If life is normal... (Crossposted)

Matt Giwer wrote:
Bush said God told him to strike Al Qaida.
God is an idiot.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2749

I find your signature offensive. Many others would too.

Matt Giwer wrote:
Bush said God told him to strike Al Qaida.
God is an idiot.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2749

I find your signature offensive. Many others would too.

On Tuesday, in article
"Victor" wrote:

I find your signature offensive. Many others would too.

I find your taking offence at free speech offensive.
--
Raj Rijhwani | This is the voice of the Mysterons...
| ... We know that you can hear us Earthmen
http://www.rijhwani.org/raj/ | "Lieutenant Green: Launch all Angels!"

On Tuesday, in article
"Victor" wrote:

I find your signature offensive. Many others would too.

I find your taking offence at free speech offensive.
--
Raj Rijhwani | This is the voice of the Mysterons...
| ... We know that you can hear us Earthmen
http://www.rijhwani.org/raj/ | "Lieutenant Green: Launch all Angels!"

I'm just throwing this out for the sake of argument, but here goes: 1) It's
generally accepted that Venus and Mars have no plate tectonics, while Earth
does. You can maybe excuse Mars because of its size, but not Venus. 2) Any
number of books have made reference to the importance of plate tectonics in
the creation and maintenance of the Earth's biosphere, because of
outgassing, recycling of deposited carbon materials, etc. 3) The biggest
difference betwen Earth and the other two is the presence of the moon, which
also is probably a major reason for the continued existance of an active and
molten core, due to heating from tidal action.

So, given this, what if one of the primary requirements for life, for a long
enough period to allow evolution of intelligence, is the presence of a
satellite big enough or close enough to maintain a molten core and ongoing
tectonics? That would certainly reduce the probability of life in the
universe, without requiring a mystical explanation.

This argument is covered in "Where Is Everybody" by Stephen Webb, and I find
it particularly convincing. It's certainly something that would get around
the principle of Mediocrity.


"Steve" wrote in message
...
John Leonard allegedly said:

If this interpretation is correct then given the age of the Universe
and
the variation about an average (say, our Earth's age) that would be
expected (this is essentially a guess), what possibilities might exist
regarding life in our Universe? In other words if we were to assume that
we are not unique what might be the actual age of life? Is it reasonable
to guess, merely on the basis of our (supposed) averageness that it
could
be much greater than our own?

John Leonard

There could be races out there several billion years ahead of us.

They probably exist as pure energy and pass right through us at the speed
of
light on their way to wherever......and we don't even know it...and we
appear to them as dull, stupid beasts barely out of the slime.

Read your newspaper.

It's obvious there is no intelligent life on Earth.

We flatter ourselves - vain monkies that we are.

--
Steve

I'm just throwing this out for the sake of argument, but here goes: 1) It's
generally accepted that Venus and Mars have no plate tectonics, while Earth
does. You can maybe excuse Mars because of its size, but not Venus. 2) Any
number of books have made reference to the importance of plate tectonics in
the creation and maintenance of the Earth's biosphere, because of
outgassing, recycling of deposited carbon materials, etc. 3) The biggest
difference betwen Earth and the other two is the presence of the moon, which
also is probably a major reason for the continued existance of an active and
molten core, due to heating from tidal action.

So, given this, what if one of the primary requirements for life, for a long
enough period to allow evolution of intelligence, is the presence of a
satellite big enough or close enough to maintain a molten core and ongoing
tectonics? That would certainly reduce the probability of life in the
universe, without requiring a mystical explanation.

This argument is covered in "Where Is Everybody" by Stephen Webb, and I find
it particularly convincing. It's certainly something that would get around
the principle of Mediocrity.


"Steve" wrote in message
...
John Leonard allegedly said:

If this interpretation is correct then given the age of the Universe
and
the variation about an average (say, our Earth's age) that would be
expected (this is essentially a guess), what possibilities might exist
regarding life in our Universe? In other words if we were to assume that
we are not unique what might be the actual age of life? Is it reasonable
to guess, merely on the basis of our (supposed) averageness that it
could
be much greater than our own?

