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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #452868 > unrolled thread

Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth?

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

Contents

  Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-15 23:15 -0700
    Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2018-03-16 09:25 -0700
    Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-16 09:39 -0700
    Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 19:03 +0000
      Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-16 14:53 -0700
      Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-16 21:32 -0500
        Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-16 21:21 -0700
        Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-17 02:08 -0400
          Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-17 09:52 -0500
    Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 19:12 +0000
      Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? Térov Balónky <iytn@yeicenlw.ik> - 2018-03-16 21:01 +0000
      Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-16 15:15 -0700
    Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-16 23:02 +0000
    Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-16 21:33 -0700
      Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-19 08:45 +0000
        Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-19 09:22 -0700
          Re: Does  Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-23 10:46 -0700
            Re: Does  Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-24 10:21 -0700
            Re: Does  Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-25 00:54 -0700
              Re: Does  Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-25 00:59 -0700
                Re: Does  Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-25 20:48 -0700
                  Re: Does  Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-26 00:06 -0700
                    Re: Does  Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-26 19:00 -0700
                      Re: Does  Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-27 10:37 -0700
                        Re: Does  Life Exist On Earth? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-03-27 10:40 -0700
                        Re: Does  Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-27 15:51 -0700
                    Re: Does  Life Exist On Earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-03-27 23:30 -0700
        Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-03-22 13:29 -0700
          Re: Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth? Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-23 01:41 +0000
          A more considered response to Mr.Hanson Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 11:00 +0100
            Re: A more considered response to Mr.Hanson "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-03-25 13:26 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#452868 — Does Intelligent Life Exist On Earth?

I yet to see any evidence of intelligent life on earth..

so, the question is..

what are all these ...talking people????

People that talk.

Or at least it appears they are talking..

I come to one conclusion..

it's just...Talking Rocks.


Somehow, rocks started talking.


could be in the early years 
when the clay turned to rocks..

some of that clay contained...stuff

that talks.


Now, you got walking talking rocks...

and rockit ships

searching on other

rocks in space

diggin through rocks

searching for..

Talking Rocks.

Rocks that talk.


I guess if you searching for life on Mars..

you look through the rocks.


See what they say.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#452904

"The Starmaker"  wrote in message news:5AAB611D.47AB@ix.netcom.com... 

I yet to see any evidence of intelligent life on earth..


***After following this NG for over a decade now and responding
to the warped and skewed oratory of self professed scientists and
pseudo know-it-alls, it appears that we have quite a ways to go 
until the first vestiges of intelligence manifest themselves,

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

#452907

T Guy wrote:
> 
> On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 6:15:17 AM UTC, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> > I yet to see any evidence of intelligent life on earth..
> 
> Try taking your eyes off the mirror.


It's not a mirror, it's a 'rock' that has been made to reflect...rocks.


talking rocks.


I was right, intelligent life does not exist on Earth.



How does the T Guy get inside?
https://youtu.be/inyLP_t9M4A

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

#452922

On 16/03/2018 06:15, The Starmaker wrote:

> See what they say.

Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that i am on a galaxy which is 
10,000,000,000 light years from the earth. By a bit of good
planning i have my laser with me and i shine this laser at you for a 
whole year. The front of this laser beam will take exactly 
10,000,000,000 to reach you here on Earth (hopefully you will still be 
alive eh!). The rear end of my laser signal will take slightly longer to 
reach you because the speed of light has decreased in the year i've been 
holding this laser. If light decreases by my suggestion of one part in 
10 billion per year, the rear end of the signal will take exactly 
10,000,000,001 years to reach you here on Earth.

Thus the light beam from my laser is stretch by a factor of 2 ( because 
the end of the beam left 1 year after the start, and took 1 year longer 
on the journey.). However the number of waves sent will be exactly the 
same as the number received, (assuming you are careful and don't miss 
any,) so the wavelength must also have been stretched by a factor of 2. 
This is equivalent to a red-shift of 1, and corresponds reasonably well 
with what is found in practice, in our observatories.

