Could Nasa's James Webb Space Telescope detect alien life?

This never works. If NASA were to propose some falsehood, we'd know about it in short order - from every university and every scientific organization in the world.

Science isn't secretive.

 

Interesting how many people believe science is not objective and is more motivated by personal opinions and how they might be funded. I suspect some of this stems from people who find personal conflict with science, for example, how science might challenge their religion or politics. It's quite ironic since people who believe this and offer their subjectivity are doing exactly what they claim some scientists might do without regard to reviewing the scientific processes involved. In the true scientific process the general public does not need to be cynical...

 

Amen. Science phobia leads people to being susceptible to false claims by those who have an agenda.

So, we hear about how admitting to climate change means giant tax bills, or how single payer would mean bad care or high bills, or how <whatever> would lead to high tax bills.

 

What do you mean by how they work, Will? I think of it as mechanical things work and we're not talking mechanical here are we.

 

You obviously don't know the difference between real science and bogus science. One day you might - it depends on how smart or otherwise you are? I'm assuming that 'people' means me?

 

I look at it another way; if someone tells me something about which I have doubt or suspicion, I expect them to have proof if they expect me to believe what they told me: I don't believe something just because the informant has a perceived gravitas, because history is littered with 'experts' who've been exposed as charlatans.

 

If you were an astrophysicist in say, Germany, and on a lucrative salary mainly for speculating on various aspects of space/the universe, would you risk it all by making waves about a notional discovery made by another university or agency, knowing that you might be skating on thin ice? Of course you wouldn't - you'd keep your head down to ensure your salary cheques keep on going into your bank every month.

 

The astrophysicist is probably not speculating. Mostly they are gathering data either to support or refute whatever they're working on. The salary isn't lucrative, academics are poorly paid, especially when their level of qualification is taken into account. They absolutely would make waves about a discovery made by another institution because academics are notoriously competitive and this would be an opportunity to both destroy a rival and to increase your own profile at the same time. This kind of "double bubble" would be an academic's wet dream.

During the cold war, the US and Soviet Union were always trying to damage each others international reputation. If one had any opportunity to downplay the other's achievements (the US landing on the moon or the Soviet's Lunokhod programme), then they would have jumped at the opportunity. The idea that the international cabal of scientists have, to a man or woman, held the line and that their power and influence exceeds that of national governments engaged in a propaganda war is ridiculous.

 

And even that - how do we know how much of it was fact and how much of it was fiction? Answer - we don't know! These agencies need government funding, and they'll only get it by constantly proving how vital they are for the respective nations' prestige. So they won't challenge anything, because they're all in the same trade and for obvious reasons (I use the term again) won't make any waves. Like I keep saying, it has become a global industry, and (using an analogy) if you want it to keep the roundabout spinning around then you have to keep pushing it.

 

There's a point at which every conspiracy theory jumps the shark - so to speak.

In this case, the idea that the Soviet Union would fail to ridicule the US's moon landing achievements because the Soviet scientists wield so much power has Fonzie in mid-air over the Selachimorph.

 

But whenever anyone provides any proof to any of your assertions you then claim that you're bored of the thread and run away to create yet another same type of thread

 

WE.know, you as usual do not!

 

The planets all have geology. Some have magnetospheres. Some have atmospheres. They share history of our solar system. Etc.

Yes, I mean how our natural systems work - not how the tools humans build work.

 

We know the names of those scientists who rocked their world - who presented sound ideas that were contrary to the accepted understanding of their time.

Those who went along to get along? Not so much.

The others we don't know so well are those who got it wrong.

In general, "keep your head down" doesn't really work that well. The measure in science has more to do with whether you are right. Of course, perversions happen. But, science is specifically designed to exclude failed ideas as well as those who fake results or make false claims.

I wish the same sort of exclusionary measures were available in other areas - like politics, the news, etc.

 

If you were smart you would know when I mention 'people' it is in the context of the words that follow...

 

But they haven't have they? All they've done is to offer speculative theories, and scientific equations which are totally meaningless in the context of this conversation. But I understand that, because the kind of proof I need isn't available. I mean how can anyone prove there's machinery on the surface of Mars? The fact is nobody can, they can only suppose there is.

 

The frustrating thing is that you cannot even say what you think constitutes proof for you.

As regards proving that there is machinery on Mars, if you won't even accept that signals can be sent from Mars and received on Earth then you're right, it's impossible to prove to you that there is machinery on Mars but that's because you've set an unachievable burden of proof and are dismissing all evidence.

 

Oh I'm smart - you need have no doubt about that. But the construct of your post was promulgating things which I'd said, and it made me feel like a third party; and as in real life I don't like (excuse the vapid phrase) 'being talked about behind my back'. In other words, if you refer to stuff I've said, talk to me, not about me?

 

Just because you do not understand those equations does not mean they are meaningless or not valid

 

Okay but that is likely to put us at odds with the rules on this board

I have said to you before to use Occams Razor

May I suggest you look it up?

 

I'm sorry to be frustrating you, but supposing that we can agree those signals might be coming from Mars, and are being transmitted by Curiosity? To continue the scenario, we're invited by NASA to have a listen-in? Upon hearing them, how would either of us be able to know where they're coming from? Would we have to take NASA's word for it? If so, it might be proof to yourself if you believe it, but it wouldn't constitute proof positive to me. In other words, you're right when you say that it's an 'unachievable burden of proof', but just because it is unachievable doesn't mean the default must be to believe it.

You might think I'm being neurotic about it all, and especially where NASA is concerned, but don't forget we live in this weird era of fake news and outright lies from our 'lords and masters' and their agents? I'll go further by saying that I actually believe that this is just another form of dumbing down. Crudely put, 'Give the plebs their bread and circuses and they'll not be interested in the important things.'?

 

Oh shut up about effing Occams Razor!

 

Simple, there's a couple of ways...

If you have two receivers an appreciable distance apart. By measuring the angle of the signal, you can calculate the distance using parallax. That, combined with the direction fixes the location of the source of the signal. The signal is a "tight beam" if you're slightly off, you won't receive the signal.

Alternatively you can just calculate the time lag on the signal which, multiplied by the speed of light will give you distance. That, combined with the direction fixes your signal source.

I don't think you're being neurotic, I think you're being wilfully ignorant. By continuing to get your "NASA news" from tabloid rags like the Daily Express, Daily Mail and Daily Star you're ensuring that you can maintain your outrage. You'd have less to complain about if you actually read the NASA press release (if there actually is one - the "OMFG Asteroid !!!11!!!!!!!1!11!!" stories don't even come from NASA press releases, they're the result of hacks selectively interpreting the rather dry NASA tables of near Earth objects) but that's not really the point for you is it ?

You're convinced that "90% of it is a scam" (though you're curiously reluctant to say what the 10% is, though you have mentioned pictures of hurricanes) and so you're keeping the old feedback loop going so as to maintain that view.

 

Well apart from the fact that you've got around to insulting me, your intemperate defensiveness tells me everything I need to know - indeed it confirms what I've already concluded about you. Smart as you obviously are, you're being suckered, and what you really take exception to is that it took an an ignoramus like myself to break it to you. Think 'the emperor's new clothes'? Have a good day - or life, or whatever. and over and out.

 

Okay...lets use this instead. Given the choice between believing in a massive conspiracy enacted by thousands of people, organizations, countries and scientist specifically to fool YOU into believing something or the possibility that humans have figured out how to go into space....which choice seems more likely?