Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #427278 > unrolled thread

‘Based On Nonsense’

Back to article view | Back to rec.arts.sf.written

Contents

  ‘Based On Nonsense’ The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-20 10:49 -0800
    Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-20 11:00 -0800
      Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-21 17:16 -0800
        Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 00:57 -0500
          Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-21 23:11 -0800
            Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2015-11-22 22:32 +0100
              Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-22 14:17 -0800
                Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-22 21:37 -0800
                  Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-24 22:08 -0800
              Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2015-11-25 03:14 -0800
          Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-23 11:02 -0600
            Re: 'Based On Nonsense' The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-23 11:38 -0800
              Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-11-23 15:15 -0800
            Re: We're robots, programmed to get food, water, air, etc. Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-27 11:14 -0800
              Re: We're robots, programmed to get food, water, air, etc. Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-11-27 11:44 -0800
                Re: We're robots, programmed to get food, water, air, etc. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-27 19:15 -0800
                  Re: We're robots, programmed to get food, water, air, etc. Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-28 08:43 -0800
                    Re: We're robots, programmed to get food, water, air, etc. Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2015-11-28 11:13 -0800
              Re: We're robots, programmed to get food, water, air, etc. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-27 12:00 -0800
              Re: We're robots, programmed to get food, water, air, etc. "Notroll2015" <notroll2015@charter.net> - 2015-11-27 15:35 -0600
                Re: We're robots, programmed to get food, water, air, etc. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-27 16:53 -0800
          Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-11-26 08:26 -0500
            Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2015-11-27 04:12 -0800
              Re: 'Based On Nonsense' wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-11-30 12:46 -0500
                Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2015-11-30 14:57 -0800
                  Re: 'Based On Nonsense' wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-12-02 06:30 -0500
                    Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2015-12-04 01:31 -0800
                      Re: 'Based On Nonsense' petertrei@gmail.com - 2015-12-04 07:03 -0800
                      Re: 'Based On Nonsense' David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2015-12-05 00:25 -0600
                    Re: 'Based On Nonsense' petertrei@gmail.com - 2015-12-04 07:09 -0800
                      Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2015-12-04 15:33 -0800
    Re: 'Based On Nonsense' patmpowers@gmail.com - 2015-11-20 20:42 -0800
      Re: 'Based On Nonsense' The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-21 17:10 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#427278 — ‘Based On Nonsense’

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#427282

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/



non·sense
'nän?sens,'näns?ns/
noun
noun: nonsense

    1.
    spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense.




How about some examples of "Nonsense" from yous in the 'scientific community'...


1) Earth-size planet

So that means if they find a planet that it's radius is 7,918 miles then it's Earth-size, correct or Nonsense?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427431

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/
> 
> non·sense
> 'nän?sens,'näns?ns/
> noun
> noun: nonsense
> 
>     1.
>     spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense.
> 
> How about some examples of "Nonsense" from yous in the 'scientific community'...
> 
> 1) Earth-size planet
> 
> So that means if they find a planet that it's radius is 7,918 miles then it's Earth-size, correct or Nonsense?


Maybe this question was too complicated...I'll rephrase it,


How many Earth-size planets are in our solar system?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427464 — Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’

On 11/21/2015 08:16 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/
>>
>> non·sense
>> 'nän?sens,'näns?ns/
>> noun
>> noun: nonsense
>>
>>      1.
>>      spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense.
>>
>> How about some examples of "Nonsense" from yous in the 'scientific community'...
>>
>> 1) Earth-size planet
>>
>> So that means if they find a planet that it's radius is 7,918 miles then it's Earth-size, correct or Nonsense?
>
>
> Maybe this question was too complicated...I'll rephrase it,
>
>
> How many Earth-size planets are in our solar system?

How many suns in OUR Galaxy? How many galaxies in the universe (that we 
see)?  People blindly accept probability waves in nothing at all as QM 
truth, yet when one points out the OVERWHELMING probably that alien life 
forms exist elsewhere in the universe, science laughs and calls the idea 
"kook". Let me ask YOU. Who is the Kook? Who is being superstitious and 
ignorant?



