Philosophy Now Forum

info wrote:

Arising_uk wrote: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.

chaz wyman wrote: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

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

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

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

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

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

thalarch wrote: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.

info wrote:

chaz wyman wrote: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

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

info wrote:Tell me about your mother.... Is she a Scorpio?

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

I read more books than you.

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.

thalarch wrote: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.

info wrote:...
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 wrote:

chaz wyman wrote: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!!!
_______________________

thalarch wrote: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

chaz wyman wrote:
Might have to start calling You Chickin-lickin!!!

Arising_uk wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:
Might have to start calling You Chickin-lickin!!!

Or a gaul of a man!!

chaz wyman wrote:
Humans are stuck with the Earth. Humans will NEVER colonise other planets.

i blame blame wrote: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.

chaz wyman wrote:
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