Which more likely explode first?

[chaz wyman]

You mean the asteroid? What about it?

You think there is an asteroid big enough to make the world explode? If so I doubt it as it'd be a moon somwhere.

Are YOU worried about Phaeton?

Part of the reason for the planetary crisis of late is that there are wildly many huge objects whirling around. There are thousands of planets.

There are precisely 8 planets in range - no more. And they are unlikely to collide.

Collisions are possible, but less likely than they have been in the distant past.
There are object, but they do not whirl round - they tend to keep to their orbits.


Also I'm imagining the nuclear core of Earth exploding?

It does not have a nuclear core. Well - only in the sense that any centre is a nucleus.

Core theory is conjecture mostly. Why is there life on Earth? This is why... There are billions of Earth-like planets some guess, but what is different about Earth is that it has lasted for 4 billion years of life and not been whipped out.

The status of life on other planets outside the SOlar system is completely unknown. Earth's longevity is not thought to be unusual in any sense.

Where are you getting all this stuff from?


Any number of events could have almost done that, never mind asteroids, whole galaxies collide. So the time space of stability is very unusual by stellar standards of constant mulching and sudden radical events.

Space is silent, it is cold, it is infinite, is is stable. Cataclysmic events are rare.

If humanity, or life is to survive we need to desperately apply the principal of not putting all our eggs in one basket here. One Sun burp and we're starting again from atomic star dust. The surface of a planet is very vulnerable... exposed to interstellar space --

Humans are stuck with the Earth. Humans will NEVER colonise other planets.

• "In the year 9595..."
  
  - Zager & Evans

_______________________
SDG

[info]

There are precisely 8 planets in range - no more. And they are unlikely to collide.

There are thousands. Here are 8 beyond Neptune alone...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EightTNOs.png

It does not have a nuclear core. Well - only in the sense that any centre is a nucleus.

Here is one of many theories of a nuclear core...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georeactor

Earth's longevity is not thought to be unusual in any sense.

I read about a dozen books on origin of life mostly from cellular biologists in the past year, a hobby I got into; the idea was in many of them. If I had to recommend just one, probably Stuart Kauffman's Investigations as Kauffman is a prodigy, and even if his form of hyper-reductionism doesn't quite transcend materialism, his Wittgenstinian angle on enzymology makes it all worth while.

As I have told you several times in other threads chaz, you need to read more and inform yourself about subjects before joining discussions.

What is most interesting about this thread is that our attitudes towards the solar system and local Universe are really a Rorschach test. Our attitudes really express our views about ourself and our life.

Space is silent, it is cold, it is infinite, is is stable. Cataclysmic events are rare.

No, you are stable, silent and cold and no event ever happens in your life. You like things predictable: "8 planets" all in a row and stable forever. You prefer not to see the complex, and are nearly blind to the uncertainty and possibility that is everywhere.

Humans are stuck with the Earth. Humans will NEVER colonise other planets.

You are stuck with your self, you will NEVER overcome your life and get to a new world.
_______________________
SDG

[info]

The use of sisterhood above being more correct than brotherhood when it refers to something positive and good. Cuz a bunch of bruthas living in harmony would suggest a radical egalitarianism achieved via patriarchy, where the muthas is being oppressed by the bruthas. Whereas the "nice gender" would never do the inverse.

Interesting. You are projecting gender issues onto the stars. Astronomy plus psychology equals astrology, right? Tell me about your mother.... Is she a Scorpio?
______________________
SDG

[chaz wyman]

There are precisely 8 planets in range - no more. And they are unlikely to collide.

There are thousands. Here are 8 beyond Neptune alone...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EightTNOs.png


NONE OF THESE ARE PLANETS . All are in stable orbits. All are a very long way indeed from earth.

It does not have a nuclear core. Well - only in the sense that any centre is a nucleus.

Here is one of many theories of a nuclear core...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georeactor

Completely irrelevant. IT's not going to blow up. And the likely hood decreases with each passing year

Earth's longevity is not thought to be unusual in any sense.

I read about a dozen books on origin of life mostly from cellular biologists in the past year, a hobby I got into; the idea was in many of them. If I had to recommend just one, probably Stuart Kauffman's Investigations as Kauffman is a prodigy, and even if his form of hyper-reductionism doesn't quite transcend materialism, his Wittgenstinian angle on enzymology makes it all worth while.

So what? None of this establishes your claim that the earth's length of existence is longer than other planets.

As I have told you several times in other threads chaz, you need to read more and inform yourself about subjects before joining discussions.

You can tell me all you like - I read more books than you.
And you need to discriminate between what things mean and how they might be relevant. Any monkey can read books. It takes more to understand them and to place them in context.


What is most interesting about this thread is that our attitudes towards the solar system and local Universe are really a Rorschach test. Our attitudes really express our views about ourself and our life.

And your views express the maelstrom of conflict that is you mind.