-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427469 — Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’

benj wrote:
> 
> On 11/21/2015 08:16 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> >>
> >> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/
> >>
> >> non·sense
> >> 'nän?sens,'näns?ns/
> >> noun
> >> noun: nonsense
> >>
> >>      1.
> >>      spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense.
> >>
> >> How about some examples of "Nonsense" from yous in the 'scientific community'...
> >>
> >> 1) Earth-size planet
> >>
> >> So that means if they find a planet that it's radius is 7,918 miles then it's Earth-size, correct or Nonsense?
> >
> >
> > Maybe this question was too complicated...I'll rephrase it,
> >
> >
> > How many Earth-size planets are in our solar system?
> 
> How many suns in OUR Galaxy? How many galaxies in the universe (that we
> see)?  People blindly accept probability waves in nothing at all as QM
> truth, yet when one points out the OVERWHELMING probably that alien life
> forms exist elsewhere in the universe, science laughs and calls the idea
> "kook". Let me ask YOU. Who is the Kook? Who is being superstitious and
> ignorant?

Okay, I'll rephrase the question: How many known planets in our solar
system are Earth-size planets?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427513 — Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’

On 22.11.15 8:11, The Starmaker wrote:
> benj wrote:
>>
>> On 11/21/2015 08:16 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/
>>>>
>>>> non·sense
>>>> 'nän?sens,'näns?ns/
>>>> noun
>>>> noun: nonsense
>>>>
>>>>       1.
>>>>       spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense.
>>>>
>>>> How about some examples of "Nonsense" from yous in the 'scientific community'...
>>>>
>>>> 1) Earth-size planet
>>>>
>>>> So that means if they find a planet that it's radius is 7,918 miles then it's Earth-size, correct or Nonsense?
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe this question was too complicated...I'll rephrase it,
>>>
>>>
>>> How many Earth-size planets are in our solar system?
>>
>> How many suns in OUR Galaxy? How many galaxies in the universe (that we
>> see)?  People blindly accept probability waves in nothing at all as QM
>> truth, yet when one points out the OVERWHELMING probably that alien life
>> forms exist elsewhere in the universe, science laughs and calls the idea
>> "kook". Let me ask YOU. Who is the Kook? Who is being superstitious and
>> ignorant?
>
> Okay, I'll rephrase the question: How many known planets in our solar
> system are Earth-size planets?
>
2. venus and earth.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427521 — Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’

Sjouke Burry wrote:
> 
> On 22.11.15 8:11, The Starmaker wrote:
> > benj wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11/21/2015 08:16 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/
> >>>>
> >>>> non·sense
> >>>> 'nän?sens,'näns?ns/
> >>>> noun
> >>>> noun: nonsense
> >>>>
> >>>>       1.
> >>>>       spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense.
> >>>>
> >>>> How about some examples of "Nonsense" from yous in the 'scientific community'...
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) Earth-size planet
> >>>>
> >>>> So that means if they find a planet that it's radius is 7,918 miles then it's Earth-size, correct or Nonsense?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Maybe this question was too complicated...I'll rephrase it,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> How many Earth-size planets are in our solar system?
> >>
> >> How many suns in OUR Galaxy? How many galaxies in the universe (that we
> >> see)?  People blindly accept probability waves in nothing at all as QM
> >> truth, yet when one points out the OVERWHELMING probably that alien life
> >> forms exist elsewhere in the universe, science laughs and calls the idea
> >> "kook". Let me ask YOU. Who is the Kook? Who is being superstitious and
> >> ignorant?
> >
> > Okay, I'll rephrase the question: How many known planets in our solar
> > system are Earth-size planets?
> >
> 2. venus and earth.


I mean, I just don't understand where some people come from...

In skool, they teach you the earth radius is 3,959 mi.

You know what you shoe size is, ...


Why is it all of a sudden everyone doesn't know what the size of the earth is??? 


The Earth-size is 3,959 mi.


Venus-size is 3,760 mi


It's a smaller size shoe.

