[Ivan Gorelik]

Mokele said:

If the explosion is "smooth and long" enough for life to survive it, the fragments will move so slowly it'll take *trillions* of years for them to reach other worlds. Nothing survives that long.

In order to make conclusions one must consider one more parameter – the time of acceleration. Did you see my words “huge geyser”, “ionic pressure”, “photon pressure”, “transparent”?

Mokele said:

A virus isn't alive.

Is it organism? Does it reproduce? Does it mutate? Does it exist? Does it live?

Mokele said:

Remember, many organisms that survive extreme conditions do so by actively repairing the damage, which costs energy. If they're in extreme conditions *without* nutrients (such as those you describe), they'll starve.

There are several models of “cosmic panspermia”. I think that “explosive panspermia”, discussed here, has much more chances to be real. Huge and long explosion, mud, creation of huge comets with different temperature and pressure conditions give much more chances to survival of life seeds, than in the other models of panspermia.
If you do not recognize the idea of panspermia, and if you are the aggressive fighting Darwinist, you can close this topic by your sward.

Quote

It is known that appearing of comets was connected with the appearing of new illnesses, epidemics on the Earth.

Mokele said:

No, they didn't. Ever.

Cite a source for this that come from *before* the 19th century.

Send an expedition to comets and you will find the evidences, proving the “explosive panspermia”.
----
Planets

Mokele said:

Why would any of them have civilization?

Civilization is not some sort of 'goal' or inevitable endpoint. There is absolutely no reason to presume that our civilization is anything more than an accident.

Can you imagine the situation:
In my garden there is plenty of grass, flowers... But on the neighboring gardens with the same conditions is absolutely empty.

Life in my garden is not an accident. Life will develop on any suitable garden / planet.

Mokele said:

A nova or supernova will not product chunks of a planet. It will *vaporize* it, and then convert the vapor to plasma. No life will survive it.

In November 2009 microscopic magnetic holes will be created on LHC. In a couple of months/years the fused magnetic hole will smoothely expand and explode the Earth. Created comets will possibly have dozens of years before the hole will lead to the explosion of our Sun as supernovae or repeated nova. The shock wave from this explosion and the radiation will only additionally accelerate the comets further on their way to other stars. Astronomers from distant stars will not see the explosion of Earth, but the successive explosion of the Sun will be excellently visible. That will be the funeral march about our Civilization.

Mokele said:

Seriously, this is just science fiction, and badly-written sci-fi at that.

This is a chain of hypotheses of different famous authors. I only formed this chain of hypotheses into a single unifying hypothesis “Reproduction of Biospheres and Civilizations”. In this chain of hypotheses there is only one my own link: The Magnetic Hole and its Creation.

Mokele said:

Present some empirical evidence, or this thread gets locked.

Some evidences you will see after the launch of the LHC.
There is one more evidence of my hypothesis: in order the Biosphere’s Reproductive Act happens, “the cells of interest” must defeat the “cells of precautions”, and you must make me fool in the eyes of readers; you must delete the information, which was said by the “cells of precautions”.

These your words:

Mokele said:

..this thread gets locked.

are an additional evidence of my hypothesis.

[the tree]

Ivan Gorelik said:

In order to make conclusions one must consider one more parameter – the time of acceleration. Did you see my words “huge geyser”, “ionic pressure”, “photon pressure”, “transparent”?

Not if it only takes one factor to make the idea impossible.

Ivan Gorelik said:

Is it [an] organism? Does it live?

No, and no.

Ivan Gorelik said:

Does it reproduce? Does it mutate? Does it exist?

Yeah, but this is true of lots of things that aren't alive - computer viruses being an apt example.

Ivan Gorelik said:

There are several models of “cosmic panspermia”. I think that “explosive panspermia”, discussed here, has much more chances to be real. Huge and long explosion, mud, creation of huge comets with different temperature and pressure conditions give much more chances to survival of life seeds, than in the other models of panspermia.

You can think all you like, but science forums have a thing for evidence.

Ivan Gorelik said:

If you do not recognize the idea of panspermia, and if you are the aggressive fighting Darwinist, you can close this topic by your sward.

Mokele is a research biologist actually - so yeah, he'd be familiar with the idea - but you're just turning it into a complete mess. Do you even know what a sward is?

Ivan Gorelik;509118]Send an expedition to comets and you will find the evidences, proving the “explosive panspermia”.[/quote][quote name= said:

Some evidences you will see [U]after[/U'] the launch of the LHC.

Shifting the burden of proof is both fallacious and lazy.

Mokele said:

Seriously, this is just science fiction, and badly-written sci-fi at that.

Ivan Gorelik said:

This is a chain of hypotheses of different famous authors.

There is a very important difference between fiction and reality.

[Ivan Gorelik]

About the received velocities:

the tree said:

Not if it only takes one factor to make the idea impossible.

Do you know the difference between explosions caused by chemical, nuclear, collapse explosives? Do you know how many percents of mc^2 transforms into radiation, into kinetic energy of thrown out fragments at these different explosions? Do you know the rate of collapse of matter onto magnetic hole? I think, you don’t know. Then, why do you deny my ideas completely, without any computation, without any knowledge about magnetic hole?

About living matter.

the tree said:

No, and no.
Yeah, but this is true of lots of things that aren't alive - computer viruses being an apt example.

I think that difference between computer virus and organic virus is much more than the difference between organic virus and simple bacteria.

About hypothesis, science, evidences, dogmas, falsifications.

the tree said:

You can think all you like, but science forums have a thing for evidence.

Some hypotheses in science had transformed in dogmas in contemporary science. I think that real scientist must undergo any theory to certain doubt and don’t mix it with reality. There is no theory, describing the Nature, with 100% correspondence. Any theory/hypothesis has it’s region of applicability.

the tree said:

Mokele is a research biologist actually - so yeah, he'd be familiar with the idea - but you're just turning it into a complete mess.

My “complete mess” is much more real, than directed panspermia with the help of rockets; or as panspermia, caused by acceleration of viruses by solar wind.

the tree said:

Do you even know what a sward is?

Sorry. English is not my native language. I must write “sword”, as moderator’s weapon.

the tree said:

Shifting the burden of proof is both fallacious and lazy.

In my cited pages I wrote about some experimental proofs, wrote some arguments, and wrote some links to other authors.
CERN will launch the LHC and we’ll have a lot of Last Evidences, with great probability.

About a chain of hypothesis of different famous authors:

the tree said:

There is a very important difference between fiction and reality.

You had lost one more word: “theory”.
Or: “generally accepted theory”.
Thus:
1. fiction;
2. generally accepted theory;
3. reality.

Is Newton theory fiction?
Is Einstein’s theory of gravity corresponds to reality with 100% precision?

Do not make dogmas from good-looking theories.
Do not reject hypotheses, if it looks at first as mad hypothesis, especially, if your life depends with its developments.
In reality two different theories can have their part, for example: Darwinism and Explosive Panspermia.

[Mokele]

Congratulations, you have now managed to reach two pages of pure, baseless speculation.

You have not once presented even a hint of actual empirical evidence for your claims, in spite of repeated requests.

You seem to think that wild speculations and possibilities are a substitute for actual evidence. They are not. Not here, and not in science.

This thread is closed. Try to re-open it, and you will be banned.

And for everyone's sake, learn how to actually do science before you post again. A claim without empirical evidence is *worthless*.