Topic: More than 1,200 new planets that could hold life found - page 6. (Read 7408 times)

Quote from: mOgliE on May 20, 2016, 11:42:45 AM

If the universe is made out of the same stuff everywhere and nature hates to waste energy to build new stuff, could the humanoid shape be the most logical path for an intelligent life form ready for space exploration?

NO. Because as we all know, our big brains stem from the fact we have opposing thumbs and fingers.

That is, unless you choose to be a Denier of these established scientific factoids. Just as the grand planet Pluto is now only a Plutoid, by virtue of a consensus of scientific opinion, you must bow down to factoids such as the thumb and finger oppositional premise of the big brain theory, and ignore contrary evidence such as the infinite number of gradations of stupidity. Those only confirm the hypothesis, as creatures which were more stupid would have fewer possible levels of stupidity. Thus in the case of Hillary, it's "Bill or No Bill?" asked from one side of the bed to Huma, on the other side.

Now, if the oppositional thumb merits discussion, we have to acknowledge that beings, creatures or slimeballs with a plethora of said oppositional apparatus would be greater in intelligence as follows.

n = number of oppositional thumb/finger pairs
t = time
c = clusterfuck factor
bb = degree to which brain is high or low density in bricklike nature
F = unknown factor, plugged into make the results agree with pre determined intent

Smartness = n^(t*(-c + -bb + F)

Obviously...

LOL, everytime I read one of your post I discover a new way to see things in an absurd and far too simplified way.

So you don't agree on the fact that Pluto is not a planet? Tell us how you know things better than all scientists. After proving how you're better than any meteorologist and climatologists I bet you're ready to show us how good of an astronaum you are xD

Spendulus, the great scientist!

Pluto may exhibit some characteristics not belonging to planets, but it exhibits some planetary characteristics, as well.

Within the last couple of years or so, Pluto has been reclassified as a planet by cosmologists. I don't follow their every move, but I don't believe it has been taken out of planet classification, again, recently. If it has, it would have had to have been done within the last 2 or 3 months.

Cool

Of course Pluto is no longer classified as a planet. Only American scientists say otherwise because Pluto was the only planet discovered by americans and they got really angry when the rest of the world wanted to declassify it xD

Whose "spaceship" did that Pluto flyby? Oh, yes. America's. Perhaps those photos of the planet Pluto were all fake. Looked like a planet to me.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap160402.html

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap160227.html

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap160222.html

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap151214.html

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap151125.html

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap151114.html

More at http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html.

Cool

Meh? I'm not saying they didn't take photos of Pluto. But those photos aren't even part of the debate to know if yes or no its a planet. The debate is just: does Pluto answer every criteria of a planet definition.

Does earth? How can we tell? since the majority (if not all) of the other "planets" have no life on them. Cosmologists make up only a tiny percent of the people who live. Pluto is a planet.

Cool

Wtf?
Here is the definition of a planet:
The issue of a clear definition for planet came to a head in January 2005 with the discovery of the trans-Neptunian object Eris, a body more massive than the smallest then-accepted planet, Pluto. In its August 2006 response, the International Astronomical Union (IAU), recognised by astronomers as the world body responsible for resolving issues of nomenclature, released its decision on the matter during a meeting in Prague in the Czech republic. This definition, which applies only to the Solar System, states that a planet is a body that orbits the Sun, is massive enough for its own gravity to make it round, and has "cleared its neighbourhood" of smaller objects around its orbit. Under this new definition, Pluto and the other trans-Neptunian objects do not qualify as planets. The IAU's decision has not resolved all controversies, and while many scientists have accepted the definition, some in the astronomical community have rejected it outright.

Pluto is not a planet simply because there are at least 4 other bodies rather identical to it just next to Pluto. If Pluto is a planet then so are they...

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: BADecker on May 20, 2016, 11:37:09 AM

Quote from: BADecker on May 20, 2016, 11:37:09 AM

If the universe is made out of the same stuff everywhere and nature hates to waste energy to build new stuff, could the humanoid shape be the most logical path for an intelligent life form ready for space exploration?

NO. Because as we all know, our big brains stem from the fact we have opposing thumbs and fingers.