Somebody mentioned Mars is Earth-size,  2,106 mi


The Earth-size is 3,959 mi.


If you ask kids in school today "What is the size of the earth?" Has the answered changed????


I don't get it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427560

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Sjouke Burry wrote:
> >
> > On 22.11.15 8:11, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > benj wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 11/21/2015 08:16 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >>> The Starmaker wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The Starmaker wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/
> > >>>>
> > >>>> non·sense
> > >>>> 'nän?sens,'näns?ns/
> > >>>> noun
> > >>>> noun: nonsense
> > >>>>
> > >>>>       1.
> > >>>>       spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> How about some examples of "Nonsense" from yous in the 'scientific community'...
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 1) Earth-size planet
> > >>>>
> > >>>> So that means if they find a planet that it's radius is 7,918 miles then it's Earth-size, correct or Nonsense?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Maybe this question was too complicated...I'll rephrase it,
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> How many Earth-size planets are in our solar system?
> > >>
> > >> How many suns in OUR Galaxy? How many galaxies in the universe (that we
> > >> see)?  People blindly accept probability waves in nothing at all as QM
> > >> truth, yet when one points out the OVERWHELMING probably that alien life
> > >> forms exist elsewhere in the universe, science laughs and calls the idea
> > >> "kook". Let me ask YOU. Who is the Kook? Who is being superstitious and
> > >> ignorant?
> > >
> > > Okay, I'll rephrase the question: How many known planets in our solar
> > > system are Earth-size planets?
> > >
> > 2. venus and earth.
> 
> I mean, I just don't understand where some people come from...
> 
> In skool, they teach you the earth radius is 3,959 mi.
> 
> You know what you shoe size is, ...
> 
> Why is it all of a sudden everyone doesn't know what the size of the earth is???
> 
> The Earth-size is 3,959 mi.
> 
> Venus-size is 3,760 mi
> 
> It's a smaller size shoe.
> 
> Somebody mentioned Mars is Earth-size,  2,106 mi
> 
> The Earth-size is 3,959 mi.
> 
> If you ask kids in school today "What is the size of the earth?" Has the answered changed????
> 
> I don't get it.




Okay, I'll make it simple...only a smart person can answer this question correctly..

The Earth-size is 3,959 mi radius.

if I mutiply that number by 2,

2 x 3,959 mi radius = 7,918 mi radius


The question now is: Is 7,918 mi radius Earth-size? Yes or No??

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427701

Saul Levy, a poster from the astronomy newsgroup got the answer wrong.

I have to repeat the question:


The Earth-size is 3,959 mi radius.

if I mutiply that number by 2,

2 x 3,959 mi radius = 7,918 mi "radius"


The question now is: Is 7,918 mi radius Earth-size? Yes or No??



Now for Saul Levy, here is the definition of radius:

ra·di·us
'rade?s/
noun
noun: radius; plural noun: radii; plural noun: radiuses

    1.
    a straight line from the center to the circumference of a circle or sphere.

 The distance from the center to the edge of a circle. It is half of the circle's diameter.



I have to repeat the question:


The Earth-size is 3,959 mi radius.

if I mutiply that number (the earth radius) by 2,

2 x 3,959 mi radius = 7,918 mi "radius"


The question now is: Is 7,918 mi radius Earth-size? Yes or No??


Or in other words, a planet with a radius of 7,918 mi, is it Earth-size? Yes or No??



Is this question too tough for yous? 





