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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #370479 > unrolled thread

‘Based On Nonsense’

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

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’ Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-22 09:30 +0100
              Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-22 00:41 -0800
                Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 08:40 -0500
                  Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-22 13:00 -0800
                    Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-26 07:10 +0100
                    Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-26 09:01 -0600
                      Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-26 07:11 -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’ Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-25 07:40 +0100
                  Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-25 10:24 -0800
                    Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbBertopal.org> - 2015-11-25 18:32 +0000
                      Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-25 12:01 -0800
                      Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-26 04:48 +0100
                        Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbBertopal.org> - 2015-11-26 14:21 +0000
                          Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-27 08:05 +0100
          Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-23 11:02 -0600
            Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-23 11:20 -0800
              Re: 'Based On Nonsense' The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-23 11:38 -0800
              Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Walter Ilinois <walin@wej98j5q.org> - 2015-11-23 20:44 +0000
              Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 16:35 -0700
                Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-23 19:35 -0800
                  Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-25 09:20 -0600
                    Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-25 08:29 -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. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-27 12:00 -0800
              Re: We're robots, programmed to get food, water, air, etc. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-27 16:53 -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: ‘Based On Nonsense’ wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-11-26 08:26 -0500
            Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-09 10:34 +0000
              Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-09 08:31 -0600
                Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-10 19:29 +0000
    Re: 'Based On Nonsense' pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-20 12:59 -0800
      Re: 'Based On Nonsense' kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-20 16:48 -0500
        Re: 'Based On Nonsense' pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-20 15:42 -0800
          Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-20 17:12 -0800
            Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-21 06:32 +0100
            Re: 'Based On Nonsense' pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-20 22:13 -0800
              Re: 'Based On Nonsense' kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-21 02:24 -0500
                Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-21 09:59 +0100
                  Re: 'Based On Nonsense' pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-21 10:38 -0800
                    Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-22 06:18 +0100
                      Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-23 04:41 +0100
              Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-21 06:34 -0800
                Re: 'Based On Nonsense' benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 13:50 -0500
                  Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-21 11:42 -0800
            Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-21 09:42 -0600
              Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbertopal.org> - 2015-11-21 16:31 +0000
                Re: 'Based On Nonsense' benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 13:54 -0500
                  Re: 'Based On Nonsense' pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-21 11:01 -0800
              Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-21 08:47 -0800
                Re: 'Based On Nonsense' benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 14:09 -0500
                  Re: 'Based On Nonsense' pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-21 17:44 -0800
            Re: 'Based On Nonsense' dsr@mail.lns.cornell.edu (Daniel S. Riley) - 2015-11-22 13:38 -0500

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#370965 — Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’

Am 26.11.2015 15:21, schrieb Jack Monaco:

>>>> That number would be a planet with the exact raduis of the Earth, and
>>>> having the same distance from the Sun. 92.96 million mi by is 3,959
>>>> mi.
>>>> You find those precise numbers anywhere else in the universe...
>>>> you got another Earth.
>>>
>>> Of course not. It needs an invisible magnetic field around it, an
>>> atmosphere, water and continents.
>>
>> No, planets are somehow similar, but not equal.
>> It's like people and you will not find the same person one more time.
>
> Those are the requirements to life existence, mister. You have a
> comprehending problem somewhere. Please find out where. It's like
> urbanization of Berlin 1900 compared to 2015. Not much difference.


"Berlin 1900 in colour!!!! "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-m9A8mY-U0

"Amazing Berlin City in Motion "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCR4ikptJqE


TH

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

#370709 — 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]

#370722 — Re: 'Based On Nonsense'

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 ...

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

#370728 — 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]

#370738 — Re: 'Based On Nonsense'

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>  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 ...

There is no such thing as civilizations or "civilizations at our stage of 
development". Since those terms are terrible stochastic and relative. Ie 
there are indicators suggesting that "higher" advanced civilizations were 
in the past. Hence the future can't possibly give something more advanced, 
as an output governed by the equations of Entropy.

Then yes, contacts may had been possible in the past. When the Universe 
was warmer. Good post. Very funny indeed.

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

#370757 — Re: 'Based On Nonsense'

Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:3f7ed398-e182-49b5-a563-1099f741f854@googlegroups.com: 

> 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 

A meaningless number without the time axis. One is 1,040,000 per what 
time period? Per year? Then it's likely happened over a dozen time 
since the big bang. Per second? Then it's happened millions of times. 
In all of history? Then we're not here, and never will be.

"One is <very large number>" chances occur all the time, literally, 
_all_ the time. Because they are meaningless, incomplete drivel.