That is, unless you choose to be a Denier of these established scientific factoids. Just as the grand planet Pluto is now only a Plutoid, by virtue of a consensus of scientific opinion, you must bow down to factoids such as the thumb and finger oppositional premise of the big brain theory, and ignore contrary evidence such as the infinite number of gradations of stupidity. Those only confirm the hypothesis, as creatures which were more stupid would have fewer possible levels of stupidity. Thus in the case of Hillary, it's "Bill or No Bill?" asked from one side of the bed to Huma, on the other side.

Now, if the oppositional thumb merits discussion, we have to acknowledge that beings, creatures or slimeballs with a plethora of said oppositional apparatus would be greater in intelligence as follows.

n = number of oppositional thumb/finger pairs
t = time
c = clusterfuck factor
bb = degree to which brain is high or low density in bricklike nature
F = unknown factor, plugged into make the results agree with pre determined intent

Smartness = n^(t*(-c + -bb + F)

Obviously...

LOL, everytime I read one of your post I discover a new way to see things in an absurd and far too simplified way.

So you don't agree on the fact that Pluto is not a planet? Tell us how you know things better than all scientists. After proving how you're better than any meteorologist and climatologists I bet you're ready to show us how good of an astronaum you are xD

Spendulus, the great scientist!

Pluto may exhibit some characteristics not belonging to planets, but it exhibits some planetary characteristics, as well.

Within the last couple of years or so, Pluto has been reclassified as a planet by cosmologists. I don't follow their every move, but I don't believe it has been taken out of planet classification, again, recently. If it has, it would have had to have been done within the last 2 or 3 months.

Cool

Of course Pluto is no longer classified as a planet. Only American scientists say otherwise because Pluto was the only planet discovered by americans and they got really angry when the rest of the world wanted to declassify it xD

Whose "spaceship" did that Pluto flyby? Oh, yes. America's. Perhaps those photos of the planet Pluto were all fake. Looked like a planet to me.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap160402.html

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap160227.html

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap160222.html

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap151214.html

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap151125.html

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap151114.html

More at http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html.

Cool

Meh? I'm not saying they didn't take photos of Pluto. But those photos aren't even part of the debate to know if yes or no its a planet. The debate is just: does Pluto answer every criteria of a planet definition.

Does earth? How can we tell? since the majority (if not all) of the other "planets" have no life on them. Cosmologists make up only a tiny percent of the people who live. Pluto is a planet.

Cool

mOgliE

legendary

Activity: 1344

Merit: 1251

If the universe is made out of the same stuff everywhere and nature hates to waste energy to build new stuff, could the humanoid shape be the most logical path for an intelligent life form ready for space exploration?

NO. Because as we all know, our big brains stem from the fact we have opposing thumbs and fingers.

That is, unless you choose to be a Denier of these established scientific factoids. Just as the grand planet Pluto is now only a Plutoid, by virtue of a consensus of scientific opinion, you must bow down to factoids such as the thumb and finger oppositional premise of the big brain theory, and ignore contrary evidence such as the infinite number of gradations of stupidity. Those only confirm the hypothesis, as creatures which were more stupid would have fewer possible levels of stupidity. Thus in the case of Hillary, it's "Bill or No Bill?" asked from one side of the bed to Huma, on the other side.

Now, if the oppositional thumb merits discussion, we have to acknowledge that beings, creatures or slimeballs with a plethora of said oppositional apparatus would be greater in intelligence as follows.

n = number of oppositional thumb/finger pairs
t = time
c = clusterfuck factor
bb = degree to which brain is high or low density in bricklike nature
F = unknown factor, plugged into make the results agree with pre determined intent

Smartness = n^(t*(-c + -bb + F)

Obviously...

LOL, everytime I read one of your post I discover a new way to see things in an absurd and far too simplified way.

So you don't agree on the fact that Pluto is not a planet? Tell us how you know things better than all scientists. After proving how you're better than any meteorologist and climatologists I bet you're ready to show us how good of an astronaum you are xD

Spendulus, the great scientist!

Pluto may exhibit some characteristics not belonging to planets, but it exhibits some planetary characteristics, as well.

Within the last couple of years or so, Pluto has been reclassified as a planet by cosmologists. I don't follow their every move, but I don't believe it has been taken out of planet classification, again, recently. If it has, it would have had to have been done within the last 2 or 3 months.

