andrew s

Yes it does. It managed very nicely before we existed and will carry on regardless once we have gone. Regards Andrew

It's very simple. It's what my English teacher thought was between my ears. More importantly, the Universe is totally unconcerned about whether we can comprehend it or not. It just is. Regards Andrew

Indeed there are. I recall looking into this some 50yrs ago. I can't remember the details but non equilibrium thermodynamics can drive the creation of complex molecules some of which can become auto-catalytic. These types of process can generate the pre life self replicating entities. When that transitions into life is a whole new debate on what is life. Regards Andrew

The eye brain system is very good at selecting moments of good seeing. That's how our visual forebears managed to see such fine details on the moon and planets. Not withstanding a few deluded missteps by some observers. Regards Andrew

I have added counter weights of either roofing lead suitable cut up or small free weights hung on strips of aluminium suitably attached. Regards Andrew

I would not argue with that but the printing press made a step change in the availability of recorded material. It released it from the confines of the monastery, royal libraries or similar repositories and made it available to the population at large. Regards Andrew

I would never have described you thus 😮. Regards Andrew

Have a look at this. Regards Andrew

You are a curmudgeonly old astronomer always looking at the downside 😊. What technology has done from the printing press onwards has allowed us to share and pool our intelegence. No longer are we limited to a single brain and the limits of our individual computational powers and memory. 😁 Regards an unreasonably optimistic old astronomer.

Sorry for the delay @ollypenrice I did a reply yesterday but was unhappy with it and deleted it. I would split the notion into unimagined ( possible to imagine but no one has done so yet and unimaginable ( impossible for us to imagine). The first, unimagined, is a large, possibly, infinite set. This covers most of what has been refered to as "unimaginable" in previous posts. The second, unimaginable, is an empty set in my view. I believe this because, given any necessary technological support, we could perceive any life that could possibly exist within the constraints of physical laws. Not to say we can't imagine much that could not exist as sci fi has clearly demonstrated. These are certainly beliefs not science and drifting into linguistic philosophy something I rejected sometime ago. 🧐 Regards Andrew

Of course I can't imagine everything nor can anyone. However, that does not mean somethings are unimaginable in the sense they could never be imagined by a human brain. Obviously, what is "unimagined" at a given epoch is irrelevant to if they are imaginable or not. Things like transistors or arc lights were imagined. What I objected to was an implication that some types of intelligent lifeforms were in principle unimaginable. Maybe I misunderstood. Regards Andrew

How about complex numbers what were their precursors in your view? Einstein's thought experiments while trying to understand observed phenomenon resulted in new concepts, for example a universal speed limit. Regards Andrew

It would depend on the context. 1 I can imagine an omnipotent God but I don't know how it would manifest itself. 2 I could observe the outcome of some event and not know what caused it. However, on my position I could imagine possibilities. Regards Andrew

But.. ...they imagined gods, angles, celestial spheres and much more. We will have to agree to differ Regards Andrew

Why is our imagination limited. Is there any evidence of this? Regards Andrew

I didn't say we know what it is just that we can imagine it. Of course you can imagine something made the noise outside that's all that's needed. Godels theorems roughly say in theories based on axioms there are true statements which can't be proven from the axioms. We can not only imagine such statements but prove they exist. I am not saying we know exactly what these "unimaginable" life forms are like but it seems to me we can imagine them existing just just by being able to make the statement. Regards Andrew

I really don't understand such a position. How can we define anything other than by our standards? It's our language we define words meaning how else could it be? In science fiction there are many examples of no-corporeal beings including Star Trek. In making the statement "The possibilities for life are unimaginable to us..." you are imaging such life forms! Regards Andrew

I am having difficulty grasping what you intend "intelligence " to mean in this context. What characteristic would it have in your view? How would you recognise it at all let alone as more or less advanced. If you can't imagine what it might be like is it not an empty term or a synonym for different? Regards Andrew

Very true but they are in this regard no different from the more familiar terms like atom or electron. We have been able to probe their properties better but nonetheless they are just names for components of our models. What they "mean" depends on the theory. The idea of an atom in classical physics is different from that in old quantum theory and different again to that in QFT. These are again far different the pondering of Democritus. Regards Andrew

Not sure what you mean? 27% of the mass of the solar system? We would be tripping over it. The 27% is the total but it is not uniformly distributed as it lacks the EM interaction it can't accreate in the same way ordinary matter does by frictional heating and radiating away energy . Regards Andrew

I am a counter example to this assertion. I belive we have probed the the full energy and size ranges realistically accessible to us. We have to look at astronomical events to go further which bring it's own challenges. In my view it is not the lack of ideas, hypothesis and brain power that is the issue but the lact of new phenomena that can guide the thinking. Yes we have dark energy and matter but they illustrate the difficulty with astronomical observations alone. If I recall The Sky at Night correctly the total mass of suspected dark matter in the solar system is about the mass if a squirrel. Difficult to experiment on! Regards Andrew PS I forgot to say I have a PhD in physics so I meet the criteria 😊 PPS In the context of the OPs question I find the "are we alone" question deeply uninteresting. It's grant bait! But, I am an old cynic.

Yes and no. Yes it's always legitimate but no it's not science. For it to be science you need to have your hypothesis make predictions which are at least in principle testable. Regards Andrew

"Hey, blue There is a song for you Ink on a pin Underneath the skin An empty space to fill in" Joni Mitchell Impressive @ollypenrice Regards Andrew

Two points. Flats, properly applied, remove fixed pattern noise due to pixel response differences. The dominant noise a high signal levels. This then makes shot noise the dominant noise. With some ASI CMOS cameras they have different response at very short exposures compared to 1s or more although in the example both regions were linear. See C Buils spectroscopy Web site. Regards Andrew

What are you trying to observe? We can't see infra red. Regards Andrew