Saul Levy wrote:
> 
> YOU AIN'T SMART, FAKER!
> 
> EARTH'S DIAMETER IS 7918 MILES, NOT THE RADIUS, SHITFORBRAINS!
> 
> YOU SURE FUCKED THAT ONE UP, LIKE THE FAKER YOU ARE!
> 
> Saul Levy
> 
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 21:37:22 -0800, The Starmaker
> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> 
> >The Starmaker wrote:
> >>
> >> Sjouke Burry wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On 22.11.15 8:11, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> > > benj wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On 11/21/2015 08:16 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> > >>> The Starmaker wrote:
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> The Starmaker wrote:
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>> http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> non·sense
> >> > >>>> 'nän?sens,'näns?ns/
> >> > >>>> noun
> >> > >>>> noun: nonsense
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>>       1.
> >> > >>>>       spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense.
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> How about some examples of "Nonsense" from yous in the 'scientific community'...
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> 1) Earth-size planet
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> So that means if they find a planet that it's radius is 7,918 miles then it's Earth-size, correct or Nonsense?
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Maybe this question was too complicated...I'll rephrase it,
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> How many Earth-size planets are in our solar system?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> How many suns in OUR Galaxy? How many galaxies in the universe (that we
> >> > >> see)?  People blindly accept probability waves in nothing at all as QM
> >> > >> truth, yet when one points out the OVERWHELMING probably that alien life
> >> > >> forms exist elsewhere in the universe, science laughs and calls the idea
> >> > >> "kook". Let me ask YOU. Who is the Kook? Who is being superstitious and
> >> > >> ignorant?
> >> > >
> >> > > Okay, I'll rephrase the question: How many known planets in our solar
> >> > > system are Earth-size planets?
> >> > >
> >> > 2. venus and earth.
> >>
> >> I mean, I just don't understand where some people come from...
> >>
> >> In skool, they teach you the earth radius is 3,959 mi.
> >>
> >> You know what you shoe size is, ...
> >>
> >> Why is it all of a sudden everyone doesn't know what the size of the earth is???
> >>
> >> The Earth-size is 3,959 mi.
> >>
> >> Venus-size is 3,760 mi
> >>
> >> It's a smaller size shoe.
> >>
> >> Somebody mentioned Mars is Earth-size,  2,106 mi
> >>
> >> The Earth-size is 3,959 mi.
> >>
> >> If you ask kids in school today "What is the size of the earth?" Has the answered changed????
> >>
> >> I don't get it.
> >
> >
> >Okay, I'll make it simple...only a smart person can answer this question correctly..
> >
> >The Earth-size is 3,959 mi radius.
> >
> >if I mutiply that number by 2,
> >
> >2 x 3,959 mi radius = 7,918 mi radius
> >
> >
> >The question now is: Is 7,918 mi radius Earth-size? Yes or No??

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427710 — Re: 'Based On Nonsense'

On Sunday, 22 November 2015 21:32:54 UTC, Sjouke Burry  wrote:
> On 22.11.15 8:11, The Starmaker wrote:
> > benj wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11/21/2015 08:16 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/
> >>>>
> >>>> non·sense
> >>>> 'nän?sens,'näns?ns/
> >>>> noun
> >>>> noun: nonsense
> >>>>
> >>>>       1.
> >>>>       spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense.
> >>>>
> >>>> How about some examples of "Nonsense" from yous in the 'scientific community'...
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) Earth-size planet
> >>>>
> >>>> So that means if they find a planet that it's radius is 7,918 miles then it's Earth-size, correct or Nonsense?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Maybe this question was too complicated...I'll rephrase it,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> How many Earth-size planets are in our solar system?
> >>
> >> How many suns in OUR Galaxy? How many galaxies in the universe (that we
> >> see)?  People blindly accept probability waves in nothing at all as QM
> >> truth, yet when one points out the OVERWHELMING probably that alien life
> >> forms exist elsewhere in the universe, science laughs and calls the idea
> >> "kook". Let me ask YOU. Who is the Kook? Who is being superstitious and
> >> ignorant?
> >
> > Okay, I'll rephrase the question: How many known planets in our solar
> > system are Earth-size planets?
> >
> 2. venus and earth.

<https://what-if.xkcd.com/67/> is a light-hearted article
about the physical consequences of the Earth being larger,
or, rather, suddenly deciding to grow gradually larger.

Despite some wholehearted claims on the subject by some,
I do not think this is actually happening.

In summary: a relatively small change makes relatively 
little difference.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427571 — Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’

On 11/21/15 11/21/15 - 11:57 PM, benj wrote:
> How many suns in OUR Galaxy? How many galaxies in the universe (that we see)?
> People blindly accept probability waves in nothing at all as QM truth, yet when
> one points out the OVERWHELMING probably that alien life forms exist elsewhere
> in the universe, science laughs and calls the idea "kook".