Cool

Of course Pluto is no longer classified as a planet. Only American scientists say otherwise because Pluto was the only planet discovered by americans and they got really angry when the rest of the world wanted to declassify it xD

Whose "spaceship" did that Pluto flyby? Oh, yes. America's. Perhaps those photos of the planet Pluto were all fake. Looked like a planet to me.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap160402.html

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap160227.html

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap160222.html

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap151214.html

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap151125.html

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap151114.html

More at http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html.

Cool

Meh? I'm not saying they didn't take photos of Pluto. But those photos aren't even part of the debate to know if yes or no its a planet. The debate is just: does Pluto answer every criteria of a planet definition.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

If the universe is made out of the same stuff everywhere and nature hates to waste energy to build new stuff, could the humanoid shape be the most logical path for an intelligent life form ready for space exploration?

NO. Because as we all know, our big brains stem from the fact we have opposing thumbs and fingers.

That is, unless you choose to be a Denier of these established scientific factoids. Just as the grand planet Pluto is now only a Plutoid, by virtue of a consensus of scientific opinion, you must bow down to factoids such as the thumb and finger oppositional premise of the big brain theory, and ignore contrary evidence such as the infinite number of gradations of stupidity. Those only confirm the hypothesis, as creatures which were more stupid would have fewer possible levels of stupidity. Thus in the case of Hillary, it's "Bill or No Bill?" asked from one side of the bed to Huma, on the other side.

Now, if the oppositional thumb merits discussion, we have to acknowledge that beings, creatures or slimeballs with a plethora of said oppositional apparatus would be greater in intelligence as follows.

n = number of oppositional thumb/finger pairs
t = time
c = clusterfuck factor
bb = degree to which brain is high or low density in bricklike nature
F = unknown factor, plugged into make the results agree with pre determined intent

Smartness = n^(t*(-c + -bb + F)

Obviously...

LOL, everytime I read one of your post I discover a new way to see things in an absurd and far too simplified way.

So you don't agree on the fact that Pluto is not a planet? Tell us how you know things better than all scientists. After proving how you're better than any meteorologist and climatologists I bet you're ready to show us how good of an astronaum you are xD

Spendulus, the great scientist!

Pluto may exhibit some characteristics not belonging to planets, but it exhibits some planetary characteristics, as well.

Within the last couple of years or so, Pluto has been reclassified as a planet by cosmologists. I don't follow their every move, but I don't believe it has been taken out of planet classification, again, recently. If it has, it would have had to have been done within the last 2 or 3 months.

Cool

Of course Pluto is no longer classified as a planet. Only American scientists say otherwise because Pluto was the only planet discovered by americans and they got really angry when the rest of the world wanted to declassify it xD

Whose "spaceship" did that Pluto flyby? Oh, yes. America's. Perhaps those photos of the planet Pluto were all fake. Looked like a planet to me.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap160402.html

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap160227.html

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap160222.html

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap151214.html

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap151125.html

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap151114.html

More at http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html.

Cool

mOgliE

legendary

Activity: 1344

Merit: 1251

If the universe is made out of the same stuff everywhere and nature hates to waste energy to build new stuff, could the humanoid shape be the most logical path for an intelligent life form ready for space exploration?

NO. Because as we all know, our big brains stem from the fact we have opposing thumbs and fingers.

That is, unless you choose to be a Denier of these established scientific factoids. Just as the grand planet Pluto is now only a Plutoid, by virtue of a consensus of scientific opinion, you must bow down to factoids such as the thumb and finger oppositional premise of the big brain theory, and ignore contrary evidence such as the infinite number of gradations of stupidity. Those only confirm the hypothesis, as creatures which were more stupid would have fewer possible levels of stupidity. Thus in the case of Hillary, it's "Bill or No Bill?" asked from one side of the bed to Huma, on the other side.

Now, if the oppositional thumb merits discussion, we have to acknowledge that beings, creatures or slimeballs with a plethora of said oppositional apparatus would be greater in intelligence as follows.

n = number of oppositional thumb/finger pairs
t = time
c = clusterfuck factor
bb = degree to which brain is high or low density in bricklike nature
F = unknown factor, plugged into make the results agree with pre determined intent

Smartness = n^(t*(-c + -bb + F)

Obviously...

LOL, everytime I read one of your post I discover a new way to see things in an absurd and far too simplified way.

