... John Gray was wrong... they're not from Venus, they're from Kepler 22-b :O
Printable View
... John Gray was wrong... they're not from Venus, they're from Kepler 22-b :O
This 'habitable' zone always makes me curl my upper lip in an unimpressed manner.
It's mainly the implication that anywhere else is uninhabitable.
I guess it's for simplicity but, even though I don't have one to suggest, I'd prefer a more correct adjective to describe the zone which the scienticians are concentrating their studies.
in related news; inb4 this becomes a love or logic thread
Thank fuck for that... at last a thread where we're not going to talk about women and what a misognistic cunt I am.Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
Habitable zone was probably the best they could come up with, scientists are amazingly unimaginative, have you seen the completely ridiculous names they give some things.
That is probably due to the fact that manker has only recently returned after a long absence, and so has missed on many of your more truly misogynistic rants of the past. He can either review your post history at his leisure and draw his own conclusions or wait for your next outpouring.Quote:
Originally Posted by rejectOfAllah
Unless of course you spoke too soon?Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis
See I can't help but sit here pondering what has happened to those scientists who used to come up with proper names for things, and then it struck me... they were all men... this unimaginative naming thing has only really come about since women were allowed to be scientists too. :P
Habitable by what? I mean who knows what alienists find habitable. It could be a planet composed entirely of Marmite.
Even when you wish to "change the subject", you've still got misogyny on the mind, you cunt.Quote:
Originally Posted by rejectOfAllah
:glag:Quote:
Originally Posted by megabytemeEven when you wish to "change the subject", you've still got misogyny on the mind, you cunt.Quote:
Originally Posted by rejectOfAllah
Hello Les :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
Have I ever explained my little green blobs theory of life to you? :whistling
Is it a politics thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by rejectOfAllahHello Les :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
Have I ever explained my little green blobs theory of life to you? :whistling
like if it is I think I might see where you are going with this.
It's not politics, it goes a little like this:
Everything man knows and believes is due to indoctrination, for example:
Spoiler: ShowThere are no units of measurement, they were just made up by scientists. So an inch could actually be an unbelievably long way.
Spoiler: ShowThere are no shapes, we just gave names to describe what we saw, assuming that the electromagnetic image we get is an accurate representation of what the object actually looks like, so a circle could really be rectangular
Spoiler: ShowThere are no colours, see the second statement, we again just gave convenient names to the colours we perceived without any real way of measuring if what we perceived is accurate
Ergo it's entirely likely we're all two foot tall green blobs, who have deluded ourselves into this grand perception of how we (and everything else) look(s).
Dewd, I've seen most of them. I got linked to a couple and my interest was piqued.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtemisThat is probably due to the fact that manker has only recently returned after a long absence, and so has missed on many of your more truly misogynistic rants of the past. He can either review your post history at his leisure and draw his own conclusions or wait for your next outpouring.Quote:
Originally Posted by rejectOfAllah
I found them literally incredible.
He's just a bucket of love. A gigantic drizzly-marzipan-monkey.
I could actually go for solipsism but if it were to be the case then I feel I should have done rather better for myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by rejectOfAllah
Except that would mean my own mind could create chavis and so many others... Nah! I can't believe that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
I can't think of one either, that isn't too cumbersome. It looks like we're stuck with habitable zone for now until Snee gets here, I'm sure he'll come up with something...Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
Going back to the original news, just because a planet occupies the "habitable" zone, it doesn't necessarily mean that it contains life. There are many more factors that came into play to create life here, not just location.
Also there are unique characteristics of Earth that we take for granted that are absolutely vital to our existence, for example the 23 degree tilt of earth's axis which gives us seasons, and the moon which gives the ocean tides.
I would never rule out "life" anywhere, but intelligent life, that's so ridiculously unlikely it must be absurdly rare I should think.
Asimov taught me that it's not only that we have a moon, it's its sheer size which makes it so important.
No other planet in the solar system has such a relatively large moon.
Except Pluto's Charon, which doesn't count because it's not a proper planet :snooty:
Our planet would be similar to Mars without our proportionately gigantic satellite due to things like axis tilt regulation and probably other stuff that I don't recall.
[bookworld] Have you read any Stephen Baxter? His "Manifold" series of books explores all those sorts of issues, starting with the basic premise of "there's something wrong with the universe".
All fiction of course, but fiction based on scientific fact, much like Buck Rogers in the 25th Century* :smilie4:
[/bookworld]
* not really like Buck Rogers in the 25th Century
I haven't dewd, but I will. The title of the series sounds interesting in and of itself.
I've spoiled myself by reading all of Asimov and Vonnegut first so I definitely need some sci-fi authors that don't suck.
I'm not so certain intelligent life would be so entirely improbable. While humans are the only ones to build complex* "stuff", dogs, pigs, horses**, dolphins, whales, various primates, and I'm sure others, all demonstrate moderate levels of intelligence. Certainly, if evolution is to have any kind of credibility, those creatures that can adapt, and work together, will have a far greater likelihood of survival. Given a few hundred million years more time to evolve (without being raised in captivity), are we certain at least a couple of the creatures I've mentioned wouldn't have closer-to-human capabilities?
*Even large insect colonies display order, and construction skills.
**The perfect egg-crushing devices, right? :)
I believe that intelligent life is entirely probable. With that probability tending to certainty, given the immense numbers of stars in galaxies in even the known universe.
What's improbable is intelligent life devising a method of interstellar travel which wouldn't take brazillions of years.
It's out there, but it's irrelevant :dabs:
A bit like wales? :oQuote:
Originally Posted by manker
Stfu before I rouse my Silurian brethren and invade you :snooty:
Are we intelligent enough to recognise intelligent life should we find it?
I shall reserve my opinions about this until after you've all posted your undoubtedly incisive and wit filled riposts to my question.
So, are you asking if you were to post an intelligent question, would we give you credit for doing so? I'm holding out for evidence first...Quote:
Originally Posted by rejectOfAllah