as we are today ignorant of the viability of traveling to distant interstellar planets, there would be no bet to take

>>14644838
>>spend billions of dollars sending robots into space to find frozen water maybe
Finding frozen water is trivial. You can see frozen water on Mars using a telescope in your backyard.

inb4
>ackshully most of that is dry ice
A common but incorrect belief. The polar ice caps of Mars are predominantly water ice. Three kilometers thick of water ice, in the case of the northern ice cap.

>>14644853
Who gives a fuck anyway? There's insane alien-like species in our oceans so deep sunlight cant reach them and yet somehow they developed gamer faggot LED skin

>>14644862
It's just a weird fish bro. Probably doesn't even taste good.

>>14644864
Good point, good point

>>14644817
So if you shot 1 satelite straight up from the north pole, and 1 straight up from the south pole;

And then deadend their momentum when they reached an orbitabal height. What would happen over time to their position, and how?

>>14644821
Describe the base physical mechanism of tidal forces? How is the tidal forces distributed, not via the gravity well is it?

>>14645616
They would fall straight down and crash into the launch pad.

"Orbital height" is not a thing. Being in orbit means you have a horizontal velocity around the earth. You need to go sideways, and you need to go sideways FAST. Otherwise you're not in orbit and you're going to hit the ground.

>>14644849
Two shay

>>14644853
There were multiple probs on Mars right? Any probes ever land anywhere in solar system on ice or water and collect sample?

>>14645637
Wait, wait... There is no distance away from Earth's atmosphere above the poles, where if a satelite were to be placed there relatively as stationary as possible, it wouldn't be drawn towards earth?


Like starting 1 mile above the atmosphere above the pole.
10 miles
40 miles
100 miles
500 miles
1000 miles
5000 miles
10000 miles
50,000 miles
100,000 miles

A as stationary as possible satelite placed at any of those distances above the atmosphere above the pole will be drawn to the surface of the pole? And if atmosphere is too foolish of a setting for me to have used input ionosphere magnetosphere whatever you need to satisfy

>>14644849
You would admit there being much greater odds of single celled or simple life out there yes?

There are only around 100 elements or so. Some smaller percentage are more common.

Septillion galzixes or whatever you said, with 1000 billion stars in each. How many planets, composed of how many ratios of how many elements. It really just seems it's more likely for what life is, to come about else where, than not.

It seems obvious. Given the time, and quantity and quality of matter and energy.

It just mixes and does stuff. Chemical reactions, various materials, combinations, abundance

>>14645716
>There is no distance away from Earth's atmosphere above the poles, where if a satelite were to be placed there relatively as stationary as possible, it wouldn't be drawn towards earth?
No. Everything "in orbit" is going around whatever it's orbiting. The only way you can have a satellite that is always straight up is if you're at the equator and you have a satellite is so high it takes 24 hours for it to go around the earth; the same amount of time it takes the earth to spin.

>>14644849
You seem to be confident in a belief that it is more likely there is no more life in the universe than that there is.

What compels you to this conclusion?

We can agree that we don't know for sure either way. And that we only have the evidence of:
Our understanding of all Sciences
Our detection of all Galaxies

My gut tells me it's obvious all those galaxies we see contain life in them. Yours tells you they obviously do not, why?

>>14645797
it doesn't matter if it seems obvious, you don't have the necessary data to make statistical conclusions from the number of planets in the universe

the point is that it's literally and genuinely equally possible that life started only once as that it has started a million times, we just don't have the information to know otherwise

the septillion is the approximate number of planets in the observable universe by the way, not of galaxies

>>14646008
no, i'm not confident in any such thing, i'm just arguing against people who are confident in the opposite

your gut tells you something you can't make statistical claims about is statistically obvious because your gut hasn't gone to school to learn any statistics

>>14645816
I'm confused

The Earth has poles,
S = satelite
E= earth
The earth is moving some direction around the sun

E---------------------------->


You're saying theres no distance a resting satelite (man made metal satelite) can be placed above earth, that it won't fall to earths surface?

S
E


S
E


S
E
Have gravity field experiments ever been done on a completely stationary earth? Then where from comes your confidence to speak on such matters assuredly?


You will say square of distance law but really it extends infinitly? Big if true. But how physically rational is that proposition.

There is a fundamental misconnect disconnect with conceptualizing the physicallity mechanism of how gravity field exists and operates.

Because one does not attempt to conceptualize, cognize the physical mechanism, they only think in bare numerical ideals.

The gravity field must be something like a medium. It exists all through out space. Imagine earth was all that existed, in the universe, amidst the gravity field, conceptualize the physicality of the interaction. A massive sphere, existing in 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 or so Light years of gravity field space;

Earth is volume of X amount. And the deformation it makes in the field around it, really will be enough so that a satelite will feel this deformation at any distance away from it?

I know we only have earthly mediums to judge from, and they are not as large as the universe, but relatively little disturbances in a location, the rest of the medium has a way of bracing that disturbance, and nullifying it's effect at a certain distance.

>>14646286
What does statistics say about:

999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

Stars and planets

100 or so elements, 50 or so largely most common? So the first number, using ratios of the 50 or so

Over 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999
Or so amount of time.

Using your awareness of what those 100 or so elements can possibly do on Earth (the hd clarity of you vision, the setting for all of human history and technology to take place etc.)

