Re: Thomas Gold on alien life deep under the surface

[Joe Latrell]

Given all that, I would agree that the galatic panspermia concept is a 
bit hard to swallow, but the biosphere/hydrocarbon theory has some merit 
(in my opinion) because it is a bit more graceful than the concept that 
hydrocarbons as we use them are all just 'dinosaur goop' as my kids like 
to say.  The difficulty is proving the concept such that it does require 
a 'magic happens' moment.

Anyway I think the matrix for life is integrated into the design of 
universe and therefore it can develop anywhere the right ingredients 
happen to be - basic building blocks, food source, etc.  The hard part 
is proving that.  But they did say the same thing about exo-planets 
(can't prove them until you find one).  Then one was found they started 
popping up like daisies. I guess we won't know until we get smart enough 
to develop the right method of testing.

So is this horse beaten enough yet? ;)
Joe L.

Michael Turner wrote:
Back on topic, I think that a lot of good ideas that deserve a good long 
look never make it to the light of day because they are scuttled by 
scientific scrutinity at too early a stage.  It is always good to have 
some solid science behind you but Einstein was treated no better than 
Gold has been when he first proposed his theories.  Only by 
experimentation was Einsein given any creedence.

Actually, what initially gave Einstein credence was (a) that there
were no better explanations at the time for his theories of
Brownian motion, the photoelectric effect, and the odd results
of Michaelson and Morley, and (b) in at least two his three 
trailblazing theories he published in 1905, he had the backing
of reputable physicists.  Millikan verified the quantum nature
of the photoelectric effect within 12 years of Einstein's
publication.  Einstein's model of Brownian motion was almot
immediately useful.  Relativity took longer (Einstein did NOT
get the Nobel for relativity), and if relativity had been Einstein's
only ace card, he might have held onto it longer, even at the
risk of someone else announcing first.  In short, Einstein was
a conservative in a field in a stagnation crisis, where there was
much theory that didn't match observable reality, and in which
something had to be done.  And he produced his results in
a fairly conservative manner, given the groundbreaking nature
of the theories.  Quantum theory is particularly interesting in
its emergence - both Planck and Einstein agreed that they
were looking at mathematical results that had only one merit:
their new equations worked, the old equations didn't.  They
didn't have much else to present, so they presented that -
duly noting their discomfort with the results.  Within a decade,
their queasy offering was well on its way to general acceptance.
Physics had no choice.

Thomas Gold has enjoyed a few endorsements, but not many,
from the mainstream (and I don't know what those endorsers
would say now); as well, he's up against theories that already
explain an awful lot.

To make a long diatribe short, it's all theory until proof happens.  The 
catch becomes devising the experiments using sound scientific practice.

That's to make a long diatribe too short.  Proposing a theory
when there are good alternative explanations is an entirely
different game than proposing a theory when there are no
other explanations.  The state of physics in Einstein's early
years favored revolutionary conservatism, because there
was no other way forward.  And Einstein didn't want to be
a patent clerk the rest of his life - he wanted to move
forward, and in the right way.
-michael turner
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
==
You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
==
You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/