Space is silent, it is cold, it is infinite, is is stable. Cataclysmic events are rare.

No, you are stable, silent and cold and no event ever happens in your life. You like things predictable: "8 planets" all in a row and stable forever. You prefer not to see the complex, and are nearly blind to the uncertainty and possibility that is everywhere.

Yawn,

Humans are stuck with the Earth. Humans will NEVER colonise other planets.

You are stuck with your self, you will NEVER overcome your life and get to a new world.

Fac ut vivas!
_______________________
SDG

[thalarch]

Interesting. You are projecting gender issues onto the stars. Astronomy plus psychology equals astrology, right?

Never mind that, especially since it followed your subterranean civilizations that could blow us up (or something) thoughts -- no stars and astrologers down there. I was opportunistically dabbling in a caricature of certain socio-political trends for my own senile amusement, under a topic that seems perfectly fitted for assimilating any number of non sequiturs.

Tell me about your mother.... Is she a Scorpio?

No, I'm the Scorpio. Better luck next time. Now it's my turn to play embarrassed psychic: Your sister is the BORG? The one who posts in usenet groups under that name, among others? Nah, just kidding again -- there's only a vague similarity.

[info]

NONE OF THESE ARE PLANETS . All are in stable orbits. All are a very long way indeed from earth. [/color]

What a stickler for words.

I read more books than you.

Yeah right-- How many books did you read?

What is most interesting about this thread is that our attitudes towards the solar system and local Universe are really a Rorschach test. Our attitudes really express our views about ourself and our life.

And your views express the maelstrom of conflict that is you mind.

Obviously.
_______________________

I was opportunistically dabbling in a caricature of certain socio-political trends for my own senile amusement, under a topic that seems perfectly fitted for assimilating any number of non sequiturs.

Yes, the premise of the thread is "dangerous-world" cognitive distortion. The sky is falling.
_______________________
SDG

[Arising_uk]

...
What is most interesting about this thread is that our attitudes towards the solar system and local Universe are really a Rorschach test. Our attitudes really express our views about ourself and our life. ...

Is it? So what does it express about yours?

[info]

Is it? So what does it express about yours?

I have some insight.

[Arising_uk]

Into what? The conspiracy theorist and fantasist?

[chaz wyman]

NONE OF THESE ARE PLANETS . All are in stable orbits. All are a very long way indeed from earth. [/color]

What a stickler for words.

HA!! The definition of "Planet" has been the subject of a great controversy lately as Pluto was downgraded.

Nonetheless - none of these object are in any danger of impacting the earth,

What is most interesting about this thread is that our attitudes towards the solar system and local Universe are really a Rorschach test. Our attitudes really express our views about ourself and our life.

And your views express the maelstrom of conflict that is you mind.

Obviously.

Irony completely Lost on the maelstrom of your mind!!!
_______________________

I was opportunistically dabbling in a caricature of certain socio-political trends for my own senile amusement, under a topic that seems perfectly fitted for assimilating any number of non sequiturs.

Yes, the premise of the thread is "dangerous-world" cognitive distortion. The sky is falling.
_______________________
SDG

Might have to start calling You Chickin-lickin!!!

[Arising_uk]

Might have to start calling You Chickin-lickin!!!

Or a gaul of a man!!

[chaz wyman]

Might have to start calling You Chickin-lickin!!!

Or a gaul of a man!!

Sorry - are you referring to Asterix &co.?

[Arising_uk]

- 'sky falling on head'

I did think about making it easier, "Or a gauling chief" but thought the honorific to much.

[i blame blame]

I thought the thread was started by an curious child, or another slightly ignorant person who is eager to learn. I was disappointed to find out that it was in fact started by a person who, unsatisfied with the scope of problems facing humanity, makes up their own imaginary problems and seeks confirmation for their beliefs on the Internetz.

Humans are stuck with the Earth. Humans will NEVER colonise other planets.

You can't know that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Or ... r_missions

[chaz wyman]

I thought the thread was started by an curious child, or another slightly ignorant person who is eager to learn. I was disappointed to find out that it was in fact started by a person who, unsatisfied with the scope of problems facing humanity, makes up their own imaginary problems and seeks confirmation for their beliefs on the Internetz.

Humans are stuck with the Earth. Humans will NEVER colonise other planets.

You can't know that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Or ... r_missions

All you are showing is that it might be possible to reach other planets.
But it is also possible to live on top of Everest but I don't see any colonies there.

And what do you think humans are going to do when they get there (and where is there?).
There are no habitable planets in the solar system - the next star is 4 light years away, and the earth has everything that humans need to live. The fuel costs to even get to the nearest planet make it ridiculously prohibitive, and we would have to take everything we need to survive on it cold lifeless surface.
We went to the Moon 40 years ago. By now there were supposed to be colonies and moon bases there - why are there not? - because there is no good reason to go back.
Tell me why anyone would want to leave the earth.