Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Delbert

  1. Presumably you're referring to the Moon currently moving away therefore it must have been closer long ago and the Earth rotating faster? If so, I think you will find that according to measurements taken over the years from the reflectors placed on the Moon from the Apollo missions, the Moon is moving away. All this is occasioned by gravitational drag. The Earth rotating 28 (approx) times faster is effectively pulling on the Moon and speeding it up. It thus moves away - conservation of momentum and all that. Clearly, going back in the past it must have been closer, with the Earth rotating faster (shorter days). Although I think part of my description might be wrong when I said the Earth would speed up when it's rotating backwards - I think it will still slow down. I understand the Moon is moving 3.78 cm a year away from Earth, and the day is getting longer by 1.7 milliseconds a century.
  2. Very true, trouble is that's assuming the Moon starts where it is. But of course long ago, I understand, the Moon was a lot closer and correspondingly an Earth day was something like 6 hours. And if the earth was also rotating in the opposite direction at that time long ago, the Moon would then move even closer than the close point it already was and the Earth day would get even shorter. The consequence being the current Earth Moon situation today would not exist with the profound certainty we wouldn't be here asking the question either. In other words, it's pointless question about something that would never unfold.
  3. Oh dear, getting into the minutiae of dictionary definitions. I'm not claiming to have used the absolute correct word, but I'm sure the meaning was manifest. How else can I explain it? The cells of our bodies only organise themselves in such a way that's called 'awake' so the bag on cells we call a body can obtain food, secure shelter and reproduce. Nothing else. The state this bag of cells we call our body prefer (perhaps 'prefer' not even the write word!) is what we call sleep - as said, why on earth would they expend the extra energy needed to create the state of 'awake'. It might be sleep to our consciousness (again 'our' might not be the right word because our consciousness is just cells acting in an organised way that manifest this thing called consciousness), but it's doubtless cells working harder (again I hope 'harder' is the right word). And by the way, I don't accept the words 'awake' or 'sleep'. But I understand the meaning with which they are used in this discussion, and therefore not creating a side discussion about definition, meaning or points being made.
  4. 'Require' I think is the wrong word for sleep. It would be more correct to say the animal 'requires' a certain number of hours awake. A certain number of hours to obtain food and shelter etc, all the things I mentioned in my reply #18. Elephants you mention, for example, probably need to be awake longer because it's more difficult and takes longer to obtain their food and water. Being awake needs energy, and being awake longer than necessary means more energy - which means a struggle for more food than is necessary. Why on earth should a bag on cells needlessly expend unnecessary energy to stay awake when it doesn't have to? Sleep is the normal state of existence.
  5. Sleep is the normal state of existence. We're only 'awake' to obtain food, reproduce and secure safe shelter (to sleep). We are a bag of cells. And other than the above, why on earth would cells club together (brain cells in particular) and expend energy to create 'consciousness'. It serves no purpose other than the above.
  6. I think you will find that the idea is that the planets are not in their original positions - the large planets in particular. In fact I understand it's not known if the orbits could be described as stable. Not stable as there might be a configuration whereby a planet could drift off out of orbit. The reverse process of how some moons, I believe, are suggested to have been captured into an orbit. And I think you will find that a circular orbit is a very rare occurrence - such that it's next to impossible. The Earth's orbit is not circular but elliptical whereby it's closer to the Sun when the northern hemisphere is in winter. Which means the Sun is not to even at the centre of Earth's non-circular orbit (if it were at the centre there would be two close occurrences and two farthest occurrences).
  7. 300mb of free space seems very small. The only Android device I have is what must be a 4 year old pocket camera with an Android operating system (4.1.2) with 3.97Gb internal memory and 2.38Gb of it being free. Your description reminds me of a friend of mine who has an Android Tablet that has no update facility. And what's more, it can't play YouTube videos. In other words, the operating system appears to be locked to a specific release and will eventually become out of date and unusable. The conclusion being that some Tablets use a limited and or non-updateable version of Android. Has your tablet a 'software update' facility? Probably located in 'about device' within 'settings'.
  8. Apparently they've found sodium cyanide about; and yet the other day there was a news item on BBC TV featuring a reporter walking about and around all those burnt-out cars. But now apparently a two-mile evacuation radius has been created! Who did the risk assessment for a BBC TV reporter to mingle about those cars?