Talking Rock eh!

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

#452931

Keith Stein wrote:
> 
> On 16/03/2018 06:15, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> > See what they say.
> 
> Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that i am on a galaxy which is
> 10,000,000,000 light years from the earth. By a bit of good
> planning i have my laser with me and i shine this laser at you for a
> whole year. The front of this laser beam will take exactly
> 10,000,000,000 to reach you here on Earth (hopefully you will still be
> alive eh!). The rear end of my laser signal will take slightly longer to
> reach you because the speed of light has decreased in the year i've been
> holding this laser. If light decreases by my suggestion of one part in
> 10 billion per year, the rear end of the signal will take exactly
> 10,000,000,001 years to reach you here on Earth.
> 
> Thus the light beam from my laser is stretch by a factor of 2 ( because
> the end of the beam left 1 year after the start, and took 1 year longer
> on the journey.). However the number of waves sent will be exactly the
> same as the number received, (assuming you are careful and don't miss
> any,) so the wavelength must also have been stretched by a factor of 2.
> This is equivalent to a red-shift of 1, and corresponds reasonably well
> with what is found in practice, in our observatories.
> 
> Talking Rock eh!


A cut-and-paste Rock no doubt...


https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/sci.physics.relativity/XoY9WEeRZLw/TCaNR4MSBgAJ

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

#452947

On 3/16/2018 2:03 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 16/03/2018 06:15, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
>> See what they say.
> 
> Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that i am on a galaxy which is
> 10,000,000,000 light years from the earth. By a bit of good
> planning i have my laser with me and i shine this laser at you for a
> whole year. The front of this laser beam will take exactly
> 10,000,000,000 to reach you here on Earth (hopefully you will still be
> alive eh!). The rear end of my laser signal will take slightly longer to
> reach you because the speed of light has decreased in the year i've been
> holding this laser. If light decreases by my suggestion of one part in
> 10 billion per year, the rear end of the signal will take exactly
> 10,000,000,001 years to reach you here on Earth.
> 
> Thus the light beam from my laser is stretch by a factor of 2 ( because
> the end of the beam left 1 year after the start, and took 1 year longer
> on the journey.). However the number of waves sent will be exactly the
> same as the number received, (assuming you are careful and don't miss
> any,) so the wavelength must also have been stretched by a factor of 2.
> This is equivalent to a red-shift of 1, and corresponds reasonably well
> with what is found in practice, in our observatories.
> 
> Talking Rock eh!

if your laser has a divergance of  0.01 mrad  how much path loss is
there (1/d^2) over 10,000,000,000 light years ?

How much power output is needed at your laser to be detectable on earth
using a photomultiplier tube ?

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

#452950

Sergio wrote:
> 
> On 3/16/2018 2:03 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
> > On 16/03/2018 06:15, The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> >> See what they say.
> >
> > Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that i am on a galaxy which is
> > 10,000,000,000 light years from the earth. By a bit of good
> > planning i have my laser with me and i shine this laser at you for a
> > whole year. The front of this laser beam will take exactly
> > 10,000,000,000 to reach you here on Earth (hopefully you will still be
> > alive eh!). The rear end of my laser signal will take slightly longer to
> > reach you because the speed of light has decreased in the year i've been
> > holding this laser. If light decreases by my suggestion of one part in
> > 10 billion per year, the rear end of the signal will take exactly
> > 10,000,000,001 years to reach you here on Earth.
> >
> > Thus the light beam from my laser is stretch by a factor of 2 ( because
> > the end of the beam left 1 year after the start, and took 1 year longer
> > on the journey.). However the number of waves sent will be exactly the
> > same as the number received, (assuming you are careful and don't miss
> > any,) so the wavelength must also have been stretched by a factor of 2.
> > This is equivalent to a red-shift of 1, and corresponds reasonably well
> > with what is found in practice, in our observatories.
> >
> > Talking Rock eh!
> 
> if your laser has a divergance of  0.01 mrad  how much path loss is
> there (1/d^2) over 10,000,000,000 light years ?
> 
> How much power output is needed at your laser to be detectable on earth
> using a photomultiplier tube ?

