No. You can weigh more on a smaller planet than on a larger one
depending on the density. For example, in your link, you weigh more on
Mercury than you do on Mars, even though Mars has twice the mass of
Mercury.
While it's true that the Earth probably intakes more cosmic dust than we
give it credit for, the science behind expanding earth theory is totally
bunk.
Ah! Granted. But the correlation of mass to gravity is still present, such that hypothetically dumping a billion tons of rocks on a given planet will never reduce its gravity.
That is just the sort of hubris exhibited in the "ten miracles" article. Like how it says earth's rotation and orbit hasn't changed. To put it colloquially, "O rly?" Or again (with regards to modern day measurements), how the ratio of 100 years (generous) to 100 million is totally marginalized.
Troll? Is it so inconceivable that a man may speak plainly and honestly at all times, that you do not know it when you see it? But this is what happens when you pay respect to insincere prattlers of unicorns and spaghetti.
My layman's banter is nothing more than poking fun for fun's sake (at my own proposed theory no less). It doesn't mean that I think gigantic insects are a ridiculous notion.
I insist that even 100 million years is an expanse of time well beyond man's ability to comprehend, despite how casually these ginormous numbers gets thrown around all the time, and that you are vastly underestimating how long it truly is to say that the change in mass would be negligible.
However, I will say that your take on oxygen levels seems right on the money, since the insects in the rainforests are so enormous! But it does not discredit other factors. That would be like saying chemotherapy doesn't cause hair loss because we already know it's genetics.
Says here says I weigh less on smaller planets, and more on bigger planets, with the exception of some of the gas giants. Nevertheless, on all the smaller ones (of which Earth is much more structurally similar) I weigh less.
Expanding Earth Theory explains the mystery of how the dinosaurs in all their massiveness could have possibly operated under 9.8 m/s² gravity. In short, they didn't. Smaller earth means less gravity, with the earth we know today having been quietly collecting space rocks and dust over the billions of years.
In my layman's opinion, I see no reason not to take the theory to its foregone conclusion: a tiny earth being host to gigantic insects! Then, bigger, hairer, beefier monster spiders ruled the world...until finally, reptiles. Do you not feel the woeful lament of the tiny house spider who silently pines for the "good ol' days?"
Drugs are ill-advised. Premarital sex is ill-advised. Two same-sex human
beings who love each other is on the opposite end of this spectrum. Of
all the things you can condemn, you choose love, the greatest human
emotion. That's just effed up.
We're talking about sex, not love. If you as a straight man meet an awesome dude, no matter how awesome he is or much you have in common you're not going to turn gay. Gay people are already gay before they meet the awesome dude(ette). Sex is the foundation; it's in the bloody name! And it's just wrong to place sexuality so squarely in the public eye from cradle to grave, ie. childrens' books. What a shameful disgrace.
I'm not prioritizing the issue of homosexuality, it happens to be the topic of discussion that you yourself introduced. Actually I consider it a symptom of something greater and not at all the heart of the matter.
If I said that belief in a disembodied intelligence is a
"shortcoming", you guys would shit a brick.
You underestimate me. Firstly that I'm precisely that kind of stereotypical jibbering zealous malcontent. Secondly that I haven't fielded that accusation a million times on this insufferable petrie dish of impudence we call the internet. Thirdly that your every pore isn't already dripping with that sentiment. But then my shits are pretty huge.
True you
shouldnt judge but you should still see it as a problem as a christian
anyways :P
Make no mistake, I don't pussyfoot around homosexuality as being anything but severely ill-advised, same as any sexual deviancy. But I dare not judge him for his shortcomings, lest I be judged.
In short, when someone asks what I think of homosexuality, I say "nobody's perfect."
What did mom always say? "I don't care what the other kids are doing!" The relative shittiness of others doesn't excuse Dawkins', or anyone elses' failings.
The homophobia bit, being an obvious knock at religious doctrine, is a load of cockadookie... because whoever hatemongers for any reason is ignoring the tenet of "Let God be the judge" in the first place. The people that direct the Word at others instead of themselves are not representative of the true faith. They're not just assholes. They're self-righteous assholes, far worse.
SouLCarveRR, neither was I insulting, nor complaining. But I can insult you if you like. My bit about the avatar is akin to telling someone wearing an anti-Semitic shirt that it's stupid to not expect adversity.
Besides that, I was making a point to elevate the thread beyond intellectual curiosity for its own sake and/or personal entertainment. But the point was made, no one cares, so I'll oblige FDFederation.
Does sufficient intelligence redeem any amount of douchiness? ie. Which is better, a stupid nice person or an intelligent asshole?
This question came to me back when I had something of an anti-religious trip. I was watching a video on Richward Dawkins in a church to get my healthy dose of "take THAT"-itude, but the frown on his face in the midst of the joyous congregation was such an indelible image. It felt like there existed a vital aspect of human worth that I completely ignored up to that point.