  9. I think it depends who you ask. If Einstein, then I believe what he would say is something like: the Earth travels in a straight line in curved space-time (the Sun's mass bends space-time). Others might say it's the centripetal force of gravity deflecting Earth's linear motion. And then perhaps others might say it's a centrifugal force countering the Sun's gravity. I think you will find that Earth's orbit changes all the time, such that no two orbits are exactly the same. I even understand it's thought that larger fluctuations in Earth's orbit, resulting in climate extremes, which accounts for the development through evolution of our (what we like to think) large brain.
  10. UFO, I believe, means unidentified. But if I've understood your remarks correctly, they are not unidentified, but are instead ET. That to me is a contradiction. And to be specific, if you're suggesting that these as yet unidentified sightings are ET, my view is they are no such thing. And I'd go further and suggest there's no evidence, no evidence whatsoever that would stand up to peer revue, to support such. And as for this travelling and communicating much faster than not only we can, but what we are restricted to, I'm sorry but such is closer to a séance than science.
  11. All I'm trying to say is that it appears that we are here today as a consequence of only just squeezing through numerous major events throughout earth's history; and ending up with the (what we like to think of) brain capable of discussing it - not to mention space rockets etc. Consequently it seems to me that the possibility of there being ET signals is negative. And that's not to considering the vast distance, which means time, between us and the extraordinarily near impossibility of there being ET. Just taking the Milky Way being, what is it, 100,000 light years across? Or even a quarter of that distance of 25,000 years! And then how long can an intelligent life form exist for? If I've understood correctly what EO Wilson is suggesting, if we don't change pretty soon the whole bio system could simply collapse - and us along with it. If true, how long will we be around transmitting signals - a few hundred years mayhap? And all that is assuming ET exists in the first place having been through environmental tight spots such that suitable brain was necessary for survival. I say no more than a snowball's chance in the proverbial. I was replying a your point about what appeared to be it's a simple point about absolute brain size. My reply to that was to suggest it's not that simple. Which you've just confirmed.
  12. Exactly. As said, a large brain is probably not normally necessary to survive. As I was trying to suggest, it was only a sequence of events, perhaps very rare and lucky events, whereby evolution favoured a larger brain for us. Bigger brains for us with the situation at the time was the way out (or forward) for evolution. And as far as I can see it was a close run thing. Close run thing because, as I believe, there were a number of humanoids around at the time, and it was our predecessors that just, and apparently only just, evolved the necessary attributes to survive - a larger brain in the absence of natural weaponry or defence, and no doubt, numerous other factors. I think the point is being missed here. Evolution favours survival, that's all. Nothing more. For an animal to evolve a larger brain there has to an overriding reason. An overriding reason because I think it's the case for example that such requires far more nutrition than a lesser one, and evolution, I believe, doesn't favour unnecessary luxuries. So? Again, I think the point is being missed here. I'm suggesting it was only a particular rare sequence of the events to which you refer that favoured how we ended up with this organ between our ears. I understand it's the case that brains are primarily for controlling bodily functions, and the bigger the body the bigger the brain to needed to control it. Indeed, I further understand there's a particular ratio of brain size to body size whereby only if the brain exceeds such a ratio is there, what I suppose could be described as, spare brain for what we describe as intelligence. But as said, there has to be an evolutionary reason for spare brain. Some birds, I understand, have a brain above this ratio such that they have been observed making and using a tool. And they have a brain smaller in size than others that can't make a tool with a larger brain! So it's not simply actual brain size, it's the ratio of it to body size. But you can be sure that the mentioned bird's particular brain ratio was fashioned by evolutionary selection.
  13. I think if you read my comment the context was tongue-in-cheek. That was my point exactly. Our brains have shrunk (according to findings) because we don't need such a big one in our cosseted world. And with their bigger brains they'd survive in Times Square. But if as you say stone age man wouldn't survive, I'd go further and suggest that we wouldn't survive in Times square either! Wouldn't survive because, I suggest, Times Square totally relies on elsewhere for support - after all, it's mostly a load of concrete. Perhaps I'm pushing it a bit here, but that's how it seems to me. But all this seems off topic. The main point I'm trying to make is that all the narrow environmental squeaks humankind and his primeval progenitors appear to have squeezed through, intelligent life seems a damn chancy thing to me - not to mention the apparent chancy event(s) that favoured such a large brain. Which to me, renders the possibility of receiving a radio signal from a far distant other to be negative.