Do you have any idea how many people can get by life without ever knowing the answer to that?


Have you ever seen a two headed elephant??

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

#452954

On 3/16/2018 10:32 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 3/16/2018 2:03 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 16/03/2018 06:15, The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>>> See what they say.
>>
>> Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that i am on a galaxy which is
>> 10,000,000,000 light years from the earth. By a bit of good
>> planning i have my laser with me and i shine this laser at you for a
>> whole year. The front of this laser beam will take exactly
>> 10,000,000,000 to reach you here on Earth (hopefully you will still be
>> alive eh!). The rear end of my laser signal will take slightly longer to
>> reach you because the speed of light has decreased in the year i've been
>> holding this laser. If light decreases by my suggestion of one part in
>> 10 billion per year, the rear end of the signal will take exactly
>> 10,000,000,001 years to reach you here on Earth.
>>
>> Thus the light beam from my laser is stretch by a factor of 2 ( because
>> the end of the beam left 1 year after the start, and took 1 year longer
>> on the journey.). However the number of waves sent will be exactly the
>> same as the number received, (assuming you are careful and don't miss
>> any,) so the wavelength must also have been stretched by a factor of 2.
>> This is equivalent to a red-shift of 1, and corresponds reasonably well
>> with what is found in practice, in our observatories.
>>
>> Talking Rock eh!
> 
> if your laser has a divergance of  0.01 mrad  how much path loss is
> there (1/d^2) over 10,000,000,000 light years ?
> 
> How much power output is needed at your laser to be detectable on earth
> using a photomultiplier tube ?
> 
Give it up, Sergio, Lib writers like Starfaker don't do science, they 
only do fantasy.

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

#452973

On 3/17/2018 1:08 AM, benj wrote:
> On 3/16/2018 10:32 PM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 3/16/2018 2:03 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
>>> On 16/03/2018 06:15, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>>> See what they say.
>>>
>>> Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that i am on a galaxy which is
>>> 10,000,000,000 light years from the earth. By a bit of good
>>> planning i have my laser with me and i shine this laser at you for a
>>> whole year. The front of this laser beam will take exactly
>>> 10,000,000,000 to reach you here on Earth (hopefully you will still be
>>> alive eh!). The rear end of my laser signal will take slightly longer to
>>> reach you because the speed of light has decreased in the year i've been
>>> holding this laser. If light decreases by my suggestion of one part in
>>> 10 billion per year, the rear end of the signal will take exactly
>>> 10,000,000,001 years to reach you here on Earth.
>>>
>>> Thus the light beam from my laser is stretch by a factor of 2 ( because
>>> the end of the beam left 1 year after the start, and took 1 year longer
>>> on the journey.). However the number of waves sent will be exactly the
>>> same as the number received, (assuming you are careful and don't miss
>>> any,) so the wavelength must also have been stretched by a factor of 2.
>>> This is equivalent to a red-shift of 1, and corresponds reasonably well
>>> with what is found in practice, in our observatories.
>>>
>>> Talking Rock eh!
>>
>> if your laser has a divergance of  0.01 mrad  how much path loss is
>> there (1/d^2) over 10,000,000,000 light years ?
>>
>> How much power output is needed at your laser to be detectable on earth
>> using a photomultiplier tube ?
>>
> Give it up, Sergio, Lib writers like Starfaker don't do science, they
> only do fantasy.

your right,
he didn't even ask for the gain of the PMT, or the diameter of the
receiving mirror here on earth.

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

#452924

On 16/03/2018 06:15, The Starmaker wrote:
> I yet to see any evidence of intelligent life on earth..
> 

Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it 
occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this 
will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.

