Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #590272
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: Small enough- to be zero? |
| Date | 2016-07-22 12:04 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <dvdd9kFf7a3U1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | <e8503c4a-fcb9-4b07-b8ac-efae66bd79cf@googlegroups.com> |
On 21/07/2016 4:11 AM, john wrote: > Some posters, here, think that > at small enough scales, there > are no more particles. Just energy > of some sort, I suppose. > I'm guessing these are the same > ones who deny that organization > might be found on a Cosmic scale. > And, probably, the same ones > who think that Humans are a total fluke > on our Earth alone, and chances > of it happening on some other planet > are nil to none. And probably, also, > total atheists. > > Hmm. Just trying to see the pattern: > they're in pattern-denial > We have no basis for forming a view about the likelihood of intelligent life on other planets. All we know about intelligent life (and indeed life at all) is that it's possible. The universe could be teeming with life, or Earth could be the only place. Until we have more data, that's all we can say. Finding life on Europa or Mars, or evidence of past life (being life clearly unrelated to life on Earth), would be a huge step forward. Not finding it there would tell us little. Sylvia.
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 11:11 -0700
Re: Small enough- to be zero? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 13:18 -0500
Re: Small enough- to be zero? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-20 12:57 -0700
Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-20 16:30 -0500
Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 14:45 -0700
Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:06 -0700
Re: Small enough- to be zero? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:16 -0700
Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:42 -0700
Re: Small enough- to be zero? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:59 -0700
Re: Small enough- to be zero? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:58 -0700
Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 16:32 -0700
Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-20 18:39 -0500
Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 17:03 -0700
Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-20 20:06 -0500
Re: Small enough- to be zero? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-21 14:20 +0000
Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 07:51 -0700
Re: Small enough- to be zero? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 08:25 -0700
Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-22 16:36 -0400
Re: Small enough- to be zero? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-07-22 14:05 -0700
Re: Small enough- to be zero? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-07-22 14:52 -0700
Re: Small enough- to be zero? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-21 15:25 +0000
Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 11:25 -0700
Re: Small enough- to be zero? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-22 00:48 +0000
haxacontaDELTAhedronic noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 13:47 -0700
stab a guess (or an i.s.i.s): hexacontaDELTAhedron a.k.a C_sixty noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 11:52 -0700
stab a guess (or those flamethrowers): hexacontaDELTAhedron a.k.a C_sixty noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 19:27 -0700
Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-20 20:55 -0400
Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 18:04 -0700
Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-20 20:37 -0400
Re: Small enough- to be zero? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 07:44 -0700
Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-22 16:33 -0400
Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-20 18:39 -0500
Re: Small enough- to be zero? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 02:08 -0700
Re: Small enough- to be zero? "Eduardo J. Berringer" <invalid@example.com> - 2016-07-24 11:21 -0700
Re: Small enough- to be zero? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-07-24 12:48 -0700
Re: Small enough- to be zero? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 09:39 -0700
Re: Small enough- to be zero? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 15:21 -0700
Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-22 16:49 -0400
Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-22 12:04 +1000
Re: Small enough- to be zero? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-21 23:54 -0700
Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-23 11:57 +1000
Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-23 17:01 -0400
Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-24 10:52 +1000
Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-23 21:25 -0400
Re: Small enough- to be zero? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 18:09 -0700
Re: Small enough- to be zero? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 13:31 -0700
Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-23 17:20 -0400
csiph-web