But the standoff between him and pastor Ted Haggard was pretty classic. Dawkins' baby-eating grimace vs. Haggard's shit-eating grin. Talk about worlds colliding. Figurative blood was shed...
For my part I know who I'd want piloting my airplane, but otherwise I'll take a stupid nice person any day.
I had two choices:
1. Disavow the driving philosophy behind the thread, like dismissable evidence in court
2. Challenge the underlying premise that scientific advancement is invariably good
This is only the rosy side of science. Its perils are not represented. It is a moral imperative that they are. It's not about luddhism, it's about setting priorities. The human race at present is woefully unfit for the type of supertechnology that may be just over the horizon. The solution is social reform, not to dig up Pandora's Box.
EDIT: I should correct myself that the peril lies not in science itself, but man. To wit, science doesn't kill people, people kill people!
That's precisely my point. We don't deserve it, but it has nothing to do with a lack of scientific understanding. Your analogies only follow insomuch that humanity may be characterized with benevolence.
I too share a keen interest in the underlying mathematics that operate reality. But without a discussion on how science relates to the human condition, science threads have no relevance. I'm just trying to give it some.
Besides, you can't expect a profile pic like that prefacing everything you say to not scream "ulterior motive." It's contentious by design, so contention is what comes of it.
EDIT: If "social engineering" falls under engineering, I may have some articles for you.
My explanation is more or less congruent with what you're saying. Basically, any game where number crunching is a prominent component offers little in the ways of bragging rights (to say nothing of rock-paper-scissors character selection). So when people brag where it isn't warranted, it creates this sort of derisive waste material energy, kind of like radioactive fallout.
This "way of science" you speak of won't fix what's wrong with us. If it did, one would expect immediate assistance from a benevolent intergalactic community. But, it hasn't happened.
That's the thing though. I DON'T think they have an "amazing product". I
think they have a medeocre product which is the mainstream and due to
momentum and microsoft elbowing out competitors at every opertunity.
Which ever company holds the market share has the power to remain in
power regardless of the quality of their product.
What a great analogy for the SC2 popularity system.
Even if we're to believe Einstein made this kind of amateurish mistake in failing to control his own orgone energy experiment, he chose not to correct and repeat it, and instead abruptly cut all correspondence with Reich. Why?
The implications of orgone energy are staggering, and the main reason I suspect foul play is the tragedy that befell Reich and his associate. They were both locked up in federal prison. Reich died there, and the other one committed suicide.
0
Ah! Granted. But the correlation of mass to gravity is still present, such that hypothetically dumping a billion tons of rocks on a given planet will never reduce its gravity.
@Hookah604: Go
That is just the sort of hubris exhibited in the "ten miracles" article. Like how it says earth's rotation and orbit hasn't changed. To put it colloquially, "O rly?" Or again (with regards to modern day measurements), how the ratio of 100 years (generous) to 100 million is totally marginalized.
0
@Hookah604: Go
Troll? Is it so inconceivable that a man may speak plainly and honestly at all times, that you do not know it when you see it? But this is what happens when you pay respect to insincere prattlers of unicorns and spaghetti.
My layman's banter is nothing more than poking fun for fun's sake (at my own proposed theory no less). It doesn't mean that I think gigantic insects are a ridiculous notion.
@FDFederation: Go
I insist that even 100 million years is an expanse of time well beyond man's ability to comprehend, despite how casually these ginormous numbers gets thrown around all the time, and that you are vastly underestimating how long it truly is to say that the change in mass would be negligible.
However, I will say that your take on oxygen levels seems right on the money, since the insects in the rainforests are so enormous! But it does not discredit other factors. That would be like saying chemotherapy doesn't cause hair loss because we already know it's genetics.
@Gradius12: Go
http://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/weight/
Says here says I weigh less on smaller planets, and more on bigger planets, with the exception of some of the gas giants. Nevertheless, on all the smaller ones (of which Earth is much more structurally similar) I weigh less.
0
http://www.dinox.org/expandingearth.html
Expanding Earth Theory explains the mystery of how the dinosaurs in all their massiveness could have possibly operated under 9.8 m/s² gravity. In short, they didn't. Smaller earth means less gravity, with the earth we know today having been quietly collecting space rocks and dust over the billions of years.
In my layman's opinion, I see no reason not to take the theory to its foregone conclusion: a tiny earth being host to gigantic insects! Then, bigger, hairer, beefier monster spiders ruled the world...until finally, reptiles. Do you not feel the woeful lament of the tiny house spider who silently pines for the "good ol' days?"
