Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

stargazine_ep24_banner.thumb.jpg.56e65b9c9549c15ed3f06e146fc5f5f1.jpg

Recommended Posts

This channel is really cool.  Informative, short but well explained.   I noticed some members didn’t recognize his welcome line, so decided to put some links on this forum.    
 

Here another recent clip.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"....survived for 3 years...  proof of panspermia

And this week's award for sensationalist extrapolation goes to... !

Without the original references these sort of presentations are useless.  I highly doubt  that the scientists involved made the claims he is promoting here in either of these presentations

 

EDIT 2020-10-15:  the quote "....survived for 3 years...  proof of panspermia"   was a direct quote from the headline on the embedded video at the time I posted my reply. This has been changed several times by the youtuber since then, possibly as a result of my comments, I don't know.  It is a good example of why nobody should embed content from a website they do not control or trust 100% or comment on posts containing embedded content since this can be changed without any indication it has been edited

Edited by robin_astro
comment added clarifying that the post referred to has been altered
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, robin_astro said:

"....survived for 3 years...  proof of panspermia

And this week's award for sensationalist extrapolation goes to... !

Without the original references these sort of presentations are useless.  I highly doubt  that the scientists involved made the claims he is promoting here in either of these presentations

There is of course always room for doubt, but read some more about it please.   
 

I might found the explanation interesting because of all options, this was always my favorite, most likely etc.  
 

And questioning theories is what makes it fun to think about.   Otherwise life is so simple.  

Edited by Robindonne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Robindonne said:

 but read some more about it please.   
 

Yes let's do this where we can read what the professional scientists actually found rather than following these clickbait headlines

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2020.02050/full

https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2020/09/surprise-on-mars.html

ie the experiment did not "prove panspermia" and nothing "strange happens on mars during an eclipse"

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if my link touched your heartstrings and your other view of our origins.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Robindonne said:

Sorry if my link touched your heartstrings and your other view of our origins.  

The universe does not care about my view of our origins (and neither should you as you have no idea who I am, what my views on the subject are or if I have any knowledge of  the subject) The same is true of our youtuber though so I made a point of following up the source publications, which should be included in any scientific presentation.  The story often turns out, as here to be very different but equally interesting. For example the actual story behind the spurious mars seismometer signal (caused by a small thermally induced deformation in the top <1mm thick layer of the Martian surface) is that it could perhaps be used to improve the accuracy of our predictions of the orbit of Phobos which is important for future missions. Who would have though it !

Edited by robin_astro
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was wondering if any of you watched this or other clips from Anton? Forget the clickbait reactions, just watch an episode and judge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Robindonne said:

Was wondering if any of you watched this or other clips from Anton? Forget the clickbait reactions, just watch an episode and judge

  I don't understand what anyone gets from spreading such anti science nonsense.  There's too much of this on cable TV and the internet where people take a couple of facts or opinions and then invent sensationalist rubbish just to get attention.

Try real science sites like https://www.youtube.com/user/TheRoyalInstitution/videos where real science is presented in an interesting and informative way.

Michael

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Synchronicity said:

  I don't understand what anyone gets from spreading such anti science nonsense.  There's too much of this on cable TV and the internet where people take a couple of facts or opinions and then invent sensationalist rubbish just to get attention.

Try real science sites like https://www.youtube.com/user/TheRoyalInstitution/videos where real science is presented in an interesting and informative way.

Michael

So you didn’t watch his video?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just watched the video and while I am sure @robin_astro is right that the science papers did not make claims for panspermia  I don't  think the presenter did either. As a born sceptic I was surprised at how restrained his claims were

In fact it was not unlike The Sky at Night episode on the PH3 discovery on Venus. He was just as circumspect as Greaves et al and told a scientific "just so" story not unlike their "hypothesis " paper. They even finished in the same way proposing more research.

Regards Andrew 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, andrew s said:

have just watched the video and while I am sure @robin_astro is right that the science papers did not make claims for panspermia  I don't  think the presenter did either.

No correct.   Its not that i’ve lived under a rock, and suffer from some sort of lack of filtering the “clickbaits” from informative and objective info.  I think the subject was a wrong chosen one.  The achilles’ heel for some groups on this globe.  
 

But its a shame if you don’t soak up parts of his other info, just because you have an aversion to panspermia.  

Edited by Robindonne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Robindonne said:

No correct.   Its not that i’ve lived under a rock, and suffer from some sort of lack of filtering the “clickbaits” from informative and objective info.  I think the subject was a wrong chosen one.  The achilles’ heel for some groups on this globe

Sorry can you say what I was incorrect about? Was it that the original papers authors did claim to prove panspermia , that the presenter did or both?

I was trying to be supportive to you point of view on this video but I may have misjudged what you intended.

Regards Andrew 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Robindonne said:

So you didn’t watch his video?

The video was titled "Japanese space mission that may have proved Panspermia" which is contradictory.  They either proved it or they didn't.  A correct title might have said the mission investigated the possibility.

You then confused the issue by posting "We Now Have a Definitive Proof Of Panspermia Being Possible" which is not what the video claims - even in its clickbait title.

In science ideas are floated and tested.  Those that get through initial tests get investigated in more depth.  An idea might become a hypothesis which might become a theory which might become the widely accepted.  This process doesn't come about from lots of people trying to prove that the theory is correct, it comes about by lots of people trying to prove it incorrect and failing.

Videos like this make hysterical claims about whatever by doing exactly the opposite that science does.  They never actually contribute to people learning something, they add to confusion simply to get clicks or views or whatever the makers desire.  Cable TV is full of 'Ancient Aliens' and garbage like that because it's cheaper to make, easier to exagerate and more sensational than real science.