Merely by assuming      dc = -K c dt
I was led to             c = c(0) e^-Kt
and on to               Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1

	K ~= 10^-10 /year
	t = time in years

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

#452927

Keith Stein wrote:

> On 16/03/2018 06:15, The Starmaker wrote:
>> I yet to see any evidence of intelligent life on earth..
>
> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
> occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this
> will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
> as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.

Most certainly, you have to sent men on Venus, not Mars. Since the 
Universe is expanding. Somebody tell the moron sending an asphalt car out 
into the empty space. Such a stupidity, I can't even believe could be 
possible.

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

#452932

Keith Stein wrote:
> 
> On 16/03/2018 06:15, The Starmaker wrote:
> > I yet to see any evidence of intelligent life on earth..
> >
> 
> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
> occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this
> will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
> as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.
> 
> Merely by assuming      dc = -K c dt
> I was led to             c = c(0) e^-Kt
> and on to               Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1
> 
>         K ~= 10^-10 /year
>         t = time in years



It's that grey rock in your head talking again...

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

#452934

On 16/03/2018 06:15, The Starmaker wrote:
> I yet to see any evidence of intelligent life on earth..
> 
> so, the question is..



  That rocket that left Earth traveling at c(medium) a little while

  back, is now on its way home,still traveling at c(medium).

  It has it's head lights on, full-beam eh!

1. Can the folk coming home in the rocket see lights from Earth?

2  Can the folk on Earth see the rocket coming home ?





 > On 10/03/2018 21:29, Gary Harnagel wrote:

 >> On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 10:09:39 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
 >>>
 >>> On 10/03/2018 15:37, Gary Harnagel wrote:
 >>>>
 >>>> On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 6:46:13 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
 >>>>>
 >>>>> That rocket that left Earth traveling at c(medium) a little while 
back,
 >>>>> is now on its way home,still traveling at c(medium).
 >>>>>
 >>>>> It has it's head lights on, full-beam eh!
 >>>>>
 >>>>>
 >>>>> 1. What is the blue-shift of those headlights, as measured on Earth?
 >>>>>
 >>>>> 2. What is the blue-shift of lights from Earth as measured at the 
rocket?
 >>>>
 >>>> As if it were possible for a rocket to move at c!
 >>>
 >>> c(medium) is certainly possible IN PRINCIPLE.
 >>
 >> "Principle" has nothing to do with it.  The Fizeau moving-water 
experiment
 >> refuted your guess.
 >>
 >>>> But if it were, blue-shift would be infinite in both cases,
 >>>
 >>> NO and N0
 >>
 >> The Doppler equations (both classical and relativistic) refute your 
arrogant
 >> assertion.


> what are all these ...talking people????
> 
> People that talk.
> 
> Or at least it appears they are talking..
> 
> I come to one conclusion..
> 
> it's just...Talking Rocks.
> 
> 
> Somehow, rocks started talking.
> 
> 
> could be in the early years
> when the clay turned to rocks..
> 
> some of that clay contained...stuff
> 
> that talks.
> 
> 
> Now, you got walking talking rocks...
> 
> and rockit ships
> 
> searching on other
> 
> rocks in space
> 
> diggin through rocks
> 
> searching for..
> 
> Talking Rocks.
> 
> Rocks that talk.
> 
> 
> I guess if you searching for life on Mars..
> 
> you look through the rocks.
> 
> 
> See what they say.
> 

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

#452951

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> I yet to see any evidence of intelligent life on earth..
> 
> so, the question is..
> 
> what are all these ...talking people????
> 
> People that talk.
> 
> Or at least it appears they are talking..
> 
> I come to one conclusion..
> 
> it's just...Talking Rocks.
> 
> Somehow, rocks started talking.
> 
> could be in the early years
> when the clay turned to rocks..
> 
> some of that clay contained...stuff
> 
> that talks.
> 
> Now, you got walking talking rocks...
> 
> and rockit ships
> 
> searching on other
> 
> rocks in space
> 
> diggin through rocks
> 
> searching for..
> 
> Talking Rocks.
> 
> Rocks that talk.
> 
> I guess if you searching for life on Mars..
> 
> you look through the rocks.
> 
> See what they say.


