Too bad that most anything which happens to involve Venus or that of
ESA's VIRTIS mission is still so topic/author worthy of being Usenet
trashed and/or banished because it's still so gosh darn
taboo/nondisclosure. It's almost as bad off as for that of folks
honestly discussing our nearby mascon of a moon, or forbid that of
China's soon to be owned and operated LSE-CM/ISS.
We're simply not going to walk moonsuit butt naked on that nasty moon of
our's. Not way back then, not within the near future and most likely
not ever if it's attempted in any way as based upon our perpetrated
cold-war methods of having to use those hocus-pocus conditional laws of
physics and upon the infomercial-science which only our cloak and dagger
NASA can replicate in private and/or behind closed doors.
Just because our physically dark moon has nearly always been double IR
and FIR hot as hell since having lost it's rather thick covering of
salty ice upon arrival (some odd 10,000 BC ago), plus remaining as a
touch gamma and hard-X-ray lethal to our frail DNA, this doesn't mean
that the geothermally toasty but otherwise sufficiently end-user
friendly environment afforded by Venus is ET/biologically taboo nor
otherwise technologically all that humanly insurmountable.
It's worth our noting that a perfectly viable other world or moon
needn't have 0.001% the water of Earth, and even that amount of h2o
needn't be situated as a pure form or even that of salty brine of a
fluid, or that of whatever's sequestered as a brine ot that of salty ice
or merely packed underneath dry-ice on the open surface of their planet
isn't all that insurmountable, whereas I do believe we're talking of a
good deal less (perhaps as little as 0.0001% or a millionth that of
Earth's environment) if their local evolution of survival motivated DNA
had formulated their physiology for being accustomed and/or having
become sufficiently survival intelligent as to artificially managing
upon such scant amounts of h2o. Their h2o could even be that of a
highly valuable mined substance, or perhaps having become artificially
cultivated/recycled via applied technology.
Not all such other worthy planets as capable of hosting intelligent
other life need be as badly over-populated with the sorts of dumbfounded
heathens as Earth. Such as, what if an extremely hot and dry Earth had
but a million or merely having to sustain a few thousand intelligent
souls as having to deal with that unfortunately newish planetology. Why
the heck shouldn't any hot or for that matter cold Earth like planet or
viable moon even have to be so populated with much other than suitable
plants, diatoms, insects and various larger animals? (on Earth, didn't
we come along at the very last planetology minute, especially as for
those of us being the supposedly intelligent species, as only having
existed from the very last ice age, that which our Earth will ever see
again).
"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
ups.com
Bleeding Scalp wrote:
In fact Earth is absolutely Unique there is none other like it an there
is nothing like a man anywhere else but on earh and decendants thereof.
How can you state that definitively? You have no idea if something like
man exists or does not exist all over the universe. What we do know is
that our galaxy is not unique, that our star in that galaxy is not
unique, nor is our planet that circles that star unique. That said, why
do you believe that life as we know it IS unique?
Thanks once again, Eric, for having put that one through. Unlike what
team SETI/OSETI and the likes of so many others living in their
hocus-pocus past and remaining so mindset intent upon keeping the rest
of us there seem to think, our extremely wet and at previous times
having been extensively frozen near solid Earth also isn't at all the
unique unless we're speaking of our rather unusually massive moon
arriving since the last ice age, and/or that of appreciating our rather
uniquely cultivated form of our truly unique intellectual incest of
bigotry, arrogance and the sorts of insurmountable greed that has been
running most everything amuck since recorded time, and then some.
If ETs were only half as smart and otherwise not at continual war with
one another, they'd be a good thousand percent better off than us.
Meaning; if having just 10% the local resources at their disposal,
they'd still be a whole lot better off than compared to what we've long
since trashed as our environment because we're such all-knowing pagan
idiots without a stitch of remorse.
Being survival smart and otherwise extremely intelligent has absolutely
nothing to do with ETs having radio, or much less any form of space
travel capability. (sorry about that)
If ETs had ongoing space probes and the likes of having accomplished
personal space travel capability, as such they most certainly wouldn't
be so primitive and thus limited to using the inefficiencies and
soup-can like limitations of radio (at least not the sorts of funky
radio we've been using).
If having been surviving upon a fully cloud covered planet (such as
Venus), or perhaps upon that of having survived upon a thick atmospheric
moon (such as Titan or even that of our once upon a time icy proto-moon
that's still rather salty), whereas the stars and of whatever other
nearby planets simply do not exist, do they. And besides all of that,
would such other intelligent ET's of conventional evolution or
especially those of intelligent design dare to knowingly trash their one
and only frail environment? (I don't think so)
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server -
http://www.Mailgate.ORG