Sugar molecules discovered in space may hint at the possibility of life outside the earth
Organic sugar molecules, which are now believed to be related to the origin of life, were discovered in an area of the galaxy where habitable planets may exist.
An international group of scientists who used the IRAM radio telescope in France, found the molecules in an area where vigorous star formation activity takes place, which is 26 thousand light years away from Earth.
"This is an important discovery. This is the first time that glycoaldehyde, the base of sugar, has been discovered in a star-forming region where planets have the potential to support life," said Dr. Sarna Vitti, one of the editors of the article. Glycaldehyde can react with other substances and form ribose, one of the main components of the RNA nucleus, which is now believed to have been the central molecule from which life arose.
Glycaldehyde molecules have so far been discovered near the center of our galaxy, where conditions are extreme compared to the rest of the galaxy. However, its discovery in the area far from the center of the galaxy, in the area known as 'G31.41+0.31', leads us to the conclusion that the production of this important element for life can be widespread throughout the galaxy. This is good news in our search for extraterrestrial life, because the wide distribution of the molecule improves the chances of its existence alongside other molecules essential to life, and in areas where Earth-like planets may exist.
Prof. Keith Mason, CEO of STFC, said that "the discovery of an organic sugar molecule in the region where stars are formed is exciting. This discovery will provide useful information in our search for life in space. Studies like this, combined with an extensive array of other astronomical projects, will continue to expand our knowledge of the universe." Mason specifically referred to the British teams that had a considerable contribution in the discovery.
67 תגובות
Or: One of the interesting things on the site are the "religious" comments, and you can learn a lot from them (at least I did), if you take a look at most of the articles you will see that when there are no "religious" comments, then there are almost no comments... so it is better to leave the "religious" comments as before I said you can learn a lot from them (and more from the interesting links they upload).
light:
I'm with you.
There is also a special place on the site for "free comments" and in the past I even managed to offer exactly what you offered now.
The problem is that the religious do not consider the request and respond wherever they want and the site administrator does not always have time to do the cleaning work they burden him with.
Michael,
I understand your claims, and therefore I appeal to the site administrator to move the "religious" messages (or any other irrelevant message) from the comments to the article to a special forum, because in the first place they are not comments to the article. Whether this or that topic aroused in someone the need to comment that this is a proof/refutation of some religious claim, from here to the claim that this is a response to the article there is a long distance.
That's not why (in my understanding) there is a comment system for articles. If there is no possibility of a special forum, perhaps it is better to institute a tough policy of deleting any non-reactive comment, because it is evident that there are commenters who cannot help but incite the whole discussion to the topic of their interest, regardless of the original discussion topic. This way you will be spared the need to correct the error, and it will also not be possible to shout "discrimination!" About deleting "religious" comments and not deleting "secular" comments, because both will be deleted.
Those who are looking for freedom of expression, on any subject in which they wish to express themselves, are invited to do so in dedicated forums, perhaps even one in their knowledge. But why at the expense of factual responses to a very specific topic?
Yigal:
The thing is, these companies see everything as "proof" or at least "evidence" of its existence, so they always jump into the discussion to say so.
Unfortunately they do it here too.
When this happens it is necessary, in my opinion, to point out the error they are making.
God, the soul and all other superstitions do not need refutation, they need proof: no one has provided even a shred of evidence (direct or indirect) for their existence, so there is no need to disprove their existence, but on the contrary, if there is anything that needs to be done about them, it is to prove their existence. I do not think that such a proof is the role of anyone interested in the scientific knowledge of this site.
light:
Some people try to put God everywhere.
They are always (but always!) the ones who divert the discussion and somehow tie it to the topic that interests them.
For my part, I feel I have no choice. When someone says something that seems wrong to me, I don't allow myself to leave the error unanswered.
I agree with you that in the first place such a discussion should not have been opened here, but if it was opened - what would you do if you realized - like me - that the mistakes that are being tried to instill in people are the source of a significant part of the problems of the human race?
