Area54

Who is the "we" you refer to? Certainly not most cosmologists. While many/some cosmologists accept the possibility that the universe may have arisen from nothing, that "nothing" is not the "nothing" of the laypersons vocabulary. Moreover, very few insist that this must have occurred. If the "we" is anybody other than bona fide cosmologists their opinions may reasonably be dismissed.

Plus you can sit up front and pretend you are the driver! What's not to like? Not mention the following: Global Automated Train Systems

I sympathise with you. I found it painful to read it once.

Hopefully a landscape by Constable and not a Hieronymous Bosch vision.

No: A manned mission would include more than a single scientist. Active ground time on the mission would exceed 1 1/4 years. (Also, reaction to discoveries can be implemented in situ with humans, but often require new missions with robotics.) As you appear to have provisionally accepted my 50:1 ratio the arithmetic looks like this. Let Perseverance daily work output = DP , Daily output per scientist = DS Thus, DS = 50DP Total work output of Perseverance = 365 days x 8 years x DP = 2920DP (Perseverance planned liftime is 2 years. I have assumed a fourfold extension, based upon historical performance of NASA probes.) Total work output of human mission = 300 days x 3 scientists x 50DP = 45,000DP Ratio DS to DP = 900:1 A manned mission offers the best return per dollar invested compared with robotics/rovers/probes.

I was responding to what I perceived as an absolute statement with an equivalent absolute statement as a rhetorical device. What we have learned from Mars via orbiting craft has been immense and a human presence in orbit would have added practically nothing to our knowledge. However, boots on the ground, if they harboured a geologist, would have achieved more in a week than a rover could in a year. $ for $, human surface exploration of Mars would deliver more than robotic surface investigation. The finite budgets are choice. As long as we value defence spending and cosmetics over Mars exploration that will prove a limitation. But it is an artificial, not a natural limitation.

Anachronistic only in the sense that almost all human space exploration has yet to come. Arguably all major advances in human achievement begin with wishful thinking. That strikes one as a specious argument. "Our probes and rovers have done a much better job of space exploration of the places they have gone to, than have the human explorers who have not gone there." Well, duh! Ultimately, George Mallory said it best. "Because it's there."

You have not demonstrated that there is a single scientific method. Scientific methodology ( a composite term for a suite of approaches and attitudes) is organic and pragmatic. That is to say, it has grown/developed/evolved in response to the success or failure of detailed aspects of how scientific investigation has been implemented. What we call the scientific method is a post hoc attempt to succinctly describe that range of techniques used by (successful) scientists. Your perception of the method is a cartoon version of reality.

Whereas a broken record can be wrong all the time.

Corrected. At least for the moment. Perhaps if you were less obtuse people would better understand your intent. (Or, perhaps, if you were more obtuse people wouldn't discern your intent. One wonders which is true.)

Their, they're, there are sew so many weighs ways of getting it wrong. I just make sure I get it write. Musk seems to think his Starlink revenues will provide the necessary funding.

The target date for an umanned attempt. Thus the answer to . . depends upon what ThatSpaceBoy means by "us" - humans, or simply human made machines with the potential to carry - at a later date - actual humans.

Yes. Very definitely. And they may continue for some time.

That's a personal view that is easily dismissed if a single counter example can be found. Oh, look. I find that I would rather spend my life incarcerated than be executed, regardless of my guilt or innocence. Remind me not to accept any acts of kindness from you.

The OP reminds me of a hypothesis (or, crazy idea) on another (alleged) science forum, a decade or more ago, by a member called Hoppi, or Happi, or something similar. The essence of that hypothesis was that one could identify individuals who practiced frequent masturbation (and the extent of this masturbation) by the slight angle at which they held their head away from the vertical. Posts were accompanied by numerous photographs of famous people along with an assessment of their onanistic habits. The current proposals on this thread, while supposedly more substantive, seem equally devoid of evidence. Quite bizarre and not even entertaining.

The important point is that Sanskrit was developed by the human race. Language distinguishes us from other animals and is, arguably, the most important thing that justifies a small measure of pride for our species. . . all members of our species. Personally, I'm of African origin. It's just that my ancestors left so long ago I have wound up with blue eyes and an epidermis susceptible to skin cancer. That doesn't prevent me from being disgusted by your ignorant comments regarding those who've very sensibly retained a darker skin. Thank you for making it so clear that you are someone whose views are best ignored.