Your appreciation of "science" is QUITE DIFFERENT from mine. I suspect you 
confuse science with the opinions of scientists. But there, too, we differ 
enormously. At present, we have no knowledge of the existence of alien life. I 
believe that the consensus among physicists who have thought about this is that 
the existence of alien life is not only possible, but reasonably probable (but 
none of us quantify that).

However, speculating about what alien life forms might look like is definitely 
"kook". Or the stuff of movie fantasies....


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427578 — Re: 'Based On Nonsense'

Gary Harnagel wrote:
> 
> On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 10:02:43 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> >
> > I believe that the consensus among physicists who have thought about
> > this is that the existence of alien life is not only possible, but
> > reasonably probable (but none of us quantify that).
> 
> Fred Hoyle DID present his quantification:
> 
> "Life cannot have had a random beginning ... The trouble is that there are
> about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a
> random trial is only one part in 1040,000, an outrageously small
> probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted
> of organic soup." - Fred Hoyle
> 
> I think that he was just a bit pessimistic, and so does everyone at SETI
> or they wouldn't be there :-)  Frank Drake tried it a different way and
> came up with a few civilizations at our stage of development in our
> galaxy right now.  Maybe we'll get a better read on the probability by
> studying Tabby's star ...



Frank Drake calculations is WRONG. It is based on Mars having life on it's surface, and it does not...so that means
you need to throw Frank Drake's calculations into the garbage where it belongs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427593 — Re: 'Based On Nonsense'

On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 2:38:07 PM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote:
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > 
> > On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 10:02:43 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> > >
> > > I believe that the consensus among physicists who have thought about
> > > this is that the existence of alien life is not only possible, but
> > > reasonably probable (but none of us quantify that).
> > 
> > Fred Hoyle DID present his quantification:
> > 
> > "Life cannot have had a random beginning ... The trouble is that there are
> > about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a
> > random trial is only one part in 1040,000, an outrageously small
> > probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted
> > of organic soup." - Fred Hoyle
> > 
> > I think that he was just a bit pessimistic, and so does everyone at SETI
> > or they wouldn't be there :-)  Frank Drake tried it a different way and
> > came up with a few civilizations at our stage of development in our
> > galaxy right now.  Maybe we'll get a better read on the probability by
> > studying Tabby's star ...
> 

What was ol' Fred using as his control universe, again?  :)
> 
> 
> Frank Drake calculations is WRONG. It is based on Mars having life on it's surface, and it does not...so that means
> you need to throw Frank Drake's calculations into the garbage where it belongs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

If all obvious-to-the-Mark I-eyeball surface life were wiped out ON EARTH, 
quite a few of the extremophiles species would keep keepin' on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile

There's no way to _yet_ know if the universe harbors any (other form
of) intelligent life*, except by doing what scientists do: observe.
The data is paltry and the time needed to gather a sufficient amount
is ....astronomical.

Kevin R

*Yes. It's an old joke.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427879 — Re: We're robots, programmed to get food, water, air, etc.

"Jeff-Relf.Me"  wrote in message 
news:Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.23{4.35P.Seattle.2015}...

  Most scientists think "Life" requires liquid water. Ben_Jacoby 
(benj), on the other hand, thinks something like "Star Wars" could be 
true. Darwin showed how we're related to monkeys; fearing it might 
justify murder and such, many reject it. Truth is: We're robots, 
programmed to get food, water, air, etc. Like the sun, stars and 
everything else... we consume "exergy" (energy that can do work); i.e. 
we ratchet entropy. "Randomness" is ignorance, nothing more.


*** Actually, it is SEX and BEER that motivates humankind aspire to 
greatness ....
... SEX because it feels good and BEER, because there are lots and 
lots of ugly women out there .... 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427880 — Re: We're robots, programmed to get food, water, air, etc.