-- 
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
    -- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

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

#370765 — Re: 'Based On Nonsense'

On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 5:35:54 PM UTC-7, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:3f7ed398-e182-49b5-a563-1099f741f854@googlegroups.com: 
> >
> > "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 

Oops!  That didn't copy properly.  That's supposed to be 10^40000.

> A meaningless number without the time axis. One is 1,040,000 per what 
> time period? Per year? Then it's likely happened over a dozen time 
> since the big bang. Per second? Then it's happened millions of times. 
> In all of history? Then we're not here, and never will be.

I believe it's over the life of the universe.

> "One is <very large number>" chances occur all the time, literally, 
> _all_ the time. Because they are meaningless, incomplete drivel.
> 
> -- 
> Terry Austin
> 
> "Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
>     -- David Bilek
> 
> Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

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

#370864 — Re: 'Based On Nonsense'

On 11/23/15 11/23/15 - 9:35 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 5:35:54 PM UTC-7, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:3f7ed398-e182-49b5-a563-1099f741f854@googlegroups.com
>>> "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
>
> Oops!  That didn't copy properly.  That's supposed to be 10^40000.
>
>> A meaningless number without the time axis. One is 1,040,000 per what
>> time period? Per year? Then it's likely happened over a dozen time
>> since the big bang. Per second? Then it's happened millions of times.
>> In all of history? Then we're not here, and never will be.
>
> I believe it's over the life of the universe.

No. The quote explicitly says "in [one] random trial". How many "random trials" 
per year occur over the surface of a planet? In a galaxy with 10^8 stars? In a 
universe with > 10^8 galaxies?

Note also that Hoyle was not considering a key aspect of life: evolution. The 
initiation of very basic self-reproducing systems might only require a few of 
those enzymes (or perhaps something completely different, such as a single 
fragment of RNA); subsequent development would most definitely NOT be random.

	This implies his estimate is worthless.

Observations show that life on earth originated within a few 100,000 years of 
when the environment stabilized to the point it was possible. This is OBSERVABLE 
life (i.e. fossilizable), so the initial self-reproducing systems must have 
developed considerably earlier than that. Unless, of course, the initial "seed" 
came from elsewhere....


Tom Roberts

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

#370873 — Re: 'Based On Nonsense'

On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 8:20:59 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> On 11/23/15 11/23/15 - 9:35 PM, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 5:35:54 PM UTC-7, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> > > Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > > news:3f7ed398-e182-49b5-a563-1099f741f854@googlegroups.com
> > > >
> > > > "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
> >
> > Oops!  That didn't copy properly.  That's supposed to be 10^40000.
> >
> > > A meaningless number without the time axis. One is 1,040,000 per what
> > > time period? Per year? Then it's likely happened over a dozen time
> > > since the big bang. Per second? Then it's happened millions of times.
> > > In all of history? Then we're not here, and never will be.
> >
> > I believe it's over the life of the universe.
> 
> No. The quote explicitly says "in [one] random trial".

Ah, yes.  THERE'S the time axis, sort of.

> How many "random trials" per year occur over the surface of a planet?

At one per second, that would be 31 million per year, and over 13 billion
years, that would be 4x10^17 random trials per planet.

Actually, if the planet were full of a soup of simple compounds, say,
about 10^26 per cubic meter, and an ocean 1 km deep over the entire planet
the size of earth, that would be 10^23 m3, or 10^49 simple compounds.

So if each had a random trial each second, that would be 4x10^66 trials
per planet over the life of matter in the universe.

> In a galaxy with 10^8 stars?

More like 10^11 stars.  If each star had one planet with the right conditions,
that would be 4x10^77 per galaxy.

> In a universe with > 10^8 galaxies?

More like 10^11 galaxies, so that comes to 4x10^88 random trails within
the universe.  Note that it would take a string of random trials to produce
compounds like RNA, etc.

> Note also that Hoyle was not considering a key aspect of life: evolution.
> The initiation of very basic self-reproducing systems might only require
> a few of those enzymes (or perhaps something completely different, such
> as a single fragment of RNA); subsequent development would most definitely
> NOT be random.

True, but how many random trials would it take to get to that fragment
with all kinds of other simple compounds in the soup?

> 	This implies his estimate is worthless.

I always believed his estimate was a bit pessimistic.