So you don't agree on the fact that Pluto is not a planet? Tell us how you know things better than all scientists. After proving how you're better than any meteorologist and climatologists I bet you're ready to show us how good of an astronaum you are xD

Spendulus, the great scientist!

Pluto may exhibit some characteristics not belonging to planets, but it exhibits some planetary characteristics, as well.

Within the last couple of years or so, Pluto has been reclassified as a planet by cosmologists. I don't follow their every move, but I don't believe it has been taken out of planet classification, again, recently. If it has, it would have had to have been done within the last 2 or 3 months.

Cool

Of course Pluto is no longer classified as a planet. Only American scientists say otherwise because Pluto was the only planet discovered by americans and they got really angry when the rest of the world wanted to declassify it xD

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

If the universe is made out of the same stuff everywhere and nature hates to waste energy to build new stuff, could the humanoid shape be the most logical path for an intelligent life form ready for space exploration?

NO. Because as we all know, our big brains stem from the fact we have opposing thumbs and fingers.

That is, unless you choose to be a Denier of these established scientific factoids. Just as the grand planet Pluto is now only a Plutoid, by virtue of a consensus of scientific opinion, you must bow down to factoids such as the thumb and finger oppositional premise of the big brain theory, and ignore contrary evidence such as the infinite number of gradations of stupidity. Those only confirm the hypothesis, as creatures which were more stupid would have fewer possible levels of stupidity. Thus in the case of Hillary, it's "Bill or No Bill?" asked from one side of the bed to Huma, on the other side.

Now, if the oppositional thumb merits discussion, we have to acknowledge that beings, creatures or slimeballs with a plethora of said oppositional apparatus would be greater in intelligence as follows.

n = number of oppositional thumb/finger pairs
t = time
c = clusterfuck factor
bb = degree to which brain is high or low density in bricklike nature
F = unknown factor, plugged into make the results agree with pre determined intent

Smartness = n^(t*(-c + -bb + F)

Obviously...

LOL, everytime I read one of your post I discover a new way to see things in an absurd and far too simplified way.

So you don't agree on the fact that Pluto is not a planet? Tell us how you know things better than all scientists. After proving how you're better than any meteorologist and climatologists I bet you're ready to show us how good of an astronaum you are xD

Spendulus, the great scientist!

Pluto may exhibit some characteristics not belonging to planets, but it exhibits some planetary characteristics, as well.

Within the last couple of years or so, Pluto has been reclassified as a planet by cosmologists. I don't follow their every move, but I don't believe it has been taken out of planet classification, again, recently. If it has, it would have had to have been done within the last 2 or 3 months.

Cool

mOgliE

legendary

Activity: 1344

Merit: 1251

Quote from: Wilikon on May 19, 2016, 09:25:16 AM

If the universe is made out of the same stuff everywhere and nature hates to waste energy to build new stuff, could the humanoid shape be the most logical path for an intelligent life form ready for space exploration?

NO. Because as we all know, our big brains stem from the fact we have opposing thumbs and fingers.

That is, unless you choose to be a Denier of these established scientific factoids. Just as the grand planet Pluto is now only a Plutoid, by virtue of a consensus of scientific opinion, you must bow down to factoids such as the thumb and finger oppositional premise of the big brain theory, and ignore contrary evidence such as the infinite number of gradations of stupidity. Those only confirm the hypothesis, as creatures which were more stupid would have fewer possible levels of stupidity. Thus in the case of Hillary, it's "Bill or No Bill?" asked from one side of the bed to Huma, on the other side.

Now, if the oppositional thumb merits discussion, we have to acknowledge that beings, creatures or slimeballs with a plethora of said oppositional apparatus would be greater in intelligence as follows.

n = number of oppositional thumb/finger pairs
t = time
c = clusterfuck factor
bb = degree to which brain is high or low density in bricklike nature
F = unknown factor, plugged into make the results agree with pre determined intent

Smartness = n^(t*(-c + -bb + F)

Obviously...

LOL, everytime I read one of your post I discover a new way to see things in an absurd and far too simplified way.

So you don't agree on the fact that Pluto is not a planet? Tell us how you know things better than all scientists. After proving how you're better than any meteorologist and climatologists I bet you're ready to show us how good of an astronaum you are xD

Spendulus, the great scientist!