  14. Frankly, I can't understand why you raise the point, as it's simply irrelevant on the basis that it applies to both. Think we are talking at cross purposes here, because I think that what you're saying is what I'm saying. We still go out killing. It's just that most of us get someone else to do it. As for Times Square, I cannot see why stone age man wouldn't get on okay. After all he has the cunning to survive in the jungle, and previously in worse conditions when the Earth experienced orbital fluctuations. Anyway, back to the subject. It still seems to me that we're only here because of a number of particular events. And should any one perhaps be just microscopically different, we almost certainly wouldn't be here. Even just 70,000 years ago I understand some impact or such reduced worldwide humanoid population to a few thousand. Just one lucky moment out of many, me thinks. Life as such is probably very common, but life that we would call intelligent seems to me to be extremely rare - possibly to the point of total dearth!
  15. Probably not. As far as I can see that may well make the situation more significant, as with the possibility stone age man maybe having not only a bigger one but a greater intelligence per cubic centimetre! Sorry, but your argument can work both ways. Well, upon reading the media I'm not too sure about any of that. As for killing, how on earth do those chickens, sides of beef and the like get to the shops? Why would we need or obtain a bigger brain following the access to better nutrition? My understanding of evolution is the need for whatever favouring variation(s). On the other hand it might increase in size as a simple consequence (like I would get fat upon overeating), but as per your previous, it's questionable as to whether it would infer greater intelligence. He or she would probably get on alright. And probably a darn sight better than you or me if dropped into Times Square with nothing more than a loincloth.
  16. That's interesting about social groups possibly reducing brain size - don't want to trivialise it, but ending up with an ants brain springs to mind. As for aggression, I'm not aware as to the statistics, but there seems enough conflict going on in today's world to keep newspapers puzzling as to what headline to use on any one day. As for the nutrition factor, it still doesn't level it off for me, as I'm sure it's the case that stone age man didn't have the easy access to nutritious food that you and I have. In other words we still have a smaller brain on equal terms. Not sure of all the particulars, but I seem to recall what I think was a plane crash in an isolated part of Australia. The survivors were struggling to find food and survive and eventually got to the point of exhaustion. Unbeknownst to them they were being watched by a local tribesman, who, once they were exhausted, approached and helped them to survive. The consequence seems to me that the crash survivors with all their technology just didn't possess the intellect of the tribesman. I grow a few veg etc, and when I consider the energy I spend in doing so I wonder if I had to do it for real in the wild together with fauna husbandry, if I wouldn't expend more energy than I'd gain! It's probably a fine balance. In other words I'd doubtlessly need the cunning of stone age man - which I'm sure I haven't!
  17. I think it is the case that evolution only requires a brain large enough to perform the basics. One just needs enough to obtain food, avoid predation and not least to reproduce; the smallest insect with a miniscule brain is able to do all that. A slime mould seems to get on alright! But with humanoids I understand, the thinking is Earth's orbital fluctuations combined with our lack of anatomical weaponry, defence or escape agility, favoured cunning and a larger brain. But as said, not quite bad enough to wipe us out. As for dinosaurs getting a larger brain: why would they need one? some had sufficient weaponry, and some had bulk, tough hide, slashing spiked tails etc. And even if they did how would they use it? We had these thinks called hands with apposing thumbs (probably evolved from previous need for climbing). And as I mentioned in my reply #6, I understand findings have revealed that our brains are now getting smaller! In other words, the intellect to survive today, develop space pockets, computers and iPhones, is less than that required to survive in the jungle. Getting smaller! If true I think the long term consequences need contemplation. P.S. apologies for the typing errors in my reply #6. I hope they were obvious such that the meaning wasn't lost.
  18. I certainly wouldn't take the view that plate tectonics are unique to Earth. I was just trying to suggest that the trail or sequence on events might be rare. Just taking one event that of dinosaur extinctions, whereby it was enough to extinguish the dinosaurs but not quite enough to extinguish small rodents (which I understand it's thought we evolved from). Then the suggested Earth's orbit excursions rendering life hard for our ancestors favouring an ever larger brain through generations. And so on and so on. Seems a sequence of quite unusual events. And what did I read a while ago? On average our brains are about 10% - 15% smaller that stone age man!!! Would that be because like has become too easy? P.S. in the first sentence of my reply #4 it should've read 'not uncommon'. To much amber nectar!