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 2:14:24 PM UTC-5, Hägar wrote:
> "Jeff-Relf.Me"  wrote in message 
> news:Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.23{4.35P.Seattle.2015}...
> 
>   Most scientists think "Life" requires liquid water. Ben_Jacoby 
> (benj), on the other hand, thinks something like "Star Wars" could be 
> true. Darwin showed how we're related to monkeys; fearing it might 
> justify murder and such, many reject it. Truth is: We're robots, 
> programmed to get food, water, air, etc. Like the sun, stars and 
> everything else... we consume "exergy" (energy that can do work); i.e. 
> we ratchet entropy. "Randomness" is ignorance, nothing more.
> 
> 
> *** Actually, it is SEX and BEER that motivates humankind aspire to 
> greatness ....
> ... SEX because it feels good and BEER, because there are lots and 
> lots of ugly women out there ....

You might have to substitute BEER with WINE COOLERS when explaining
things from the female point of view.

Kevin R

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427918 — Re: We're robots, programmed to get food, water, air, etc.

Kevrob wrote:
> 
> On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 2:14:24 PM UTC-5, Hägar wrote:
> > "Jeff-Relf.Me"  wrote in message
> > news:Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.23{4.35P.Seattle.2015}...
> >
> >   Most scientists think "Life" requires liquid water. Ben_Jacoby
> > (benj), on the other hand, thinks something like "Star Wars" could be
> > true. Darwin showed how we're related to monkeys; fearing it might
> > justify murder and such, many reject it. Truth is: We're robots,
> > programmed to get food, water, air, etc. Like the sun, stars and
> > everything else... we consume "exergy" (energy that can do work); i.e.
> > we ratchet entropy. "Randomness" is ignorance, nothing more.
> >
> >
> > *** Actually, it is SEX and BEER that motivates humankind aspire to
> > greatness ....
> > ... SEX because it feels good and BEER, because there are lots and
> > lots of ugly women out there ....
> 
> You might have to substitute BEER with WINE COOLERS when explaining
> things from the female point of view.
> 
> Kevin R


real girls drink beer...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427952 — Re: We're robots, programmed to get food, water, air, etc.

"The Starmaker"  wrote in message news:56591C34.6912@ix.netcom.com...

Kevrob wrote:
>
> On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 2:14:24 PM UTC-5, Hägar wrote:
> > "Jeff-Relf.Me"  wrote in message
> > news:Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.23{4.35P.Seattle.2015}...
> >
> >   Most scientists think "Life" requires liquid water. Ben_Jacoby
> > (benj), on the other hand, thinks something like "Star Wars" could 
> > be
> > true. Darwin showed how we're related to monkeys; fearing it might
> > justify murder and such, many reject it. Truth is: We're robots,
> > programmed to get food, water, air, etc. Like the sun, stars and
> > everything else... we consume "exergy" (energy that can do work); 
> > i.e.
> > we ratchet entropy. "Randomness" is ignorance, nothing more.
> >
> >
> > *** Actually, it is SEX and BEER that motivates humankind aspire 
> > to
> > greatness ....
> > ... SEX because it feels good and BEER, because there are lots and
> > lots of ugly women out there ....
>
> You might have to substitute BEER with WINE COOLERS when explaining
> things from the female point of view.
>
> Kevin R


real girls drink beer...


*** I take it none of you are regular denizens at the corner saloon. 
There
is an old song out there that goes something like this: "Don't the 
girls all
get prettier at closing time ..." and yes, beer is still the beverage 
of
choice of real men.
The world's faggotry  may opt for wine coolers ... 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427960 — Re: We're robots, programmed to get food, water, air, etc.