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

If the universe is made out of the same stuff everywhere and nature hates to waste energy to build new stuff, could the humanoid shape be the most logical path for an intelligent life form ready for space exploration?

NO. Because as we all know, our big brains stem from the fact we have opposing thumbs and fingers.

That is, unless you choose to be a Denier of these established scientific factoids. Just as the grand planet Pluto is now only a Plutoid, by virtue of a consensus of scientific opinion, you must bow down to factoids such as the thumb and finger oppositional premise of the big brain theory, and ignore contrary evidence such as the infinite number of gradations of stupidity. Those only confirm the hypothesis, as creatures which were more stupid would have fewer possible levels of stupidity. Thus in the case of Hillary, it's "Bill or No Bill?" asked from one side of the bed to Huma, on the other side.

Now, if the oppositional thumb merits discussion, we have to acknowledge that beings, creatures or slimeballs with a plethora of said oppositional apparatus would be greater in intelligence as follows.

n = number of oppositional thumb/finger pairs
t = time
c = clusterfuck factor
bb = degree to which brain is high or low density in bricklike nature
F = unknown factor, plugged into make the results agree with pre determined intent

Smartness = n^(t*(-c + -bb + F)

Obviously...

Hmm... Looks like very, very intelligent alien creatures will have 10387 opposite thumbs... At least.

You are missing the "c" factor which is signed negatively as it detracts from the overall intelligence of the entity and may destroy a civilization completely. Additionally 10387 is capable of dividing into thirteen or seventeen warring factions. Rumor has it that a chief Export from Earth by the flying saucers of the 1940-1970 era were tool steel Chicken Claws, used by fighting chickens in that long ago brutal and savage era. These super intelligent Aliens fit our Chicken claws onto their opposing thumbs and their hand/brain fights it out. This results in a big mess. However the neural pathways to their brainies is so far that their screams do not occur until after one or another warring faction of the Hand has won. Note that Thumbs do not submit to the slavery of Fingerdom, being by their nature quite oppositional.

Please recompute.

Wilikon

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1001

minds.com/Wilikon

Quote from: Spendulus on May 19, 2016, 07:46:19 AM

If the universe is made out of the same stuff everywhere and nature hates to waste energy to build new stuff, could the humanoid shape be the most logical path for an intelligent life form ready for space exploration?

NO. Because as we all know, our big brains stem from the fact we have opposing thumbs and fingers.

That is, unless you choose to be a Denier of these established scientific factoids. Just as the grand planet Pluto is now only a Plutoid, by virtue of a consensus of scientific opinion, you must bow down to factoids such as the thumb and finger oppositional premise of the big brain theory, and ignore contrary evidence such as the infinite number of gradations of stupidity. Those only confirm the hypothesis, as creatures which were more stupid would have fewer possible levels of stupidity. Thus in the case of Hillary, it's "Bill or No Bill?" asked from one side of the bed to Huma, on the other side.

Now, if the oppositional thumb merits discussion, we have to acknowledge that beings, creatures or slimeballs with a plethora of said oppositional apparatus would be greater in intelligence as follows.

n = number of oppositional thumb/finger pairs
t = time
c = clusterfuck factor
bb = degree to which brain is high or low density in bricklike nature
F = unknown factor, plugged into make the results agree with pre determined intent

Smartness = n^(t*(-c + -bb + F)

Obviously...

Hmm... Looks like very, very intelligent alien creatures will have 10387 opposite thumbs... At least.

vokain

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1019

Quote from: vokain on May 19, 2016, 07:23:57 AM

Quote from: Spendulus on May 18, 2016, 10:57:52 PM

Quote from: vokain on May 19, 2016, 07:23:57 AM

I mean, if in another part of the known universe there exists a hypothetically drastically different magnetic field (baseline if you will), could the behavior of some arbitrary chemicals be different than somewhere else like here, same chemicals?

I think this means probably: http://www.uottawa.ca/publications/interscientia/inter.1/magnetic.html

I would suppose the periodic table to be the same everywhere in this universe, the laws of physics to be the same, and so forth.

Yep

Quote

The article you liked to asserts that some magnetic fields could affect the rate of formation or stability of "free radicals."

But this is somewhat silly, many chemical solutions exist in ionic equilibrium with a simple example being salt in water. NaCl and H2O, radicals would be Na and Cl, plus the H and the O. As far as "health" is concerned there is a mythology about "free radicals" and their importance to being "healthy."