Michael, Isaiah and the other debaters about religion - this is already a phenomenon, that in many articles and news items on the site there is a chain of comments about religion and faith, without anything to do with the topic of the article itself. I tried to ask a concrete question about the subject of the article - what is the isomer of the sugar, D or L, a question whose answer is critical to understanding the importance of the described finding (biological processes are overwhelmingly based solely on sugars from the D isomer, and if the article claims that the finding strengthens the theory of the origin of life from space, it is impossible ignore this question). As a result of your litigation, which may be interesting but has completely deviated from the topic of the article, my question and other questions have been pushed to the sidelines and left unanswered.
I believe that comments on this topic should be directed to a special forum, which will allow anyone interested in this to develop philosophical religious discussions, and leave in their place only comments related to the articles themselves.
Thanks in advance for your consideration.
Isaiah:
I do not throw them to the wind as an unwanted tool.
The feeling you get about my familiarity with the sources comes from the fact that I do know them.
More than that - I even cherish some of them.
Even more than that - some of them are truly admirable in my opinion (such as the concise description of morality through the sentence "What is hateful to you, do not do to your friend") because their formulation at the time it was formulated required a sharper vision than that which characterized the people of their time.
The very act of accepting the whole as the words of God is the one that bothers me, and that's because of its destructive results. What is important in these results is the separation that religion creates between people (in contradiction to the same moral commandment) and the wars that this separation causes.
The second most important result is the miraculous resistance of the system of religious laws to improvements.
As soon as the religious tradition is put in its place and everyone realizes that this is a human product created by humans as a system of laws that was suitable for a time when the rule of law was not yet equipped with the enforcement systems that exist today and that is why they added to it a kind of omnipotent being that everyone will fear to change her mouth even in the blind - I will no longer have any problem are you.
Come on, Michael. We won't convince each other. The main thing is that we listen with tolerance. Above I tried to point out the current of the Reconstructionist Judaism of the late Rabbi Mordechai Kaplan, as a religious approach devoid of supernatural hallucinations. I think you lose a lot when you give up our origins and tradition to the ultra-Orthodox. These are tremendous spiritual assets and you simply throw them away to the spirit as useless tools. It's a shame. Here and there you show some familiarity with the sources. Think what intellectual pleasure it would have been to get to know the sharp logic of the Talmud, for example. Without having to believe in all kinds of supernatural phenomena.
Isaiah Abed Hashem:
First of all - regarding the links - this is not a special treatment towards you. The site blocks comments with links in general and they go up later - after checking.
This also happens to my comments that include links and in my opinion this is a correct practice because otherwise there is a danger of malicious harm to the readers.
Second thing - regarding the rule of faith and the law - you are bursting into an open door - after all, no one has ever claimed that faith does not exist. The only reason people struggle with it is because they know it exists. After all, if it didn't exist, it couldn't be as harmful as it is.
It exists just like a law and in fact it is not surprising at all because most faith is simply a book of rules.
What else? There are rule books that are destructive.
This can stem from specific laws and therefore the human law books evolve over time so that the laws improve, express what we have learned over the years, and serve man instead of man serving them.
The ability to change the normal law books comes from their source of authority which is a human source and everyone knows it.
The situation with religious laws is different.
Although these laws were also enacted by human hands, they added an interesting catch: one of the laws is that one must believe that the laws were enacted by a non-existent being - God.
This creates a situation where humans cannot update this rule book and it remains outdated, primitive and murderous.
A person has a need to feel secure in the future and all kinds of other good things.
One way to deal with this need is to deal with reality, learn the laws that govern it and use them - if possible - to our advantage; Another way is to take various hallucinogenic drugs and deceive ourselves.
[I understand that for some reason I am prevented from attaching links to my talkbacks - although it never occurred to me to put an inappropriate link here. To the best of my memory, all the links I attached were to reputable sites. But let's face it - I accept it, after all - I'm a guest.] What about social and psychological justification for belief? I think that some of the exact scientists miss something important in their attempts to measure and weigh the object of faith, simply because they have no tools to express ideas (except maybe, mathematics - a promising direction. I am ready to accept that there is something divine in mathematics...). Let me try to illustrate - let's take a law as an example. Not a "law" in the scientific sense, but an actual law - the number of laws. It greatly affects our lives, even though it has no tangible physical expression (except that it is printed somewhere, and people obey it and are willing to enforce it - but this is also true of the Holy Scriptures). No one would think of claiming that the law "does not exist" just because it has no measurable physical expression. It is simply a social convention that serves an important need (to regulate life as a society). In a certain sense, so is faith - it serves a compulsive need of the human soul to engage in metaphysics, to feel confident in the future and to draw a purpose for his life and everything around him.
Ariel:
First of all - there is a difference between the different beliefs.
As I have said many times and also in my previous response - the belief in the validity of our experience and the correctness of our reasoning is for us a necessity of reality. Any other belief is not like that and therefore I completely reject it.
In this sense, God is truly equal to the Spaghetti Monster and Elvis.
Besides - it was not me who brought up the issue of the existence of reality, but you.
Remind you that you wrote "Before I define God and the soul, I will ask you to try and prove the prejudiced and unfounded opinion that there is anything in the world other than spirit and souls"?
I agree with the fact that your question is irrelevant and I wrote this in my previous response and even explained what I think the purpose of the question is (refusing to deal with the challenge I put before you).
The God you describe is not omnipotent or - at least - there is no evidence of his abilities to act other than according to the laws of nature that we have discovered and which allow us to know what he will do in any given situation.
This "God" is actually controlled by us (when we command him what to do through the experiments we conduct).
The existence of the Mount Sinai status you speak of is not even supported by the Holy Scriptures in which you believe and the uninterrupted transmission of the Torah from generation to generation is even hidden by them:
In XNUMX Kings chapter XNUMX it is written that in the days of Josiah no one knew the Torah and it was only by chance that they found it in the temple during the renovation work they were doing there. In my opinion Josiah simply took care himself of planting the book (and its invention) as a governmental ruse.
I'm not asking where people (including you) get baseless ideas from.
As far as I'm concerned, they are baseless enough to disqualify them.
Therefore your prophecy regarding the question I will ask has been disproved.
The soul you are talking about is still not defined enough.
Does it have anything to do with anything you know how to define?
Does it contain your character traits? your memories? Does it exist after the death of your body? What is the thing that gives it existential continuity?
Michael - I also act and believe according to the belief that there is causality in the world and that the world does contain matter and that it really exists and I also believe that our senses do not deceive us and reality really exists. But what do my beliefs have to do with it? All in all, I wanted to show you that the belief in the reality of a Creator and God is another belief to the multitude of different beliefs, such as the belief that there is a world, the belief that the world contains only matter, and the belief that Elvis is still alive and dancing rumba with J.F. Kandy and Head sip a cup of Yas with the Lubavitcher Rebbe and Yitzhak Rabin.
My definition of God and soul: God is an infinite and unlimited power that controls the world directly (although it is possible that the mere placing of the world in its beginning under very, very, very certain conditions determines all the current conditions of the world, despite quantum theory), which we are limited by One of the 4/5/23 dimensions of reality and moreover he wants to improve and direct his creation and moreover he was revealed to the people of Israel especially in the Mount Sinai situation as we received in the chain of Kabbalah from generation to generation. Soul is simply our consciousness that senses its existence and wants, senses, feels and is aware of itself in a way that is not based on the senses.
Of course, there is no limited scientific experiment of any kind that can sense, measure, or weigh God or the mind. And of course at this point you will try to attack my definitions and claim where I come up with these ideas without any basis. Then I will send you first to the God of the philosophers of Kant and others who exists in their writings to ensure that there really is something else besides my own consciousness and that there is a reality and that there is no deceptive evil demon or anything else that misleads me into thinking that there is a reality and it behaves in the way that we see. From the God of philosophers who has nothing in common with man, no claim, no experience and no goal, I will make a spectacular flick-flack jump to the Mount Sinai stand and that's it.
Ariel:
The fact that you set me tasks to postpone your dealing with the illogicality of your words does not make your words logical.
The only reality we can be aware of is that which is perceived through our senses and expanded through our reasoning.
You can try to talk about other realities but there is no point because we are human and what are our limitations. If we give up the laws of logic, we won't even be able to understand each other's words, and if we decide that our senses might just be making things up, we won't have a reason to look left and right when we cross the road.
The reason why only a few people see the world as you suggest is of course natural selection.
Those who chose a different theory about reality and acted on it simply became extinct.
In fact, this is precisely a scientific proof of the theory.
You say that it is not possible to prove the non-existence of the soul (=disprove the theory of the existence of the soul) and all I am suggesting is that we conduct an experiment on the matter, but in order for us to conduct the experiment, the theory needs to be defined, which is why I asked you to define the soul.
My demand, unlike yours, is legitimate and reasonable.
Chen T:
Please pay attention to the words and do not talk about ethereal things.
The gods of Judaism are defined well enough for us to know that they do not exist (according to this definition) because it is not possible for a being who knows everything and even created the rabbit to be claimed to raise rumination.
You are welcome to define another God (or, for my part, also a flying spaghetti monster) if you feel like it (I am not clear what reason you would have to do this other than the desire to argue) and then we will see if this God agrees with the scientific finding or not.
Regarding your words about Einstein (and about scientists in general) - they are simply wrong!
You can find the statistics among all scientists, for example, here:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
The lie of Einstein's belief in God has always been propagated by vested interests and this upset even Einstein himself.
Below is a quote from his words:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world as far as our science can reveal it. [Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]
To the honorable Michael,
There is no logical contradiction between belief in God and groundbreaking scientific innovations, even if they reveal extraterrestrial intelligent life.
Cold science, philosophy, and astrophysics do not pose a threat to faith, but they certainly pose a threat to the various religions when they are interpreted as having some primitive form or another.
Sometimes a Pope decides that saying that the Earth is not the center of the universe is heresy in religion and God, and sometimes a certain rabbi decides that the world was indeed created in seven days, because it is written in Tanach and all other scientific findings are invalid in sixty because that is how the rabbi interpreted the Bible.
In fact in many cases the same scientific discoveries challenge the belief in that messiah-ruling-himself since they logically and clearly contradict his statements about the management of the universe. But it is natural that he and his flock will develop antagonism and disdain in the face of any innovation or discovery.
These are the ignorant, and their voice is also heard in the knowledge.
There is no shortage of believers in God who see no contradiction between scientific discoveries and belief in God, even one known by the name of Einstein..
To Michael R. (formerly Michael) and to the cool commenter - before I define God and the soul, I will ask you to try and prove the prejudiced and unfounded opinion that there is anything in the world other than spirit and souls, or in other words, what would you answer to the idealistic bishop (a belief completely opposite to the materialistic belief that There is only spirit in the world) modern George Berkeley. Successfully.
In completely different words, the discussion about soul, God and other things is not a scientific discussion at all but a metaphysical one and the tools can be scientific tools but only philosophical tools.
For a student - a long-nosed filphilon, he didn't know how to step!
Lavi Blizovsky, editor of the scientist - do you know that in version 2.7 of WordPress they implemented the option of chained comments? can be useful and clarify many discussions.
Ariel
Yom, Kant, friends,
The elephant can knock down a wall but can the wall know an elephant?
The cool commenter:
I didn't just ask him to define things.
It seems to me that almost any meaningful definition that he gives will allow the refutation of the existence of the soul and of God.
This is also why I assume he will refrain from providing a definition.
To Ariel,
You may be able to define the existence of God, the existence of a soul, etc. as philosophical ideas, but what you do not take into account is that these "philosophical" concepts drag behind them an aura of tangible things that are attached to them, otherwise they would not know or think the philosophical ideas.
As an example of God, a prophet and scriptures are always attached, and the assumption is that if you contradict the scriptures and the prophets (whether quotes from those who have already died, or those who claim to speak the words of a living God) then you have actually contradicted the existence of God.
As above, the body is attached to the soul as a tangible thing, every attempt by you and other people who claim to understand/define what a soul is, is based on the aura of the tangible things around it (whether different behaviors of humans, death and birth). And what science tries to do is try to objectively investigate the concept of the soul, and if it finds only accidental connections or unreliable connections (such as reincarnations) it is entitled to say that as of now the concept of the soul does not have certain properties attributed to it (such as transference) or to completely deny the existence of the soul if There is nothing that can prove it.
Ariel:
Science cannot disprove (nor is it interested in) anything that does not affect reality.
What affects reality can in principle be tested through an experiment that will show that reality behaves differently than it would in its absence.
The gods of the various religions are supposed to influence reality, and therefore their existence has been disproved more than once (see again the entry of a rabbit that ruminates).
All kinds of philosophers continue to talk about the god of gaps whose entire existence is based on the fact that its definition changes every time something new is discovered.
When you say "philosophical definition" you are just playing with words. Perhaps you could write us here what is the "philosophical definition" of God and the soul so that it seems that you are not just throwing words around?
Light - I know the uncertainty principle and blackbody radiation and radioactive decay of atoms and other experiments and ideas that all show the indeterminacy of the processes that take place there. Nevertheless, science still assumes some kind of causality, otherwise it would not be able to claim and prove anything meaningful about the world.
The problem is that causality cannot be proven and is a basic assumption, as the Scottish philosopher David Hume argued. I don't know any philosopher who managed to overcome the difficulties he raised towards causality (and actually I don't know many, only according to the philosophy of science books I've read). Even the philosophers of science who came after him simply assumed that causality is built into man's perception of reality and from there they continued and tried to describe how man's science works.
Ariel - Science is not deterministic since Eisenberg invented the uncertainty principle. Quantum theory is very non-deterministic, it is probabilistic and unstructured (intuitive) for the best physicists. Both are accepted by the scientific establishment today.
Are the sugars found D isomers or L isomers? If they are D, this strengthens the connection that they are of biological origin (as we know biology).
Father, and for its own sake, the name organic molecules is a bit misleading, the existence of an organic molecule has long since proved that an organism produced them.
I have read a large part of the comments and especially the comments of Avi Blizovsky, which I have been following for a long time and I would like to make a comment: for my taste and opinion many important thinkers (here there is an increasing drumming in the background, thinkers! Yes! Many! Yes! Important!! Yes! Yes Yes!): Science cannot prove or disprove philosophical ideas such as the existence of God, the existence of a soul, etc., since science deals and can only deal with matter (and energy) and in the philosophical definition God, soul, etc. are not matter.
Furthermore, two of the unproven basic assumptions of materialistic science are (a) there is only matter (and energy equivalent to it) in reality and (b) reality is deterministic.
Any attempt to claim that science proves that there are no other things and that there is no free will, etc. cannot even be true because these are its basic premises. For the purpose of the parable: a person looks at reality with rose-colored glasses and claims that reality is rosy.
- Is there intelligent life outside the Earth's core?
-of course
- So why don't they contact us?
- Because they are intelligent
little brother:
Optimism can be a nice thing.
You did not quote the 3 quotes you gave from me.
I wonder who exactly you are arguing with.
You are also talking about some culture that prevails somewhere (which is better than a culture of lies and pretending, but much worse than the one that prevails here).
I don't know what culture you prefer and how it pushes others.
Once the whole world was religious and today it is not anymore.
As you have seen - education reduces the hold of religion.
I hope that despite the barking of the dogs, this caravan will continue to move forward and eventually most people will understand the advantage of logic and experience over blind faith.
Your words are so vague that it's hard for me to know if it will make you happy.
Since I'm not a prophet - I also don't know if it will happen.
The only thing I know is that if it doesn't happen we will surely destroy ourselves.
There is no doubt that it has become the most philosophical site on the Internet.. 🙂
Maybe we'll change the name from Hidan to Plasfen?...
To the little brother, enough with the harassment. I no longer approve any message for you that contains the teasing of another commenter, or of one of the writers on the site and it will not help you no matter how much you curse, and under what nickname you write.
In addition, without the evil eye your God has infinite sites, reality has maybe 3-4 sites, a bit of proportion. When an ultra-orthodox website publishes an article about the reality of God's non-existence, and if you help publish it, I'll be happy to let you write whatever you want.
I have already made this suggestion regarding the chat site. They heard, the wall heard too, it's about the same.
Just yesterday, on one day, the commenters said:
1. Those who support the protection of the environment are religious fundamentalists.
2. A beautiful artistic text (from the Bible) - it is pointless nonsense.
3. Belief in God is like foolishness.
So there is a culture where "what doesn't go with force, goes with more force". And if it doesn't shoot then it doesn't matter. And Stalin also said "get rid of the person and the problem is solved". On the other hand, there is a culture that recognizes the value of art, individual rights and freedom of opinion and religion.
Fortunately for me, in the real world the culture I prefer beats the legs of the culture I mentioned above. That is why I will laugh all the way to the bank and the people of darkness will continue to destroy them.
Good morning Israel,
: )
For the little brother:
"What came out of your words if not a reinforcement of my claim that the problem is with people and not with faith in God?"
Altana from their contradictory words.
The fact that you say that there is no evil in religion and that humans are to blame is like saying that there is no evil in drugs because they do not cause any harm if humans do not use them.
It is clear that religions - like drugs - are created by human beings and indeed this phenomenon cannot be prevented in advance because there will always be individual crazy people. What can and must be done with religion is to prevent normal people from grasping the matter and normal people are grasped only because they were not prepared in advance and did not learn to know what the word "know" means.
I brought the gruesome pictures to show that even if someone believes in God they must believe - like you - that he is shit.
I did not bring them to show that he does not exist and the unjustified jump to conclusions is yours.
As I mentioned - what is more important to me is that people abandon religion. Beliefs that do not lead to actions do not interest me in others. This is the kind of thing that I define with the term ZEBSHAM.
The religions attribute to God good qualities or at least fair treatment to decent people and therefore these images do contradict the gods of the religions.
If you say that they do not contradict the existence of God and in general - in your opinion - God is a shoebox then it is simply not interesting.
Science has advanced us a lot in understanding the difference between life and death and the result is our ability to bring people back to life from situations that were previously considered death and our ability to preserve life in situations that in the past led to certain death.
Rather, religion did nothing in the matter and your attempt to place God in points that we still do not know in the field is nothing but a return to the God of the gaps (which are getting smaller and smaller)
Michael, it's not my job to give you grades. But let me give you some food for thought.
We had a debate about the role of belief in God in historical atrocities. I brought you Hitler-Stalin-Mao as criminal atheists. You explained to me that actually they also created religions. What came out of your words if not a reinforcement of my claim that the problem is with people and not with faith in God?
Then you showed me horrible links about children with smallpox and other horrors. And what is your equation: God is a kind and merciful father, but here he allows atrocities and therefore he is not merciful and therefore there is no God. In my belief, God is not my father (I already have a father), he is not at all merciful and nerdy, from the review of human history there is no way that he is merciful and nerdy!. But what's the connection? Why is one a result of the other?
You talked about the place of God and how much volume it occupies. When a person dies, would you agree that there is a significant difference? From a communicating/thinking/dreaming/creating entity only matter remains. Is there a loss of weight?, is there a loss of volume? - Of course not! So what physically made the huge change?, how much has science advanced us in understanding this change between living and inanimate?, maybe in this change resides the divinity?
You asked if believers become non-believers after being beaten by science and you also claimed that there are many scientists who believe in God.
If the facts still interest you, you are welcome to read them here:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
For those who are too lazy to read, I will summarize here the conclusions that clearly emerge from the statistics:
Belief in God is inversely related to education.
I mean the following sentence
"Still, the only empire has been run for the past 8 years by people who believe in God. So how did they get to their position? And how is the US an empire if these are its leaders?"
So first of all that is why the United States is not an empire and we all pay for it.
And secondly, who said that the Americans are smart, after all in every society one or two percent always think for everyone else.
What are you talking about ?
I wrote my opinion about Bush here, see response 41, section 6:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/bush-talk-on-faith-1012087/
To the little brother, you write nonsense (in several nicknames) and you should say thank you for censoring you and not letting all the ugly things come out.
As for your opinion of President Bush? She does not even represent a minority among Americans. And the damage it caused to scientific research in the field of stem cells will take a long time to be repaired, and in the meantime millions of Alzheimer's patients who could qualify for the drug, will die.
And this is just one example. Where is the commandment in the word "Thou shalt not kill"?
A. Ben Ner:
A person is able to act in several ways that do not come together in one (logical) line.
Religion is not in line with logic and scientific findings and therefore belief in its claims (many of which are simply unfounded) is not rational even if the person who believes - exactly that person - is able to solve differential equations with exemplary logic.
Anyone who did not understand how to identify what the interstellar gas is made of is welcome to enter the following link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_cloud
and to the links marked from it.
All explanations appear at any level of detail you want.
For the Straw Man and Capricorn -
We do not locate a molecule, but a cloud of molecules which is probably large enough to leave a signature in the light rays reaching us, by the way we have to aim at the same place for a long time so that enough data is stored to be able to affect the devices.
For the sake of explanation - we directed the Hubble to the darkest place in the sky and left it "watching" for several consecutive days and got a picture of millions of galaxies just like a cloud of dust so that only the Hubble which is very sensitive and even then for consecutive days could provide the data.
Now tap that on another instrument and you'll get different data.
Want to know more? Search on Google - astrophysics.
(I apologize for my spelling mistakes - really embarrassing!)
I also wondered how it is possible to locate an organic molecule from such a distance... does anyone have an explanation?
What mass of organic matter is needed (at a distance of 26 thousand light years) to determine that the "data" is the basis of an organic molecule?
Joins and refines Gadi's question:
What is meant by analyzing what comes to us (as he said "seeing")? How does the same information about the molecule reach us?
And even if this information is transmitted to us (in some way), and considering that it is impossible to move beyond the speed of light - doesn't it take 26K years for the information to arrive?
To commenter response 22, you asked some basic questions and due to this media limit I will answer you succinctly and you can expand your knowledge on your own if you wish.
When electromagnetic radiation (say light) passes through a material it changes, the way it comes is changed indicating the material through which it passed (see spectrophotometry value).
Molecules are definitely discovered on Mars, a satellite orbiting Mars has detected clusters of water molecules under the surface of the poles.
Most of the knowledge in astronomy is gathered with the help of 'remote sensing', a method that has many advantages and is currently the only possible practice for studying the universe outside the solar system. But, it also has disadvantages, it is not absolute!, it can be affected by all the factors between the viewer and the object.
There is an example of the 'remote sensing' limitation that I like. It used to be thought that the moon formed together with the earth from the primordial cloud that formed the solar system. Rocks collected by the Apollo mission were studied on Earth and showed that the Moon is significantly younger than the Earth's core. Due to this information, the theory I mentioned was disproved and replaced by another theory - the Earth collided with another planet, named Thea, and the moon was formed from the collision fragments.
Dear (but banal) (secular) friends,
Believe or not believe in God, it is our private eyes of each person. But the descent of intelligent and educated people into childish shallowness on this subject is wonderful to me - literally the 'herd' incarnate.
You are all surrounded by public figures whose skills are indisputable and some of them are religious, so are all religious people stupid? In my opinion, the levels of argument raised here are equivalent to - "I have proof that there are no aliens... it's a fact that we don't hear their screams!" ! !”.
Still, the only empire has been run for the past 8 years by people who believe in God. So how did they get to their position?, and how is the USA an empire if these are its leaders?
Those who are/were at the Technion or any other science faculty, are there religious people and those who believe in God? Do those believers become unbelievers after science is embedded in them? - Absolutely not!, so how is that possible?
Think again! ! !
I agree with Gadi in his question, how can molecules be detected at such a far distance??? So they don't discover molecules on Mars??? Why fly spaceships there and dig in the ground and collect samples???
Capricorn
I don't think you can send a radio beam and wait for an answer.
It seems to me more that deciphering what comes can get an interesting layout of data and the equipment is only getting better and better all the time, so right now this is what was received from the devices, they will check it thousands of times and refine the data and tell us more interesting stories.
In any case, I am personally excited by every new piece of news, and I love it.
Views
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBEIeRSLb8k
A religious person can be a scientist but he is a prisoner of his free will within the framework given to him.
It is fundamentally thought-logical {rational}.
Therefore, one should not expect such a person to go out of the frame and reveal the existing.
Is it possible to read in the Torah about the existence or non-existence of life in another place?
All the business people, excuse the religious people, will jump and find the most appropriate verse to hear the news about life in another place, but only in retrospect and not in retrospect!
Anyone who gives you a method of belief {or systematic belief} - is your enemy.
Views
A question of ignorance and please don't attack me,
How exactly do you identify an organic sugar molecule using a radio telescope?
It is amazing that we are getting closer to finding an Earth-like planet.
I hope that in the distant future we will find a planet with intelligent enough life to contact them.
"And it is like a white goad seed, and its taste is like a sliver of honey." I wonder who tasted whose sperm and how he decided it was sweet. In my opinion, the intention of the Torah here is to recommend us a certain type of sex. not like this?
From the wonders of the Torah - each sentence can have different meanings depending on the desire of the quoter...
Dear (secular) friends.
As a secularist, I feel uncomfortable and even embarrassed by your disparaging reactions to the words of Isaiah (Servant of Hashem).