On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 11:43:17 AM UTC-5, Hägar wrote:
> "The Starmaker"  wrote in message news:56591C34.6912@ix.netcom.com...
> 
> Kevrob wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 2:14:24 PM UTC-5, Hägar wrote:
> > > "Jeff-Relf.Me"  wrote in message
> > > news:Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.23{4.35P.Seattle.2015}...
> > >
> > >   Most scientists think "Life" requires liquid water. Ben_Jacoby
> > > (benj), on the other hand, thinks something like "Star Wars" could 
> > > be
> > > true. Darwin showed how we're related to monkeys; fearing it might
> > > justify murder and such, many reject it. Truth is: We're robots,
> > > programmed to get food, water, air, etc. Like the sun, stars and
> > > everything else... we consume "exergy" (energy that can do work); 
> > > i.e.
> > > we ratchet entropy. "Randomness" is ignorance, nothing more.
> > >
> > >
> > > *** Actually, it is SEX and BEER that motivates humankind aspire 
> > > to
> > > greatness ....
> > > ... SEX because it feels good and BEER, because there are lots and
> > > lots of ugly women out there ....
> >
> > You might have to substitute BEER with WINE COOLERS when explaining
> > things from the female point of view.
> >
> > Kevin R
> 
> 
> real girls drink beer...
> 
> 
> *** I take it none of you are regular denizens at the corner saloon. 
> There
> is an old song out there that goes something like this: "Don't the 
> girls all
> get prettier at closing time ..."

1975 hit by Mickey Gilley. Written by Baker Knight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_the_Girls_All_Get_Prettier_at_Closing_Time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdkRtmk4pTE

If it reminds you of Jerry Lee Lewis, they are cousins.

> and yes, beer is still the beverage 
> of choice of real men.

Oh, please.  It's my go-to alcoholic drink, but those who are
Tee-total or prefer wine or a cocktail, or a dram of whiskey
are no more or less "real men."

> The world's faggotry  may opt for wine coolers ...

I was suggesting they were popular with young women.
Why you needed to resort to slurs against our gay friends
and neighbors... well, I won't speculate.  Others have, though.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/homophobes-might-be-hidden-homosexuals/

I don't have much knowledge of gay bars, but I'd guess they sell
their fair share beer. 

Kevin R

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427881 — Re: We're robots, programmed to get food, water, air, etc.

=?UTF-8?B?SMOkZ2Fy?= wrote:
> 
> "Jeff-Relf.Me"  wrote in message
> news:Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.23{4.35P.Seattle.2015}...
> 
>   Most scientists think "Life" requires liquid water. Ben_Jacoby
> (benj), on the other hand, thinks something like "Star Wars" could be
> true. Darwin showed how we're related to monkeys; fearing it might
> justify murder and such, many reject it. Truth is: We're robots,
> programmed to get food, water, air, etc. Like the sun, stars and
> everything else... we consume "exergy" (energy that can do work); i.e.
> we ratchet entropy. "Randomness" is ignorance, nothing more.
> 
> *** Actually, it is SEX and BEER that motivates humankind aspire to
> greatness ....
> ... SEX because it feels good and BEER, because there are lots and
> lots of ugly women out there ....



Is that why I see ugy fat girls showing up at nightclubs one half hour
before it closes??

..and the ugly guys wait outside when it closes to pick up the drunk
chicks that are on their way out.


liquor is quicker..that is why God made beer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427885 — Re: We're robots, programmed to get food, water, air, etc.

"Hägar"  wrote in message 
news:2LednWuWaq0TNsXLnZ2dnUVZ5gCdnZ2d@giganews.com...



"Jeff-Relf.Me"  wrote in message
news:Jeff-Relf.Me@Nov.23{4.35P.Seattle.2015}...

  Most scientists think "Life" requires liquid water. Ben_Jacoby
(benj), on the other hand, thinks something like "Star Wars" could be
true. Darwin showed how we're related to monkeys; fearing it might
justify murder and such, many reject it. Truth is: We're robots,
programmed to get food, water, air, etc. Like the sun, stars and
everything else... we consume "exergy" (energy that can do work); i.e.
we ratchet entropy. "Randomness" is ignorance, nothing more.

***The problem for Hagar is that no woman could drink enough beer to make 
him look doable.


*** Actually, it is SEX and BEER that motivates humankind aspire to
greatness ....
... SEX because it feels good and BEER, because there are lots and
lots of ugly women out there .... 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | rec.arts.sf.written

csiph-web