  19. I would venture to suggest life is probably uncommon. Suitable 'seed' molecules perhaps were deposited here on the Earth by impacting objects, so life of some sort is probably common. But for organisms like us to have evolved, I understand required certain events. Events like mass extinctions, climate excursions etc. For example, how did we acquire, what we like to think, is a large brain. I understand the suggestion is excursions of the Earth's orbit affecting the climate whereby selection favoured a larger brain for us to survive. But not sufficiently severe to exterminate us. Perhaps some might say damn lucky to still be here! Not forgetting the tectonic plate movements and the like which I understand enable continents to move and be maintained; because maybe it's the case that without such they would eventually be weathered down and washed into the sea, rendering the Earth to look like a liquid ball! All looks like a rare and chancy business, if you ask me. So I'd say no chance of finding ET.
  20. All Greeks? I'm not sure I said anything of the sort. Without looking back I recall I said 'the voters' in my description of who were to blame. Well, I clearly made the mistake of assuming it was obvious that it's the ones that voted 'for' or 'yes' to whatever, were the ones to blame. It's the poor sods I feel sorry for who voted 'against' whatever that suffer the consequences of the larger number that voted 'for' (or whichever way around, just in case someone forensically examines my 'for' and 'against'!). But baring the pain of the majority's voting preference is the price we have to bare for democracy; democracy's a diabolical way to run a country I know, but as I think someone once said: better than all the others. I'm sorry, but this whole forensic examination by plainly ignoring what I would've thought to be the blindingly obvious aspect of my comments, I find quite interesting. Off topic, but interesting nonetheless. I'll have to be so much more circumspect and aware of minutiae in commenting and try to avoid such oversight in future.
  21. Au contraire once again. It seems to me it's you that do not understand the logical or fundamental difference between the collective action of an organism (referred to as the 'voice of the people' in my analogy), and the action or view of an individual within it. The action or direction of an organism is the result of the collective motions of individuals within it. Some maybe pulling one way with others the other way. For you to suggest that a particular individual is responsible for what such an organism does as the result of the actions of others pulling in the opposite direction, I can only describe as ludicrous logic. To take an example: It's like saying those in parliament that vote against a particular bill are responsible for the consequences if the bill is passed because others voted for it! In that case those who voted against the Iraq war are responsible for that war because others voted for the war! Obsoletely ludicrous.
  22. Sorry, don't understand the logic. How can those who didn't vote for a lunatic voted into office be held responsible for the actions of said lunatic?
  23. Au contraire, I voted against it. Anyway and again, I think you're missing the point, if not the whole concept of democracy. Which party enters the corridors of power is as a consequence of the voice of the collective organism formed by the people - not by the particular individual desires of any one person like you or me. We all have to go along with the crowd. Anyway, according to reports there's a slight element of sanity has emerged, with countries not in the Euro not being invoiced for bailout cash. But it's early days yet. Declined! If I was in power I wouldn't use such a word - rather something from Prince Phillip's dictionary. So, thrown some more money at the situation. And according to reports I understand the IMF are saying they'll need an awful lot more and unlikely to pay any of it back. What lesson is that for others? I'm inclined to place money on others saying, nay demanding: where's mine? A madhouse developing nicely.
  24. Well, I thought I just explained that in my reply #108. What part of: "something that they have no jurisdiction over. No jurisdiction, therefore I have no voting power over it, which I think makes your suggestion incorrect." don't you understand? Okay, I'll try and express it differently: It is a decision made by a different fiscal authority (different country, as far as I'm concerned) of which my country, and therefore I, do not have any voting control over. Indeed, I understand this suggested invoicing to a different country with it's own totally separate sovereign currency, is so far outside credibility it could only be from a tin-pot loony-tune bank of the madhouse. But as has been suggested in the media, they are making it up as they go along. Typical approach of a dictatorship.
  25. That maybe one view, but in contrast I'd say the Euro is undoubtedly undemocratic. My government didn't join, but the dictators of the EU want us to cough-up for this mess, to which our government states they won't pay for something that they have no jurisdiction over. No jurisdiction, therefore I have no voting power over it, which I think makes your suggestion incorrect. Democracy, I believe, requires that things have to be variable, adjustable or even possible to be thrown into the dustbin should the people so decide through their voting voice. It appears that that can't happen with the Euro. In other words the Euro is profoundly undemocratic. I'd go further and suggest what we're seeing with this Greek situation is what can - nay does - happen when there's no democracy - even with just one factor! As we see, what happens is politicians one minute saying No, then a week later, totally ignoring the will of the people expressed just a week prior, by saying Yes! Running about like headless chickens. In other words, chaos and all that follows. That's what happens when one takes or denies - even just one aspect of - democracy from the people. Democracy is a precious fragile golden egg which needs protection. Something the EU leaders in Brussels, it appears, have yet to learn.
  • 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.