The biggest city in the U.S. is a rock jungle...They call it....The
Asphalt Jungle.

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

#453215

On 17/03/2018 04:33, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> I yet to see any evidence of intelligent life on earth..





Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it 
occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this 
will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.

Merely by assuming      dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
I was led to             c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
and on to               Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)

     K ~= 10^-10 /year
     t = time in years

Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to 
enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more 
accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me...........

                        K = H = Hubble's Constant
and                    t = -t  ( so times past become +ve)

which substituted in (3) gives:

             Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)

then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation:
             e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)

So for t << 1/H we have:

             Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)

which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
for modest times into the past ( t < ~5 billion years).

As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore 
further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law 
expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
in observatories all around the world eh!

Conclusions:
     1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
     2. There was no "Big Bang"
     3. There was no "Inflation"
     4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
     5. There is no "Dark Energy"








>> so, the question is..
>>
>> what are all these ...talking people????
>>
>> People that talk.
>>
>> Or at least it appears they are talking..
>>
>> I come to one conclusion..
>>
>> it's just...Talking Rocks.
>>
>> Somehow, rocks started talking.
>>
>> could be in the early years
>> when the clay turned to rocks..
>>
>> some of that clay contained...stuff
>>
>> that talks.
>>
>> Now, you got walking talking rocks...
>>
>> and rockit ships
>>
>> searching on other
>>
>> rocks in space
>>
>> diggin through rocks
>>
>> searching for..
>>
>> Talking Rocks.
>>
>> Rocks that talk.
>>
>> I guess if you searching for life on Mars..
>>
>> you look through the rocks.
>>
>> See what they say.
> 
> 
> The biggest city in the U.S. is a rock jungle...They call it....The
> Asphalt Jungle.
> 

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

#453256

Keith Stein wrote:
> 
> On 17/03/2018 04:33, The Starmaker wrote:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> >>
> >> I yet to see any evidence of intelligent life on earth..
> 
> Searching for an alternative explanation of the Hubble Red Shifts, it
> occurred to me that if the speed of light is slowing down, then this
> will necessarily lead to increasing red-shift with increasing distance,
> as observed by Hubble et. al., without any expansion at all.
> 
> Merely by assuming      dc = -K c dt ..................(1)
> I was led to             c = c(0) e^-Kt ...............(2)
> and on to               Red-Shift = e^-Kt - 1 .........(3)
> 
>      K ~= 10^-10 /year
>      t = time in years
> 
> Only after starting the PHYSICS PRIZE thread, in which i was trying to
> enlist the help of sci.physics.relativity readers to obtain a more
> accurate value of K, did the obvious solution occur to me...........
> 
>                         K = H = Hubble's Constant
> and                    t = -t  ( so times past become +ve)
> 
> which substituted in (3) gives:
> 
>              Red-Shift = e^Ht - 1 .........(4)
> 
> then for times which are small compared to 1/H (i.e. small compared
> to the 'age of the universe'), we may use the approximation:
>              e^x ~= 1 + x .................(5)
> 
> So for t << 1/H we have:
> 
>              Red-Shift = H * t ............(6)
> 
> which is of course the normal "Hubble's Law", valid only
> for modest times into the past ( t < ~5 billion years).
> 
> As our telescopes manage to see further out into space, and therefore
> further back in time, we will find that the normal linear Hubble's Law
> expressed in equation(6), will have to be replaced by the more accurate
> exponential form expressed in equation(4). This is indeed what is found
> in observatories all around the world eh!
> 
> Conclusions:
>      1. The speed of light in intergalactic-space is slowing down.
>      2. There was no "Big Bang"
>      3. There was no "Inflation"
>      4. The galaxies are not accelerating away from us.
>      5. There is no "Dark Energy"



By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Universitartus Committiartum E Pluribus Unum, I hereby confer upon you the honorary degree of ThD. 