I see, from the two responses above, that I expressed my self badly. I was, perhaps, overly keen on not offending. Had I posted more directly I would have said, "Many (most? all?) of the posts in this thread appear to be devoid of anything other than the most simplistic, ill-informed, nonsense, quite devoid of philosophy. It is exchanges like this that give actual philosophy a bad name." Thank you both for highlighting the ambiguity in my post and thus affording the opportunity to correct it.

I am tending towards the impression that the type of arguments represented by many (most? all?) of the posts in this thread is what leads to some people taking a dim view of philosophy.

You can count on it!

I didn't read @Halcas you have. I take this to mean that if something existed at one time, for example Pangea, then that existence remains something that occurred. IT may no longer it exist, but its former existence can't somehow cease to be. It seemed to me more a matter of the meaning of English, rather than a deep philosophical point. Hopefully Halc will clarify.

Given that you have specified a planet and its moon, rather than a double planet system, there is likely to be a significant difference in the gravity between the two. Presumably your moon is considerably larger than ours, else no atmosphere would have been retained (not to mention plate tectonics and geodynamos either having shut down or never started). Even so one would expect adaptation to a lower gravity. That will place the moonites (for want of a better name) at a distinct physical disadvantage if they are on the planet. Although as @swansonthas pointed out there are unlikely to be gross physical changes, there may still be significant ones. Thus the natives of Tibet and of the high Andes have both evolved characteristics that make it easier for them to tolerate the low oxygen pressure at those altitudes. Or consider the sickle cell anemia of some Africans that can cause debilitating disease, yet provides major protection against malaria. Expect something of the kind to have occurred in 5000 years. However, even larger changes may occur if either sets of natives employ gene modification. Then the field is wide open. (If that provides an unecessary side issue just have the technology lost during whatever disaster led to the separation.) In terms of changes in human behaviour just take a look at the diversity of lifestyle, attitudes, beliefs etc across the planet today. Does 5000 years bring an increase in diversity, or do we all wind up working at Mcdonalds?

Very well put. The only thing where we might differ is that I could see the penis pill ads as a plus.

All my life I've dreamed of having followers. . . . Well, nightmares really. . . .I think they are closing in. . . .Someone's at the door. . . .I'll be back in a moment.

The authors of PNAS paper, Global hydroclimatic response to tropical volcanic eruptions over the last millennium, believe they may have identified significant and extended effects of tropical eruptions that go beyond those predicted by current climate models. From the paper: Significance: Future large tropical volcanic eruptions will induce global hydroclimatic changes, superimposed on anthropogenic climate change. Understanding how volcanic eruptions affect global hydroclimate is therefore critically important. Tejedor et al. use a new paleoclimatic product, which combines information from high-resolution proxies and climate models, to estimate volcanic impacts on hydroclimate over the last millennium. They find that past eruptions caused severe drying in tropical Africa and across Central Asia and the Middle East and significantly wetter conditions over Oceania and the South American monsoon region, some of which persisted for a decade or longer. These proxy-based findings suggest that, relative to estimates from a state-of-the-art climate model, much larger and persistent hydroclimatic changes are possible across regions of important socioeconomic activity. Given our present inability to accurately predict the timing, magnitude and (to some extent) the type of eruption, these provisional findings add yet another variable to an already complex picture. Meanwhile (if I may briefly stand on a soap-box and sing to the choir) religious fundamentalists, certain business interests and elements of the criminally insane, deny climate change is real, or that if it is, it is no problem.

The difficulty, I think is that @JohnSSM, believes the following two statements have an identical meaning. Earth needs to preserve it's climate or biological life will encounter difficulties with survival. If the current Earth climates are not preserved then biological life will find it difficult to survive. These two statements are quite different. A form of equivalence might be granted by some if we are speaking colloquially. That seems inappropriate in this context. Even if the non-equivalence were to be accepted and John were to switch to the second option, problems would still remain. First, a minor point, we have the peculiar phrase "biological life", a bizarre tautology as pointed out by @studiot. Also, as noted by studiot and perhaps others, a change in climate would be a challenge to some lifeforms, but many would be comparatively unaffected. I don't know the current state of debate about the biomass of subterranean life versus surface and near-surface life, but all parties seem to agree the subterranean life is abundant. Surface climates would likely have no significant impact on the bulk of that life.