You might think I'm rude or offensive and I apologise if I've hurt your feelings.  That won't stop me from condemning anyone for pushing anti science sensationalist nonsense.

Michael

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, andrew s said:

@Synchronicity I would perhaps be mindful that English is not his first language.  Regards Andrew

I hadn't considered that Andrew so if I have made any wrong assumptions based on that I'll apologise.

Michael

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always feel I'd be interested to know how they propose the "sperm" is transported
from space to ground (zero) without being "fried". The other half of the hypothesis? 🤔

I found the video entertaining / meritorius etc. - Ultimately "innocuous enough" etc. 🙂

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, andrew s said:

I have just watched the video and while I am sure @robin_astro is right that the science papers did not make claims for panspermia  I don't  think the presenter did either. As a born sceptic I was surprised at how restrained his claims were

The headline and linked video the top of this page has been changed several times during the life of this thread, (The problem with hot Iinking)  I dont know who changed it or why  (possibly as a result of my criticism.)  but the original headline clearly stated that  "panspermia had been proved" as I said in my first post. 

Robin

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, robin_astro said:

The headline and linked video the top of this page has been changed several times during the life of this thread, (The problem with hot Iinking)  I dont know who changed it or why  (possibly as a result of my criticism.)  but the original headline clearly stated that  "panspermia had been proved" as I said in my first post. 

Robin

They seek him here, they seek him there, they seek panspermia every where.

Thanks for the clarification @robin_astro I did not doubt your comments were correct but this explains the different perspective we had from watching the video(s).🪐

Regards Andrew 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Robindonne said:

No correct.   Its not that i’ve lived under a rock, and suffer from some sort of lack of filtering the “clickbaits” from informative and objective info.  I think the subject was a wrong chosen one.  The achilles’ heel for some groups on this globe.  
 

But its a shame if you don’t soak up parts of his other info, just because you have an aversion to panspermia.  

I never expressed an opinion on panspermia one way or the other. I don't  know how you can know what I "soaked up" from the presentation.  You seem to have a tendency to ascribe views to others without any evidence.  I will leave it here.

Regards Andrew 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, robin_astro said:

The headline and linked video the top of this page has been changed several times during the life of this thread, (The problem with hot Iinking)  I dont know who changed it or why  (possibly as a result of my criticism.)  but the original headline clearly stated that  "panspermia had been proved" as I said in my first post. 

Robin

Would you have reacted differently if the headline of this thread was changed?   Because it didn’t.  My post was never to push some theories.   It was actually a post because of his welcome line “Hello wonderful people”.  That same welcome was used by a sgl member in another post. I asked that sgl member about Antons channel.  He didn’t know him and therefore i posted this link.  The link is never changed nor was the headline. I added a second link, only to show this guy is not a clickbait fool.  
 

the bitter reaction was on the present and never changed headline on this topic.  Therefore my only conclusion was: or R-astro is very religious or he has his own channel.   

3 hours ago, andrew s said:

Sorry can you say what I was incorrect about? Was it that the original papers authors did claim to prove panspermia , that the presenter did or both?

I was trying to be supportive to you point of view on this video but I may have misjudged what you intended.

Regards Andrew 

Sorry.  I meant: No you are correct indeed.  I could also not find any sensationalism in this guys videos.  So i think you’re right.  Thx for accentuating the video is a non-panspermia-theory-pushing video.

 

2 hours ago, Synchronicity said:

You might think I'm rude or offensive and I apologise if I've hurt your feelings. 

lol no apologies needed.   Its not that i take all reactions so serious😉

3 hours ago, andrew s said:

I was trying to be supportive to you point of view on this video but I may have misjudged what you intended.

 Thank you for that!

 

So to make an end to this post, a post that was born after a sgl-er (by coincidence) used the same welcoming as the guy from the linked videos. I can only conclude that the panspermia theory triggers a lot of emotions.  And although the chance is very small that the panspermia theory is correct, for me it equals all other theories about our origins, and therefore its just a matter of choice.  
I can understand that for some groups, this theory is impossible.   I can only laugh when i hear why its impossible.  
 

Robin-astro, if can help me remembering the initial headline, please let me know.   I might suffer from dementia. But as far as i know, an edited post shows its edited?

Edited by Robindonne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, andrew s said:

I never expressed an opinion on panspermia one way or the other. I don't  know how you can know what I "soaked up" from the presentation.  You seem to have a tendency to ascribe views to others without any evidence.  I will leave it here.

Regards Andrew 

Sorry Andrew.  The “you” in the “ its a shame when you dont soak up” was not you as in Andrew.  More like in a general sense.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the episode linked in the first post. It basically says that the building blocks of life are found in the solar system, and that some lifeforms are able to survive in space - at least for a short time. This does not imply that life is able to come into existence elsewhere in the universe, nor that life exists throughout the universe (the panspermia hypothesis). In my opinion, this is sufficiently put forward by the presenter but he really jumps to some conclusions very quickly, giving the video a kind of incoherent and unscientific feel.

Oh, and water bears are cool. But that's not a hypothesis, that's a fact 😏.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Robindonne said:


Robin-astro, if can help me remembering the initial headline, please let me know.   I might suffer from dementia. But as far as i know, an edited post shows its edited?

The youtube screen grab and the current headline that says  "Japanese mission that may have proved panspermia" Is not the original. Each time I looked it had been changed. This is at least the 3rd version

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.