> Observations show that life on earth originated within a few 100,000
> years of when the environment stabilized to the point it was possible.
> This is OBSERVABLE life (i.e. fossilizable), so the initial self-
> reproducing systems must have developed considerably earlier than that.
> Unless, of course, the initial "seed" came from elsewhere....
> 
> Tom Roberts

Yes, panspermia, which is quite likely since the earth is a johnnie-come-
lately planet.  Evidence for extraterrestrial organic compounds in
meteorites suggest this:

http://www.space.com/22719-meteorite-surprising-organic-molecules.html

It is now known that the Oort cloud extends halfway to Alpha Centauri,
and there is no reason to believe this is unusual.  Mixing of objects in
the cloud leads to some of them being sent outward to Alpha or inward
into the earth's vicinity on cometary trajectories, so it is quite
reasonable to expect that development of life on earth took a shortcut.

The question that Hoyle was addressing was how did the original organic
stuff come about.  I agree that once you get RNA, the process goes into
overdrive, but what's the probability of 30 or so elements getting
together in the right order from H, C, N, O and P?

Gary

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

#370994 — 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]

#370995 — 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]

#371002 — Re: We're robots, programmed to get food, water, air, etc.

Notroll2015 wrote:
> 
> "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 ....


If that is the case then he needs to do a 'bill cosby'...

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

#371005 — 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]

#371030 — 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]

#370935 — Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’

In article <XOc4y.155775$sK.94170@fx14.iad>,
benj <none@gmail.com> said:

> 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".

No it doesn't.  You're either mistaken or lying.
(And I know which way I'd bet.)

-- wds

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

#371641 — Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 08:26:37 -0500, William December Starr wrote:

> In article <XOc4y.155775$sK.94170@fx14.iad>, benj <none@gmail.com> said:
> 
>> 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".
> 
> No it doesn't.  You're either mistaken or lying.
> (And I know which way I'd bet.)

There is plenty of life throughout the universe. What is more, it is 
similar to life on this planet.

All living things need legs and arms and fins to get around in water or 
on rough land. The laws of physics and chemistry are the same everywhere 
and the same element are available. All planets that support life will 
have water and oxygen, moons and tides and be similar to our earth.

The DNA molecule doesn't have much choice about what it produces.

I reckon bits of DNA have been floating around hte universe for billions 
of years, dropping onto various planets and infecting the life there..or 
starting it..

> -- wds

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

#371651 — Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’

As usual, Henry Wilson promotes more nonsense.


On 12/9/15 12/9/15   4:34 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:
> There is plenty of life throughout the universe. What is more, it is
> similar to life on this planet.

We have no evidence of life anywhere else but earth. Your bald assertion cannot 
make it so.


> All living things need legs and arms and fins to get around in water or
> on rough land.

This is just plain false, even here on earth. The dominant life form on earth, 
bacteria, has none of that. Yet they live in abundance, everywhere around us. 
Life as we know it would be impossible without them.

	There are LOTS more bacteria cells in your body than human cells.

Not to mention other complex life forms, such as jellyfish and molluscs (to name 
just two).

As usual, you just display your personal ignorance.


> I reckon bits of DNA have been floating around hte universe for billions
> of years, dropping onto various planets and infecting the life there..or
> starting it..

This is the first sensible thing you have said here, though even it is pure 
speculation. The rest is plain and simply not so.


Tom Roberts

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

#371769 — Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’

On Wed, 09 Dec 2015 08:31:29 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote:

> As usual, Henry Wilson promotes more nonsense.
> 
> 
> On 12/9/15 12/9/15   4:34 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>> There is plenty of life throughout the universe. What is more, it is
>> similar to life on this planet.
> 
> We have no evidence of life anywhere else but earth. Your bald assertion
> cannot make it so.

You don't need evidence. You just need common sense and a way to rid 
yourself of the religious garbage you are taught when you attend your 
church. 
There is nothing special about Homo sapiens. It is just another animal 
with somewhat larger and more efficient memory banks than the others on 
this planet.

Obviously, wherever there is water and oxygen, there will be a likelihood 
some kind of life. Many higher forms will be mobile and since nature has 
never evolved rotary motion...and probably cannot...arms legs and fins 
would be expected. Tom obviously knows little about the way many single 
celled organism use cilia to get around.
Of course bacteria do not have legs or arms, but many micro-organisms do 
have mechanisms that get them around. 

Whether or not all life would possess the same DNA coding used on this 
planet is debatable but since the same elements would be expected on 
billions of other planets one would naturally expect plenty of life that 
is somewhat similar to that here on Earth.

If you are under the impression that humans are something special, then 
you should be talking theology rather than physics.

