Why Are Rocky Planets Closer To The Sun?
(Already did a thing on this, they have found one such system and they didn't tell you what kinda star it was, which, if it was one like ours, I'm sure they would have said something so that leaves, no solar system found to date with two gas giants in the outer portion orbiting a star like ours and the article concludes with:
"...Sun blew away the gaseous layers of the planets closest to it, leaving them small and rocky."
(So why didn't it do the something everywhere else then?
Early it was stated:
"Scientists have found many solar systems in which gaseous planets (many of which are even more massive than the gas giants of our solar system) are the ones closest to their stars."
(??????????
Ya see folks?
We are a lil unique.
And
that's putting it mildly.
WAY mildly.
But what I want to call attention to
is the last sentence from that piece:
"How lucky for us!"
(How much "Luck" is really involved when everything we keep finding just keeps telling us over and over and over again that
we are the
EXCEPTION
to everything
we keep finding.
WHY ARENT THEY POINT THAT OUT?
INSTEAD OF THEIR MULTIVERSE CREATION MYTH THAT IS THE DOGMA OF THEIR SCIENTISM FAITH?
SERIOUSLY?
YALL CANT FIGURE THIS OUT?
WTF?
Speaking of multiverse:
Estimating the odds for intelligent life in the multiverse
"Intelligent life in the universe requires the existence of stars and worlds around stars, as far as we know."
(Right...)
"Estimating the chances for intelligent life
The chances of intelligent life emerging in our universe – and in any hypothetical ones beyond it – is something astronomers
(Not biologist mind you.
Astronomers
These guys just simply
dont know shit about life apparently.)
"have now estimated, using a new theoretical model with echoes of the famous Drake Equation.
"the minimal assumption that the probability of generating observers is proportional to this efficiency"
Their paper says.
False premises
never end in
truthful conclusions.
They set it up all wrong from the start.
THEY ARE COMPLETELY OMITTING
THE INFORMATION NEEDED,
in the 8 billion character,
complex,
highly sequential
genetic code
(DNA)
that
everything,
every
single thing
that has ever
processed oxygen
has had in it
to be able to live
in the only place
that we
KNOW
that life
has existed.
And from the other article above?
And all the just crazy precise ratios
and physical constants
and initial conditions of both the universe
and the physical laws that govern it?
We know just what a miracle it is
the universe is even here
let alone us be in it.)
"The new research does not attempt to calculate the absolute number of observers (i.e., intelligent life) in the universe. But instead, it considers the relative probability of a randomly chosen observer inhabiting a universe with particular properties."
And that is where it is flawed from the start.
They are leaving out
the one thing
we know
you have to have
and that is
INFORMATION.
You can everything else you need.
No information?
No life.
Kinda like:
"life in the universe requires the existence of stars and worlds around stars, as far as we know"
As far as we know?
it needs information.
(The opposite of Random BTW)
From what we see?
You know,
real science?
Based on observation.
Everything that has ever lived
That we know about?
Has had it.
They aren't even
factoring it in,
in their consideration.
Daniele Sorini, John A Peacock, and Lucas Lombriser?
Your methodology is faulty from the beginning.
Your study is hereby pronounce dead on arrival.
Go figure something else out but hey, at least you got something published with your names on it right? This lil self perpetuating ecosystem yall got going on is absolute nonsense.
And members of
"the community"
know it.)
"It concludes that a typical observer would expect to experience a substantially larger density of dark energy than we see in our own universe. And that suggests the ingredients our universe possesses make it a rare and unusual case in the multiverse.
("...the ingredients our universe possesses
make it a rare and unusual case..."
And that is
WITHOUT
even considering
the information needed
(as far as we know)
in the genetic code
We are:
"a rare and unusual case"
What did the other article close with?
"How lucky for us!"
How many times you gotta get
"lucky"
before you figure out
it aint luck?
Start factoring out all the probabilities
involved and its pretty easy to see
the likelihood of chance is so small
such as to be considered absurd.
As in
to many zero to be a possibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment