Winter Driving Best Books of the Month Men's Leather Watches Learn more nav_sap_SWP_6M_fly_beacon $5 Albums All-New Amazon Fire TV Subscribe & Save Amethyst Jewelry Create an Amazon Wedding Registry Amazon Gift Card Offer jstfd6 jstfd6 jstfd6  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 Kindle Voyage Shop Now Sale
Customer Discussions > Science Fiction forum

"Star Trek" and Real Science


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 226-250 of 511 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2011 11:51:25 AM PDT
Photoscribe says:
Dead thread ... I'm gone!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't, Bob... you're one of the few sane voices IN this sub....!

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2011 11:56:17 AM PDT
Photoscribe says:
To M. Carole:

Uh...how could the Romans POSSIBLY have polluted worse than modern Europeans in building roads? The lack of deodorant couldn't have made things THAT gamey!! :-D

Posted on May 18, 2011 2:36:05 PM PDT
M. Carole says:
I don't believe a technical answer would work here, so I'm going to try insane troll logic:

Romans used wood for fuel. Wood burning makes pollution. Europe now has gas and nuclear power. Power equals camel not pollution. Camel equals five celery sticks. Five. Five is more than two. You lose.

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2011 3:23:56 PM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
M. Carole,

"Romans used wood for fuel. Wood burning makes pollution."

Deforestation in the Roman Empire almost certainly contributed to the downfall of the Empire, contributing to an ecological disaster probably unequalled up to modern times. Roman building, farming and industry degraded the soil, created marshlands where malaria would be common, and resulted in severe floods, even in Rome itself. Whether Roman agricultural and industrial activity contributed to the Dark Ages Cold Period is debatable, but as the climate changed, Roman activities made the effects far worse and hastened the societal collapse.

The effects of Roman (Greek and Carthaginian) lead and copper mining and usage can be detected in the contamination of the Greenland Ice (and elsewhere) as one of the first examples of human activities resulting in global pollution. Lead pollution can cause learning and behavioural problems, and the production of lead released arsenic into the environment...

Studies of Roman bones and teeth indicate levels of lead ten times higher than those of modern Europeans, even at the peak usage of leaded petrol.

Posted on May 18, 2011 4:25:34 PM PDT
Oh no...your sweet words suckered me back in, Photoscribe!

But what am I to come away with? camels, celery sticks, Romans with no deodorant? Why oh why didn't I take the BLUE pill??

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2011 5:36:24 PM PDT
TO: Photoscribe

RE: "What...are they going to glow in the damned dark...? :-D"

Yes, they would - in the infrared (heat) part of the spectrum. That, after all, is what night-vision goggles are designed to detect.

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2011 6:29:32 PM PDT
TO: Photoscribe

RE: "Do you have a cogent argument to the contrary...? Because the strongest one [[I]] have is our own presence in it! I think that's pretty strong evidence for my side, frankly."

It sounds like religion to me, or, more specifically, faith. It's also called the anthropic principle. Below is a dictionary definition of it:

Definition of ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
: either of two principles in cosmology:
a : conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist -called also weak anthropic principle
b : the universe must have properties that make inevitable the existence of intelligent life -called also strong anthropic principle

Reference: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropic+principle?show=0&t=1305765547

By the way, given your professed belief, you might enjoy the short story "The One with the Interstellar Group Consciousnesses". Below is the full citation:

Gardner, James Alan. "The One with the Interstellar Group Consciousnesses." Federations: Vast, Epic, Interstellar. Ed. John Joseph Adams. New York, NY: Prime Books, 2009: 351-365.

RE: "Tell me, did you ever read Isaac Asimov's "The Last Question"...? (One of the most incredible short stories ever written, I might add....)"

Yes, I'm very familiar with "The Last Question". But it doesn't have anything to do with a sentient galaxy or a sentient universe. It's about the evolution of a supercomputer (along with humanity) into the creator (i.e., "God") of the universe in its next cycle.

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2011 6:57:21 PM PDT
TO: Photoscribe

RE: "And I am fairly familiar with Roche's Limit. I would imagine it and La Grange Point are pretty much in the same neighborhood.....at least in majorly affecting the Earth's environmental spheres.....There's no WAY the break-up point could be so close as you cite, if indeed there IS a "break-up point"....."

It does not appear that you are "familiar with Roche's Limit." Roche's limit is a region around a larger body within which the gravitational stresses induced within a smaller orbiting body become too great and the smaller body breaks up. Below is a link to an article explaining this:

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit

Lagrange points are points of stability within a two-body system where a body of relatively negligible mass can remain without any further expenditure of energy. For the Earth-Moon system, the L-points are as follows:
L-1: Between Earth and the Moon, much closer to the Moon.
L-2: Above the far side of the Moon.
L-3: On the side of Earth opposite the Moon's position, slightly outside of the Moon's orbit.
L-4: Sixty degrees ahead of the Moon, slightly outside of the Moon's orbit.
L-5: Sixty degrees behind the Moon, slightly outside of the Moon's orbit.

Below is a link to an article explaining this:

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point

Posted on May 18, 2011 8:39:22 PM PDT
From which the L5 Society (a space activist group) took its name. They believed that the L4 and L5 spots were good places to set up mining and colonies since there should be asteroids there. They eventually merged with another group to form the NSS (of which I'm a member).

The James Webb space telescope (the successor to Hubble) is supposed to get parked at the L2 point. Also, one of the recommendations for the next manned spaceflight away from Earth is to go to one of the Lagrange points.

In reply to an earlier post on May 18, 2011 11:30:54 PM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
Bob,

"The James Webb space telescope (the successor to Hubble) is supposed to get parked at the L2 point."

There are presently a number of probes at the Sun-Earth L1 and L2 points (some probes pass close to the L4 and L5 points), and one probe at the Earth-Moon L2 point and another at L1 (Acceleration, Reconnection, Turbulence and Electrodynamics of the Moon's Interaction with the Sun - ARTEMIS).

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/artemis/

In reply to an earlier post on May 19, 2011 3:47:14 AM PDT
Photoscribe says:
M. Carole says:
I don't believe a technical answer would work here, so I'm going to try insane troll logic:

Romans used wood for fuel. Wood burning makes pollution. Europe now has gas and nuclear power. Power equals camel not pollution. Camel equals five celery sticks. Five. Five is more than two. You lose.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What in the bloody blue blitzkrieging &%$#@! are you talking about??

(Bewildered)

In reply to an earlier post on May 19, 2011 4:47:05 AM PDT
Photoscribe says:
To Johnson:

RE: "And I am fairly familiar with Roche's Limit. I would imagine it and La Grange Point are pretty much in the same neighborhood.....at least in majorly affecting the Earth's environmental spheres.....There's no WAY the break-up point could be so close as you cite, if indeed there IS a "break-up point"....."

It does not appear that you are "familiar with Roche's Limit." Roche's limit is a region around a larger body within which the gravitational stresses induced within a smaller orbiting body become too great and the smaller body breaks up. Below is a link to an article explaining this:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do me a favor, Johnson, don't assume or presume anything about me. You don't know me, you aren't psychic, and I've known about Roche's Limit since the mid-sixties....La Grange since the seventies and know the difference between both. So far, at least two people have REPEATEDLY told me what they both are! More than once.

Oh, and BTW, we all realize that you don't know those figures right offhand either. Must be tiring running to Encarta all the time.....Googling your heinies off like that!

In reply to an earlier post on May 19, 2011 4:58:05 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 19, 2011 4:59:00 AM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
They're mimicking you.

That's how your posts read to anyone who knows *anything* about the scientific subjects you've been posting about these past couple of pages.

It got to the point where I was actually starting to feel embarrassed for you. But then I remembered it was you. Post on, Einstein! :D

In reply to an earlier post on May 19, 2011 5:01:40 AM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
"I've known about Roche's Limit since the mid-sixties....La Grange since the seventies and know the difference between both."