I think I was just wondering if it was possible if different free radical behaviors/concentrations that could exist in other places would affect things around their local environment, especially if said free radicals were somehow more stabilized.

To look at this question one would need to separate the mythology and lore of "antioxidents and free radicals" as it is promoted in "natural medicine" and such from the actual chemistry and biochemistry. For the actual facts I would suggest a source such as www.webMD.com.

Rather than guessing as to the answer to your question you might look for peer reviewed articles which vary magnetic and gravitational fields while growing plants and or animals. I know there have been many such on the ISS space station at least for gravity.

Thank you amigo, I never really looked into those space studies in depth before but I was aware of them as a kid.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: Spendulus on May 18, 2016, 10:57:52 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on May 18, 2016, 10:57:52 PM

I mean, if in another part of the known universe there exists a hypothetically drastically different magnetic field (baseline if you will), could the behavior of some arbitrary chemicals be different than somewhere else like here, same chemicals?

I think this means probably: http://www.uottawa.ca/publications/interscientia/inter.1/magnetic.html

I would suppose the periodic table to be the same everywhere in this universe, the laws of physics to be the same, and so forth.

Yep

Quote

The article you liked to asserts that some magnetic fields could affect the rate of formation or stability of "free radicals."

But this is somewhat silly, many chemical solutions exist in ionic equilibrium with a simple example being salt in water. NaCl and H2O, radicals would be Na and Cl, plus the H and the O. As far as "health" is concerned there is a mythology about "free radicals" and their importance to being "healthy."

I think I was just wondering if it was possible if different free radical behaviors/concentrations that could exist in other places would affect things around their local environment, especially if said free radicals were somehow more stabilized.

To look at this question one would need to separate the mythology and lore of "antioxidents and free radicals" as it is promoted in "natural medicine" and such from the actual chemistry and biochemistry. For the actual facts I would suggest a source such as www.webMD.com.

Rather than guessing as to the answer to your question you might look for peer reviewed articles which vary magnetic and gravitational fields while growing plants and or animals. I know there have been many such on the ISS space station at least for gravity.

vokain

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1019

I mean, if in another part of the known universe there exists a hypothetically drastically different magnetic field (baseline if you will), could the behavior of some arbitrary chemicals be different than somewhere else like here, same chemicals?

I think this means probably: http://www.uottawa.ca/publications/interscientia/inter.1/magnetic.html

I would suppose the periodic table to be the same everywhere in this universe, the laws of physics to be the same, and so forth.

Yep

Quote

The article you liked to asserts that some magnetic fields could affect the rate of formation or stability of "free radicals."

But this is somewhat silly, many chemical solutions exist in ionic equilibrium with a simple example being salt in water. NaCl and H2O, radicals would be Na and Cl, plus the H and the O. As far as "health" is concerned there is a mythology about "free radicals" and their importance to being "healthy."

I think I was just wondering if it was possible if different free radical behaviors/concentrations that could exist in other places would affect things around their local environment, especially if said free radicals were somehow more stabilized.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: Spendulus on May 18, 2016, 07:49:27 PM

I mean, if in another part of the known universe there exists a hypothetically drastically different magnetic field (baseline if you will), could the behavior of some arbitrary chemicals be different than somewhere else like here, same chemicals?

I think this means probably: http://www.uottawa.ca/publications/interscientia/inter.1/magnetic.html

I would suppose the periodic table to be the same everywhere in this universe, the laws of physics to be the same, and so forth. The article you liked to asserts that some magnetic fields could affect the rate of formation or stability of "free radicals."

But this is somewhat silly, many chemical solutions exist in ionic equilibrium with a simple example being salt in water. NaCl and H2O, radicals would be Na and Cl, plus the H and the O. As far as "health" is concerned there is a mythology about "free radicals" and their importance to being "healthy."

vokain

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1019

Quote from: vokain on May 18, 2016, 06:55:50 PM

Just goes to prove the people wrong who believe that we are alone in this universe. If there are over 1,200 possible life-bearing planets discovered relatively near by, who is to say there aren't millions to be discovered.

One line of thought is that planets are as common as stars, being formed in the same processes. But keep in mind that only those in the habitable zone are of interest. Of those, only ones with atmospheres. Of those, only those with magnetic poles and radiation belts. Of those, only those which have fair amounts of carbon, oxygen, and water.