>> All living things need legs and arms and fins to get around in water or
>> on rough land.
> 
> This is just plain false, even here on earth. The dominant life form on
> earth, bacteria, has none of that. Yet they live in abundance,
> everywhere around us. Life as we know it would be impossible without
> them.

I was obviously talking about higher and mobile forms of life.

> 	There are LOTS more bacteria cells in your body than human cells.
> 
> Not to mention other complex life forms, such as jellyfish and molluscs
> (to name just two).
> 
> As usual, you just display your personal ignorance.

Apart from fish etc., small forms of aquatic life cannot fight the tides 
but jellyfish and cephelapods like squid and Nautilus can move themselves 
around quite well using tentacles, etc..,...

>> I reckon bits of DNA have been floating around hte universe for
>> billions of years, dropping onto various planets and infecting the life
>> there..or starting it..
> 
> This is the first sensible thing you have said here, though even it is
> pure speculation. The rest is plain and simply not so.

Everything I say is sensible. The ionosphere would probably stop the 
molecules from disintegrating when then hit a planet's atmosphere.

I suppose you believe everything the pope tells you. After all you fell 
for all that Einsteinian nonsense.
 
> Tom Roberts

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

#370485 — Re: 'Based On Nonsense'

On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 10:49:03 AM UTC-8, 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/

This web page is from one of the arms of an prganization called CFACT... 

http://www.cfact.org/

... and here is what Wiki has on them...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Committee_for_a_Constructive_Tomorrow

"Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) is an anti-environmentalist pressure group founded by David Rothbard and Craig Rucker in 1985.[1] They both have the academic backgrounds, lifestyles, addresses and PR Guru mugshots of serious lobbyists. Three of the primary funders of CFACT are the Carthage Foundation, Exxon Mobil, and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.[2] A whole host of prominent deniers have sat on its board of advisers at some time, including Sallie Baliunas, Roger Bate, E. Calvin Beisner, Michael Fumento, Sherwood B. Idso, Patrick Michaels, and Frederick Seitz. The organization funds Climate Depot, Marc Morano's online denialist outlet. In 2009, they helped to organize the Copenhagen Climate Challenge, the denialist response to the United Nations' Copenhagen Summit.[3]".

So, it is an anti-environmentalist pressure group, funded in part by Exxon, what else would you expect them to be saying? If you think they are the be-all, end-all finest voice of reason concerning climate change, then put you money whee your mouth is...

https://www.cfact.org/donate/

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

#370498 — Re: 'Based On Nonsense'

On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 12:59:08 -0800 (PST), pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:

>On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 10:49:03 AM UTC-8, 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/
>
>This web page is from one of the arms of an prganization called CFACT... 
>
>http://www.cfact.org/
>
>... and here is what Wiki has on them...
>
>http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Committee_for_a_Constructive_Tomorrow
>
>"Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) is an anti-environmentalist pressure group founded by David Rothbard and Craig Rucker in 1985.[1] They both have the academic backgrounds, lifestyles, addresses and PR Guru mugshots of serious lobbyists. Three of the primary funders of CFACT are the Carthage Foundation, Exxon Mobil, and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.[2] A whole host of prominent deniers have sat on its board of advisers at some time, including Sallie Baliunas, Roger Bate, E. Calvin Beisner, Michael Fumento, Sherwood B. Idso, Patrick Michaels, and Frederick Seitz. The organization funds Climate Depot, Marc Morano's online denialist outlet. In 2009, they helped to organize the Copenhagen Climate Challenge, the denialist response to the United Nations' Copenhagen Summit.[3]".
>
>So, it is an anti-environmentalist pressure group, funded in part by Exxon, what else would you expect them to be saying? If you think they are the be-all, end-all finest voice of reason concerning climate change, then put you money whee your mouth is...
>
>https://www.cfact.org/donate/

        Please stop showing how stupid you are.  :-)
Many facts show, without question, that the Earth
was _MUCH_ warmer 20000 years ago, and,
substantially warmer 6000 years ago, and,
a little warmer 600 years ago.

       Plus, averages do not mean "warmer"
_if_ the data only shows the nights are
not as cold.


      There are many reasons for not having
a need to worry about two degrees warmer
"on average", because so many places,
like Siberia, and even London are just
too f'n cold for human health and comfort.
     And in the deserts, there is very little,
if any, warming, it takes unusual events
for temperatures to exceed 115 F, which
is rather comfortable in the shade for
people that are conditioned to it, and
don't have to work or exert, or wear
unusual clothing.


      Besides, CO2 and other gases that
radiate IR, especially water vapor, are
the only thing that sends heat energy
to space directly from the atmosphere.

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web