If that were true, you wouldn't have posted what you did. Try again.

In reply to an earlier post on May 19, 2011 5:09:51 AM PDT
Photoscribe says:
TO: Photoscribe

RE: "Do you have a cogent argument to the contrary...? Because the strongest one [[I]] have is our own presence in it! I think that's pretty strong evidence for my side, frankly."

It sounds like religion to me, or, more specifically, faith. It's also called the anthropic principle. Below is a dictionary definition of it:

Definition of ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
: either of two principles in cosmology:
a : conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist -called also weak anthropic principle
b : the universe must have properties that make inevitable the existence of intelligent life -called also strong anthropic principle
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Johnson....think! What purpose would the Universe serve if it DIDN'T have an intelligence observing it, guiding it, manipulation it....DISCUSSING it!!?? What the *bleep!* was the universe CREATED for if not for that??

(Waiting while you close your gaping mouth)
=============================================================
Yes, I'm very familiar with "The Last Question". But it doesn't have anything to do with a sentient galaxy or a sentient universe. It's about the evolution of a supercomputer (along with humanity) into the creator (i.e., "God") of the universe in its next cycle.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dude, that's EXACTLY what it's about....A.I. turning INTO a sentient solar system, then a sentient galaxy, then a sentient universe!

Now leave me alone and lose the attitude, okay?

In reply to an earlier post on May 19, 2011 6:39:48 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 19, 2011 6:41:58 PM PDT
TO: Photoscribe

RE: "...don't assume or presume anything about me."

I didn't. I'm merely responding to what you, yourself, wrote.

RE: "Oh, and BTW, we all realize that you don't know those figures right offhand either. Must be tiring running to Encarta all the time.....Googling your heinies off like that!"

What figures? The last three posts that I addressed to you had no numbers in them. However, I'm proud to say that whenever I do post something with numbers, I ALWAYS surf the Web to check my data before sending it. That's only logical. I, unlike some persons in these forums, would be embarrassed to put out bad information.

In reply to an earlier post on May 19, 2011 6:51:31 PM PDT
TO: Photoscribe

RE: "(Waiting while you close your gaping mouth)"

My mouth is open because I'm laughing out loud - and it's a real belly laugh too.

RE: "Now leave me alone..."

Gladly.

RE: "...and lose the attitude, okay?"

Didn't somebody else in this forum accuse you of projecting your attitude on others?

In reply to an earlier post on May 20, 2011 12:11:15 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 20, 2011 12:12:04 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
Let's imagine that the bacteria inside someone's gut (let's call this person Stephen Turner) are intelligent and arguing about the nature of the 'universe' they reside in:

Bacteria A: "Do you have a cogent argument to the contrary...? Because the strongest one [[I]] have is our own presence in it! I think that's pretty strong evidence for my side, frankly."

Bacteria B: So you think Stephen Turner exists to host intelligent bacteria?

Bacteria A: "think! What purpose would Stephen Turner serve if it DIDN'T have an intelligence observing it, guiding it, manipulation it....DISCUSSING it!!?? What the *bleep!* was Stephen Turner CREATED for if not for that??"

Bacteria B: It simply is. We can determine that it came into existence in the Big Birth, though at present we can't tell what happened before then, and given the state of its aging cells, one day it will die. The Stephen Turner doesn't have a purpose, except whatever we imagine for it.

In reply to an earlier post on May 20, 2011 5:02:11 AM PDT
Photoscribe says:
Hee HEE!! FUNNY GUY!!!

But seriously, old man. Think about that! What other purpose does the Universe serve but to be observed by and to maintain what is essentially, a part of itself.....US!

Why is that so hard to grasp??

(Weisenheimer!!) ;-D

In reply to an earlier post on May 20, 2011 8:47:18 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
"Think about that! What other purpose does the Universe serve but to be observed by and to maintain what is essentially, a part of itself.....US!"

Why should the universe serve a purpose, or a purpose we might know? It would exist, whether we or any other observers were present, or not. You are projecting anthropomorphic conceits onto the universe.

