Jump to content

spikerz66

Senior Members
  • Posts

    69
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by spikerz66

  1. It would seem to me that many Atheists, would understand the fact that the chances of a god existing and watching over our single planet is slim.

     

    I agree with the fact that Atheists would have less moral objections to suicide also. I would recommend Emile Durkenheim's studies of social integration and suicide for anyone interested in this topic further.

  2. Logically, with the amount of galaxies that there are, and the vast number of stars in each galaxy, and the seemingly unmeasurable amount of planets surrounding these stars, it seems very likely that there are many a world that is habitable.

     

    Now, I believe the more important question here is habitable for what?

     

    Humans?

     

    Intelligent life?

     

    Microbial life?

     

    I can almost hear Carl Sagan explaining the Drake equation to me as I write this.

  3. Expanding, and the expansion is getting faster. It has no centre.

     

    It would have to have an origin if its an expansion. Now what I believe the poster meant was that if everything revolved around that center point.

     

    Which is definatly not true.

     

    There had to be an origin and this origin is the center of the universe.

     

    My theory is that there is a small metal sphere there, and on it it has a post- it note that said. BOOM! im joking if you didnt get it by the way.

  4. Why is the center of Galaxys so bright then ?

     

    They are bright because pf the simple fact that there are, I believe the last number I saw was 400 billion stars in our galaxy. The center of Galaxys are bright because of the face that the "celestial real- estate" is so close to another.

     

    It couldnt be because of the curvature of light because you wouldnt see the light unless there was some medium for it to pass through. erg. You dont see the beam of light when you turn on a flashlight only what it shines on, unless your shining it through a medium such as dust or fog. Intersteller dust in our case.

  5. In addressing the original question, someone HAS to raise the Fermi Paradox.

     

     

    This is extremely telling. About a decade back, or maybe a bit less, two NASA scientists wrote an article for Scientific American, about travel to other star systems. They concluded that, within 1,000 years, the first humans would have got to the first other star system. They concluded that travel at between 0.1c and 0.2c would be entirely possible and practical. A sufficiently large, self sufficient, space habitat could be accelerated to that speed and get to Alpha Centauri in no less than 75 years. (Assuming it takes 10 years to accelerate to 0.1c, and another 10 to decelerate).

     

    interesting point i remember looking at the plans for this particular spacecraft in epidode 8 of cosmos the series. i believe the title was "travels in time and space"

  6. ya...it's true..but spikerz66 if the big bang theory is correct then the universe will collapse some time due to gravitation.....so there must be a thery like big collapse or stuff like that...pls let me knoe if there is any such theory...

     

     

    Sorry about posting late.

     

    Theres a modification of the big bang theory.

    Its the crush- bang- crush theory also theres a bang- crush-bang theory

  7. Listen you show me one other solar system with 9 planets (well I guess 8 now) with only one of them having a severe elliptical orbit and the rest (for the most part) circular. I might believe that life COULD form there similar to ours. But I won't say intelligent life.

     

    Whether or not the planet has a severe eliptical orbit, has no effect on hindering the development of intellegent life. In a way...."wow we got seasons." Who are you to say that the development of intelegent life has ANYTHING to do with the evolution of life on the planet. Given "billions and billions," of years, to mis-quote Carl Sagan, I presume that life COULD arise on the strangest of worlds.

     

    The fact is we live in a messed up solar system that is unlike any other we've seen,

    Out of billions, weve only looked through a pinhole of the avalible solar systems out there. Again the way that our solar system is shaped has no bering on the development of intelegent life out there.

     

     

    and we're the only highly intelligent life-form out of the millions (an approximation) of species that have come and gone from our planet.

     

    Wow. Are you denying the fact that your of only one species? Who's to say that the real dominant species in our world is dolphins? Whos to say that there so smart and above us that there grand scheme is to appear "dumb" so that humans dont suspect anything?

     

    Are you denying the hundreds of species that have came and gone in the history of the earth?

     

    Are you forgetting the existance of the dinosaurs,? Of there time they were the MOST dominant species of there era.

     

    My opinion is that we to will soon become to "inteligent" for our world and we will contribute to the downfall of our dominant species.

  8. No matter what we call it, gravity is everpresent. In my opinion what it is called means nothing as long as the effects are observed, and recorded using the same wordage.

     

    We often take for granted the thought that gravity is a force, but if it were a force, it wouldn't be constant because if it were constant.

    Gravity is a constant in the means of its effects are observed and can consistantly be predicted, given the right information. erg. It can be found as a constant force because the effects are completely dependent on the consistincy of the objects mass and acceleration. On the same note it is NOT seen as a constant like the speed of light. The truth of the matter is that the velocity of light... C, isnt even a constant speed. Light travels slower through any medium including the earth's atmosphere. in the same scence would you not consider light to be called a constant force?

    The only way these two problems could be solved is if you were to say that gravity is not constant, but that wouldn't make sense in Newtonian physics because absolutely nothing about the earth changes, not its mass, not its density, nothing, and according to everything I've been raised to know, you cannot change just one thing in the universe without changing at least one more thing.

     

    And to top it all off, gravity, supposedly a force, is not even measured in Newtons, the standard unit of force.

     

    Im not sure here, but, im pretty sure you could solve for the force of gravity between two objects. erg. The force measured in newtons, between two objects in the vaccuum of space.

     

    id post more but the bell rang and im out of time to type.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.