It may wind up that one in a million is potentially holding life. But there could be millions of them.

Yep. Life might the most basic common thing in the universe...

Wait, those conditions support life as we know it, but who's to say other conditions can't give rise to forms of life that adapted to said other conditions?

That's possible. But you can go down that line of inquiry and define the possible situations also. The self organizing mechanisms of matter require phase dynamics, gas-liquid-solid. That means a certain range of temperatures for the elements involved such as

Carbon hydrogen oxygen nitrogen
Silicon hydrogen .....
Sulfur hydrogen ....

For any proposed system excess thermal energy will overwhelm organizational tendency toward life, and insufficient thermal energy energy will prevent it.

For example, the Moon cannot support any life. Neither can Mercury or Venus.

Your mentioning of those elements reminded me of the Arecibo "Response"

which led me to this webpage about it and the original message http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/circulos_cultivos/esp_circuloscultivos12.htm

My head hurt after reading it, which may indicate that the writer is a crackpot, but whatever

In any case, I realize now, what a time it must have been to be alive since around the 60s. I wonder what I'll see in my lifetime.

Relativity question: can significantly different magnetic fields in another part of the galaxy/universe affect the behavior of chemicals in that localized area compare to say, on Earth

Lol, yes, Hoagland is a crackpot. No, magnetic fields very remote cannot be thought of affecting local conditions. There is a "crackpot theory" about that which is called the "electric universe, electric sun, etc." IIRC.

I'm still laughing over the "number of planets" arguments.

"How many planets are in the solar system?"

Yesterday's answer. Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto.

Today's answer.

Fuck, who knows.

I mean, if in another part of the known universe there exists a hypothetically drastically different magnetic field (baseline if you will), could the behavior of some arbitrary chemicals be different than somewhere else like here, same chemicals?

I think this means probably: http://www.uottawa.ca/publications/interscientia/inter.1/magnetic.html

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: vokain on May 18, 2016, 06:55:50 PM

If the universe is made out of the same stuff everywhere and nature hates to waste energy to build new stuff, could the humanoid shape be the most logical path for an intelligent life form ready for space exploration?

NO. Because as we all know, our big brains stem from the fact we have opposing thumbs and fingers.

That is, unless you choose to be a Denier of these established scientific factoids. Just as the grand planet Pluto is now only a Plutoid, by virtue of a consensus of scientific opinion, you must bow down to factoids such as the thumb and finger oppositional premise of the big brain theory, and ignore contrary evidence such as the infinite number of gradations of stupidity. Those only confirm the hypothesis, as creatures which were more stupid would have fewer possible levels of stupidity. Thus in the case of Hillary, it's "Bill or No Bill?" asked from one side of the bed to Huma, on the other side.

Now, if the oppositional thumb merits discussion, we have to acknowledge that beings, creatures or slimeballs with a plethora of said oppositional apparatus would be greater in intelligence as follows.

n = number of oppositional thumb/finger pairs
t = time
c = clusterfuck factor
bb = degree to which brain is high or low density in bricklike nature
F = unknown factor, plugged into make the results agree with pre determined intent

Smartness = n^(t*(-c + -bb + F)

Obviously...

Wilikon

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1001

minds.com/Wilikon

If the universe is made out of the same stuff everywhere and nature hates to waste energy to build new stuff, could the humanoid shape be the most logical path for an intelligent life form ready for space exploration?

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Just goes to prove the people wrong who believe that we are alone in this universe. If there are over 1,200 possible life-bearing planets discovered relatively near by, who is to say there aren't millions to be discovered.

One line of thought is that planets are as common as stars, being formed in the same processes. But keep in mind that only those in the habitable zone are of interest. Of those, only ones with atmospheres. Of those, only those with magnetic poles and radiation belts. Of those, only those which have fair amounts of carbon, oxygen, and water.

It may wind up that one in a million is potentially holding life. But there could be millions of them.

Yep. Life might the most basic common thing in the universe...

Wait, those conditions support life as we know it, but who's to say other conditions can't give rise to forms of life that adapted to said other conditions?