"Weisenheimer"

If you can't express opinions without insulting other posters, it says more about you than anyone else.

In reply to an earlier post on May 20, 2011 6:22:23 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 25, 2011 8:58:07 AM PDT
Photoscribe says:
M. Helsdon says:
"Think about that! What other purpose does the Universe serve but to be observed by and to maintain what is essentially, a part of itself.....US!"

Why should the universe serve a purpose, or a purpose we might know? It would exist, whether we or any other observers were present, or not. You are projecting anthropomorphic conceits onto the universe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helsdon, old sock, old bean, nothing exists without a purpose....and a Universe unobserved and unappreciated, is a Universe without a purpose.

Kingses X!
====================================================================

"Weisenheimer"

If you can't express opinions without insulting other posters, it says more about you than anyone else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helsdon, you have been dogging me, after just about every post I make, saying THIS can't be so because some blowhard you quoted said so or THAT can't be done because some short-sighted schmuck says it can't be done, and then quote pie-in-the-sky figures that are only guesswork to begin with.....it gets old REAL fast! THAT, my dear boy, is a form of insult...you're telling me that I'm always wrong, by your estimation, no matter what I say.

You no like-a de insults, (and they weren't exactly insult, more like descriptions) then-a you no provoke, kapish??

Actually, I was TRYING to keep things pleasant and jocular....

In reply to an earlier post on May 20, 2011 10:20:10 PM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
If you are indeed always wrong (and you do seem to be wrong or posting from ignorance a great deal of the time), it's not an insult to say so: it's a simple statement of fact.

If you feel insulted by being corrected and told the truth, that's your problem.

In reply to an earlier post on May 20, 2011 11:17:46 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 21, 2011 12:03:19 PM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
"Helsdon, you have been dogging me, after just about every post I make, saying THIS can't be so because some blowhard you quoted said so or THAT can't be done because some short-sighted schmuck says it can't be done, and then quote pie-in-the-sky figures that are only guesswork to begin with.....it gets kind of old after awhile! THAT, my dear, boy, is a form of insult...you're telling me that I'm always wrong, by your estimation, no matter what I say."

If you say thing that aren't true (such as terraforming Mars would seriously change its orbit, that the human biomass is a significant portion of the Earth's mass, that carbon is created by life, that mining on the Moon would significantly change its orbit, that the Roche Limit is similar in position to the Lagrange Points, that estimates of the mass of the Moon, Mars, Earth are wrong etc.) you shouldn't be surprised if the veracity of your beliefs are challenged.

"You no like-a de insults, (and they weren't exactly insult, more like descriptions) then-a you no provoke, kapish??"

You no like the corrections, you no post nonsense, capisci? Maybe if you did some research prior to posting, we wouldn't all have to reply with corrections for you.

"Actually, I was TRYING to keep things pleasant and jocular...."

And failing.

In reply to an earlier post on May 21, 2011 10:05:57 AM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
Miserably.

(You might want to clarify that you were using "research" in the normal people sense, not the way it's often used around here or over in Aliens!)

In reply to an earlier post on May 21, 2011 1:59:44 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 21, 2011 2:19:39 PM PDT
Photoscribe says:
Dear Mr. Horse's Posterior:

I haven't been proven wrong ONCE...you fools have argued with me, posted arbitrary figures to supposedly back up your side of the argument, (just about ALL our arguments have to deal with theory and conjecture, and so are hence moot on ALL points,) but not ONE of you has PROVEN me wrong on anything!

Craig...the only reason you haunt this sub to torment people who you know you irritate. That is the ONLY reason you're here, apparently, and I've tried ignoring you for about the past week, but this warranted a response. Craig...get a life, learn some manners and see a shrink. You've got obvious issues......
‹ Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 21 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science Fiction forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science Fiction forum
Participants:  36
Total posts:  511
Initial post:  Sep 24, 2009
Latest post:  Jul 29, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 7 customers

Search Customer Discussions