Do you think that a person with religious-Jewish faith cannot be a scientist or have rational thinking?
Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that, many descriptions written in the Bible in an unclear and puzzling manner, will receive a rational explanation as a result of scientific discoveries. This does not strengthen the religious faith and does not weaken the secular faith because faith, whatever it is, does not need confirmation and cannot be contradicted.
I wonder why every time there is a commenter who brings up some religious topic, you even refer to it, and react to it relatively so much - because these backward beliefs and the pantheistic nonsense that is suddenly thrown into the air here, only illustrate the religious fixation.
Who even relates to this nonsense and religious nonsense - then write
"And it is like a white goad seed, and its taste is like a honeydew" (Exodus XNUMX, no.
So what ? After all, extreme religious belief is not really connected to science, so what's the point of replying and getting excited
Isaiah:
But what yesterday seemed impossible and today we know how to do it does not belong to any religious belief. on the contrary. It only adds to and reduces the place where God can hide.
Regarding the citation from the sources, you must understand that people also read between the lines.
If I were to quote such a quote - no one would suspect my intention. When you bring him, people are actually suspicious and rightly so.
The question is different -
Is there enough sugar in my cup of coffee, when I keep reading about "shocking discoveries" like this, especially after it has been known for a long time that there is a sky, amino acids exist, ice exists, planets exist, the possibility of fossilized bacteria from Mars exists, etc., etc.
So now you know that there is also sugar... I am not particularly surprised, without of course going into those topics that are preferred to be ignored as soon as life outside the earth is discussed.
Hanan Sabat
http://WWW.EURA.ORG.IL
To Isaiah, Rabbi Yisrael Lau said similar things but on the condition that it is only bacteria.
I don't know why you underestimate the weight of the discovery - to me as a layman it sounds like an interesting thing that really increases the chance of life outside the earth
Long live and rest -
Have you heard of the late Rabbi Mordechai Kaplan and Reconstructionist Judaism? Perhaps you will take a look at this site and be pleasantly surprised. It is possible to satisfy the human need for faith and security as well as the need for continuity of tradition, without giving up rationality.
Take a look, what could it be? Nothing bad will happen to you. This is a virus-free site - I promise.
By the way, Noah -
I don't know that Judaism denies the existence of life in other parts of the world? And why would revelations of such a life serve as a refutation of faith? On the contrary - I marvel at every revelation in nature of a higher intelligence that I am unable to understand.
Sorry if I challenged anyone. How much resentment can an innocent quote from the Torah provoke? This was an associative response to the article. I do not pretend to claim that there is a connection between glucose molecules in deep space and the "man" in the Bible. I just wanted to point out that today's scientific discoveries, showing that what yesterday would have seemed an unnatural convention and lacking a rational explanation, due to our lack of knowledge, can suddenly appear as something possible, and even understandable.
I agree with you Haim.
to rest
Apparently you don't understand human culture. There is no culture on the face of this globe that does not have some object of worship and deification. This disease is probably understood in the human soul.
Religion has nothing to do with scientific truth, it has its own truths and lives by them.
Even if an alien lands tomorrow morning who will claim strongly and bring solid proofs in the rock that he created the beginning of life here. Religions will not die. They will already find some excuse for their continuity.
The game is already lost.
Isaiah Isaiah..
And I deluded myself that when humanity reveals what we all know about the non-uniqueness of life on the surface of the blue planet, the religions whatever they are, which glorify and boast of God's creation of humanity will be left speechless and finally this fiction called "God" will die out.
You always have some explanation huh?
Well, come on, we'll probably have to live with this fiction forever.. If this doesn't prove anything to you either, you probably don't really care about the truth anymore. Even if we discover billions of life forms scattered in the galaxy, you will have some primitive and stammering explanation, which for some reason you will carefully memorize and pass on to future generations.
Too bad.
Isaiah:
So now the desert is in outer space 26000 light years away?
I finally understand how it took 40 years to get here. 🙂
"And it is like a white goad seed, and its taste is like a honeydew" (Exodus XNUMX, no.
How does the glycolaldehyde get into the space in the first place?
The area in the galaxy where stars are formed would also be considered by me as a problematic place for planets to support life.
It's kind of like saying that finding atoms in a bingalactic gas increases the chances of finding life there, which is terribly exciting.