> 
> >> so, the question is..
> >>
> >> what are all these ...talking people????
> >>
> >> People that talk.
> >>
> >> Or at least it appears they are talking..
> >>
> >> I come to one conclusion..
> >>
> >> it's just...Talking Rocks.
> >>
> >> Somehow, rocks started talking.
> >>
> >> could be in the early years
> >> when the clay turned to rocks..
> >>
> >> some of that clay contained...stuff
> >>
> >> that talks.
> >>
> >> Now, you got walking talking rocks...
> >>
> >> and rockit ships
> >>
> >> searching on other
> >>
> >> rocks in space
> >>
> >> diggin through rocks
> >>
> >> searching for..
> >>
> >> Talking Rocks.
> >>
> >> Rocks that talk.
> >>
> >> I guess if you searching for life on Mars..
> >>
> >> you look through the rocks.
> >>
> >> See what they say.
> >
> >
> > The biggest city in the U.S. is a rock jungle...They call it....The
> > Asphalt Jungle.
> >

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

#453587 — Re: Does Life Exist On Earth?

Okay, too many talking rocks here..

a rock with egos.


I need to change the subject Heading...


Does Life Exist on Earth?


Lots of rocks on earth, are rocks alive?

The earth is mostly ocean...

is ocean alive?

How about in your room, is there anything alive in your room? sofa?
chair? kitchen table? stove?

the walls? the floor? pen? lamp? cup? spoon? 


Is there anything in your room alive????

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

#453714 — Re: Does Life Exist On Earth?

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Okay, too many talking rocks here..
> 
> a rock with egos.
> 
> I need to change the subject Heading...
> 
> Does Life Exist on Earth?
> 
> Lots of rocks on earth, are rocks alive?
> 
> The earth is mostly ocean...
> 
> is ocean alive?
> 
> How about in your room, is there anything alive in your room? sofa?
> chair? kitchen table? stove?
> 
> the walls? the floor? pen? lamp? cup? spoon?
> 
> Is there anything in your room alive????

Certaintly all the other planets...just rocks, not alive..and the rest of the universe, not alive...


that only leaves...You!


Do you think
for the moment
you can remove
that stubborn  
illusion
that you're
alive?

There is no Life on Earth, it's a lie.


It's an illusion.


Imagine rocks talking to you
and they believe they are alive.

You can remove the illusion..
but then she starts to talk and
the illusion is gone.

If you take the machine apart
you will find a grey rock
doing all the talking.

Now what are you going to tell the judge?

"I was just curious to see how it works!"

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

#453793 — Re: Does Life Exist On Earth?

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Okay, too many talking rocks here..
> 
> a rock with egos.
> 
> I need to change the subject Heading...
> 
> Does Life Exist on Earth?
> 
> Lots of rocks on earth, are rocks alive?
> 
> The earth is mostly ocean...
> 
> is ocean alive?
> 
> How about in your room, is there anything alive in your room? sofa?
> chair? kitchen table? stove?
> 
> the walls? the floor? pen? lamp? cup? spoon?
> 
> Is there anything in your room alive????


You're surrounded by...dead things.

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

#453794 — Re: Does Life Exist On Earth?

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Okay, too many talking rocks here..
> >
> > a rock with egos.
> >
> > I need to change the subject Heading...
> >
> > Does Life Exist on Earth?
> >
> > Lots of rocks on earth, are rocks alive?
> >
> > The earth is mostly ocean...
> >
> > is ocean alive?
> >
> > How about in your room, is there anything alive in your room? sofa?
> > chair? kitchen table? stove?
> >
> > the walls? the floor? pen? lamp? cup? spoon?
> >
> > Is there anything in your room alive????
> 
> You're surrounded by...dead things.


So, there is no life on other plantes and the rest of the universe
is...dead.


And you're surrounded by dead things on earth, and everything in your
room...


so where does that leave you?

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web