That's possible. But you can go down that line of inquiry and define the possible situations also. The self organizing mechanisms of matter require phase dynamics, gas-liquid-solid. That means a certain range of temperatures for the elements involved such as

Carbon hydrogen oxygen nitrogen
Silicon hydrogen .....
Sulfur hydrogen ....

For any proposed system excess thermal energy will overwhelm organizational tendency toward life, and insufficient thermal energy energy will prevent it.

For example, the Moon cannot support any life. Neither can Mercury or Venus.

Your mentioning of those elements reminded me of the Arecibo "Response"

which led me to this webpage about it and the original message http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/circulos_cultivos/esp_circuloscultivos12.htm

My head hurt after reading it, which may indicate that the writer is a crackpot, but whatever

In any case, I realize now, what a time it must have been to be alive since around the 60s. I wonder what I'll see in my lifetime.

Relativity question: can significantly different magnetic fields in another part of the galaxy/universe affect the behavior of chemicals in that localized area compare to say, on Earth

Lol, yes, Hoagland is a crackpot. No, magnetic fields very remote cannot be thought of affecting local conditions. There is a "crackpot theory" about that which is called the "electric universe, electric sun, etc." IIRC.

I'm still laughing over the "number of planets" arguments.

"How many planets are in the solar system?"

Yesterday's answer. Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto.

Today's answer.

Fuck, who knows.

vokain

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1019

Just goes to prove the people wrong who believe that we are alone in this universe. If there are over 1,200 possible life-bearing planets discovered relatively near by, who is to say there aren't millions to be discovered.

One line of thought is that planets are as common as stars, being formed in the same processes. But keep in mind that only those in the habitable zone are of interest. Of those, only ones with atmospheres. Of those, only those with magnetic poles and radiation belts. Of those, only those which have fair amounts of carbon, oxygen, and water.

It may wind up that one in a million is potentially holding life. But there could be millions of them.

Yep. Life might the most basic common thing in the universe...

Wait, those conditions support life as we know it, but who's to say other conditions can't give rise to forms of life that adapted to said other conditions?

That's possible. But you can go down that line of inquiry and define the possible situations also. The self organizing mechanisms of matter require phase dynamics, gas-liquid-solid. That means a certain range of temperatures for the elements involved such as

Carbon hydrogen oxygen nitrogen
Silicon hydrogen .....
Sulfur hydrogen ....

For any proposed system excess thermal energy will overwhelm organizational tendency toward life, and insufficient thermal energy energy will prevent it.

For example, the Moon cannot support any life. Neither can Mercury or Venus.

Your mentioning of those elements reminded me of the Arecibo "Response"

which led me to this webpage about it and the original message http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/circulos_cultivos/esp_circuloscultivos12.htm

My head hurt after reading it, which may indicate that the writer is a crackpot, but whatever

In any case, I realize now, what a time it must have been to be alive since around the 60s. I wonder what I'll see in my lifetime.

Relativity question: can significantly different magnetic fields in another part of the galaxy/universe affect the behavior of chemicals in that localized area compare to say, on Earth

Wilikon

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1001

minds.com/Wilikon

Just goes to prove the people wrong who believe that we are alone in this universe. If there are over 1,200 possible life-bearing planets discovered relatively near by, who is to say there aren't millions to be discovered.

One line of thought is that planets are as common as stars, being formed in the same processes. But keep in mind that only those in the habitable zone are of interest. Of those, only ones with atmospheres. Of those, only those with magnetic poles and radiation belts. Of those, only those which have fair amounts of carbon, oxygen, and water.

It may wind up that one in a million is potentially holding life. But there could be millions of them.

Yep. Life might the most basic common thing in the universe...

Wait, those conditions support life as we know it, but who's to say other conditions can't give rise to forms of life that adapted to said other conditions?

That's possible. But you can go down that line of inquiry and define the possible situations also. The self organizing mechanisms of matter require phase dynamics, gas-liquid-solid. That means a certain range of temperatures for the elements involved such as

Carbon hydrogen oxygen nitrogen
Silicon hydrogen .....
Sulfur hydrogen ....

For any proposed system excess thermal energy will overwhelm organizational tendency toward life, and insufficient thermal energy energy will prevent it.

For example, the Moon cannot support any life. Neither can Mercury or Venus.

And yet, we are left with the possibility of millions of examples of the potential of life across our galaxy alone. I predict we will be sick of learning about Life, once we know we are surrounded with it one day...

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386