0
We're talking about sex, not love. If you as a straight man meet an awesome dude, no matter how awesome he is or much you have in common you're not going to turn gay. Gay people are already gay before they meet the awesome dude(ette). Sex is the foundation; it's in the bloody name! And it's just wrong to place sexuality so squarely in the public eye from cradle to grave, ie. childrens' books. What a shameful disgrace.
I'm not prioritizing the issue of homosexuality, it happens to be the topic of discussion that you yourself introduced. Actually I consider it a symptom of something greater and not at all the heart of the matter.
You underestimate me. Firstly that I'm precisely that kind of stereotypical jibbering zealous malcontent. Secondly that I haven't fielded that accusation a million times on this insufferable petrie dish of impudence we call the internet. Thirdly that your every pore isn't already dripping with that sentiment. But then my shits are pretty huge.
EDIT: your*
0
Make no mistake, I don't pussyfoot around homosexuality as being anything but severely ill-advised, same as any sexual deviancy. But I dare not judge him for his shortcomings, lest I be judged.
In short, when someone asks what I think of homosexuality, I say "nobody's perfect."
0
@Gradius12: Go
What did mom always say? "I don't care what the other kids are doing!" The relative shittiness of others doesn't excuse Dawkins', or anyone elses' failings.
The homophobia bit, being an obvious knock at religious doctrine, is a load of cockadookie... because whoever hatemongers for any reason is ignoring the tenet of "Let God be the judge" in the first place. The people that direct the Word at others instead of themselves are not representative of the true faith. They're not just assholes. They're self-righteous assholes, far worse.
0
SouLCarveRR, neither was I insulting, nor complaining. But I can insult you if you like. My bit about the avatar is akin to telling someone wearing an anti-Semitic shirt that it's stupid to not expect adversity.
Besides that, I was making a point to elevate the thread beyond intellectual curiosity for its own sake and/or personal entertainment. But the point was made, no one cares, so I'll oblige FDFederation.
EDIT: a point a point
0
Does sufficient intelligence redeem any amount of douchiness? ie. Which is better, a stupid nice person or an intelligent asshole?
This question came to me back when I had something of an anti-religious trip. I was watching a video on Richward Dawkins in a church to get my healthy dose of "take THAT"-itude, but the frown on his face in the midst of the joyous congregation was such an indelible image. It felt like there existed a vital aspect of human worth that I completely ignored up to that point.
But the standoff between him and pastor Ted Haggard was pretty classic. Dawkins' baby-eating grimace vs. Haggard's shit-eating grin. Talk about worlds colliding. Figurative blood was shed...
For my part I know who I'd want piloting my airplane, but otherwise I'll take a stupid nice person any day.
0
@SouLCarveRR: Go
I had two choices: 1. Disavow the driving philosophy behind the thread, like dismissable evidence in court 2. Challenge the underlying premise that scientific advancement is invariably good
This is only the rosy side of science. Its perils are not represented. It is a moral imperative that they are. It's not about luddhism, it's about setting priorities. The human race at present is woefully unfit for the type of supertechnology that may be just over the horizon. The solution is social reform, not to dig up Pandora's Box.
EDIT: I should correct myself that the peril lies not in science itself, but man. To wit, science doesn't kill people, people kill people!
0
@FDFederation: Go
That's precisely my point. We don't deserve it, but it has nothing to do with a lack of scientific understanding. Your analogies only follow insomuch that humanity may be characterized with benevolence.
I too share a keen interest in the underlying mathematics that operate reality. But without a discussion on how science relates to the human condition, science threads have no relevance. I'm just trying to give it some.
Besides, you can't expect a profile pic like that prefacing everything you say to not scream "ulterior motive." It's contentious by design, so contention is what comes of it.
EDIT: If "social engineering" falls under engineering, I may have some articles for you.
0
@Mozared: Go
My explanation is more or less congruent with what you're saying. Basically, any game where number crunching is a prominent component offers little in the ways of bragging rights (to say nothing of rock-paper-scissors character selection). So when people brag where it isn't warranted, it creates this sort of derisive waste material energy, kind of like radioactive fallout.
0
This "way of science" you speak of won't fix what's wrong with us. If it did, one would expect immediate assistance from a benevolent intergalactic community. But, it hasn't happened.
0
DOTA and its ilk are the most incendiary games I've ever played. It can only be a design flaw.
0
What a great analogy for the SC2 popularity system.
0
I want to direct your attention to Wilhelm Reich (proponent of orgone energy), specifically his interactions with Albert Einstein:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Reich#Experiment_with_Einstein
Even if we're to believe Einstein made this kind of amateurish mistake in failing to control his own orgone energy experiment, he chose not to correct and repeat it, and instead abruptly cut all correspondence with Reich. Why?
The implications of orgone energy are staggering, and the main reason I suspect foul play is the tragedy that befell Reich and his associate. They were both locked up in federal prison. Reich died there, and the other one committed suicide.