If you had to make a bet, what would you bet on and why, more life out there in the universe or none? And you are using none of your gut?

>>14646286
What does statistics say about:

999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999^999999999999

Stars and planets

100 or so elements, 50 or so largely most common? So the first number, using ratios of the 50 or so

Over 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999
Or so amount of time.

Using your awareness of what those 100 or so elements can possibly do on Earth (the hd clarity of you vision, the setting for all of human history and technology to take place etc.)

If you had to make a bet, what would you bet on and why, more life out there in the universe or none? And you are using none of your gut?

>>14645816
>>14647903
The
S
E

In that post are suposed to be increasingly distance between them but the formatting didn't let it

>>14644812
this

>>14647903
>Then where from comes your confidence to speak on such matters assuredly?
From 8th grade physics.but really it extends infinitly? Big if true.
>But how physically rational is that proposition.
Very. We are confined by the center of our Milky Way 150 quadrillion miles away. So gravity works at least until that. We are being attracted by our neighbors in the local group, who are 10 quintillion miles away. Our local group is part of a supercluster, one sextillion miles in diameter. All bound by gravity. We might actually be part of an even larger supercluster, that's 3 sextillion miles big.
So yeah. Good luck placing that satellite to where gravity doesn't reach. The inverse square law holds up for at least for 3000000000000000000000 miles.

>>14647903
>You're saying theres no distance a resting satelite (man made metal satelite) can be placed above earth, that it won't fall to earths surface?
Put it far enough away from the earth and eventually the sun's gravity will pull on it harder than the earth, and it will begin to orbit the Sun. However since you placed it above the plane of Earth's orbit around the Sun, it's orbital plane around the sun would intersect with earth's. In other words, it would still crash into earth.

Anyway, you seem to be very confused as to how satellites work. Going to space is not a matter of going high up until you don't fall down anymore. Take a gander at this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_cannonball
This is the way all satellites work.

>>14640140
>why can't you explore it freely?
you literally can but its extremely expensive and almost impossible for a single person to solo explore all of it without being a billionaire and be an expert in polar exploration.
also it is cut into multiple slices each owned by a different country and you would get into very hot water if you travel through this land without permission from all parties involved and good luck with that with the reason of "i want to see what is there".

>>14647946
nothing, you retard, statistics doesn't give you an answer to that question, so you can't use it to make an argument

for example, if there's 10^24 planets in the universe and a total chance of 1/10^27 for life to arise on any single planet, then the odds of life starting once in the universe were 1/1000, and we are almost certainly alone

we don't have the data needed to know if the likelhood of life starting is somewhere close to 1/10^24, or higher or lower than it, so you can't say a thing about this

your reasoning is based on fallacy

>>14648048
>also it is cut into multiple slices each owned by a different country and you would get into very hot water if you travel through this land without permission from all parties involved
I bet nobody would give a fuck. What they gonna do? Send the police to arrest you in the middle of Antarctica?

>>14644688
Landsat Image Mosaic of Antarctica

>>14648546
>I bet nobody would give a fuck
try it and report back.

>>14648048
Antarctica isn't owned by anyone and the claims don't stop you from going. Literally the only power they would have over you is not letting you into their bases but they don't even have the power to remove you from the premises if you just walk in to check it out and lets be honest if you just showed up in in one of the russian bases or something I bet they would be delighted to let you because when does something like that happen, they are bored humans in there as well

>>14648813
my agent is on the way.
I expect him to report back soon.

>>14647969
But the galaxy is many many many massive objects rotating in relative proximity, making the central black hole perform a novel gravity field activity,

Anyway, the gravity field at large in the milky way is robustly relatively stationary compared to the revolving stars? Or gravity field itself is moving in the direction of the stars

>>14648130
Ok, so based on you gut and your brain which bet would you take? No life out there, or life?

>>14651346
i wouldn't take either, that's the point you illiterate moron, we just don't know

you're trying to force a decision before there is any way to know, you're forcing a false dichotomy

>>14651444
If you were forced to geuss a hypothesis based on all available knowledge, observation, evidence. What would you geuss? Scientests make geusses, deductions, hypothesis' all the time, there is theories stated with believed certainty as to the material make up and consistency of the center of the Earth, has that been detected or measured?

If you had to geuss one way or the other, what pushes you in one direction the slightest slightest bit more than the other?

>>14652015
>If you were forced
>If you had to
if all available knowledge is insufficient to say either way, i would honestly tell you that i don't know and can't know without more data

i would not try to force a false dichotomy like a scientismist midwit

>>14652024
Well it's not a false dichotomy, it's a true dichotomy: Either other life exists beyond Earth, or Not.

My gut, my instincts, my knowledge, my wisdom, my intelligence, my senses, my understanding, my imagination, if I HAD to geuss and bet, I would say there are advanced intelligent civilizations elsewhere in the universe.

Entirely meaningless for me to say, I agree, but I've got a coin flip chance of being right. And we can't say if it turns out this guess is right, that I had true knowledge, but perhaps I can be given some credit, that the sum total of my fuzzy deductive efforts, did allign with some trancendent fact, which steered me over to its side of agreement

>>14653021
i mean in an omniscient sense, you're right, but you're not right in practical terms, it's a false dichotomy that you can decide on the answer of something you don't have the necessary knowledge for

>>14643500
checked mate