John Leonard

There could be races out there several billion years ahead of us.

They probably exist as pure energy and pass right through us at the speed
of
light on their way to wherever......and we don't even know it...and we
appear to them as dull, stupid beasts barely out of the slime.

Read your newspaper.

It's obvious there is no intelligent life on Earth.

We flatter ourselves - vain monkies that we are.

--
Steve

"Dennis Taylor" wrote in message
. ca...
I'm just throwing this out for the sake of argument, but here goes: 1)
It's
generally accepted that Venus and Mars have no plate tectonics, while
Earth
does. You can maybe excuse Mars because of its size, but not Venus. 2) Any
number of books have made reference to the importance of plate tectonics
in
the creation and maintenance of the Earth's biosphere, because of
outgassing, recycling of deposited carbon materials, etc. 3) The biggest
difference betwen Earth and the other two is the presence of the moon,
which
also is probably a major reason for the continued existance of an active
and
molten core, due to heating from tidal action.

So, given this, what if one of the primary requirements for life, for a
long
enough period to allow evolution of intelligence, is the presence of a
satellite big enough or close enough to maintain a molten core and ongoing
tectonics? That would certainly reduce the probability of life in the
universe, without requiring a mystical explanation.

This argument is covered in "Where Is Everybody" by Stephen Webb, and I
find
it particularly convincing. It's certainly something that would get around
the principle of Mediocrity.

Doesn't the moon also keep the earth's axis from wobbling around any more
than it does, such that if we didn't have the moon, there would be way more
climate
variation than we now have?

rj

"Dennis Taylor" wrote in message
. ca...
I'm just throwing this out for the sake of argument, but here goes: 1)
It's
generally accepted that Venus and Mars have no plate tectonics, while
Earth
does. You can maybe excuse Mars because of its size, but not Venus. 2) Any
number of books have made reference to the importance of plate tectonics
in
the creation and maintenance of the Earth's biosphere, because of
outgassing, recycling of deposited carbon materials, etc. 3) The biggest
difference betwen Earth and the other two is the presence of the moon,
which
also is probably a major reason for the continued existance of an active
and
molten core, due to heating from tidal action.

So, given this, what if one of the primary requirements for life, for a
long
enough period to allow evolution of intelligence, is the presence of a
satellite big enough or close enough to maintain a molten core and ongoing
tectonics? That would certainly reduce the probability of life in the
universe, without requiring a mystical explanation.

This argument is covered in "Where Is Everybody" by Stephen Webb, and I
find
it particularly convincing. It's certainly something that would get around
the principle of Mediocrity.

Doesn't the moon also keep the earth's axis from wobbling around any more
than it does, such that if we didn't have the moon, there would be way more
climate
variation than we now have?

rj

"randyj" wrote in message
...

"Dennis Taylor" wrote in message
. ca...
--snip


Doesn't the moon also keep the earth's axis from wobbling around any more
than it does, such that if we didn't have the moon, there would be way
more
climate
variation than we now have?


I've heard that, although I've not seen a specific explanation of why that
should be so. I'm also a little suspicious, since Venus & Mars don't have a
large moon, and their axes aren't all that out of whack (same with Mercury,
as a matter of fact). It *is* possible that we just happen to be in a period
where all the inner planets have reasonable tilts, but I'd be more inclined
to question the reason for the theory in the first place, in the absence of
any observed evidence.

"randyj" wrote in message
...

"Dennis Taylor" wrote in message
. ca...
--snip


Doesn't the moon also keep the earth's axis from wobbling around any more
than it does, such that if we didn't have the moon, there would be way
more
climate
variation than we now have?


I've heard that, although I've not seen a specific explanation of why that
should be so. I'm also a little suspicious, since Venus & Mars don't have a
large moon, and their axes aren't all that out of whack (same with Mercury,
as a matter of fact). It *is* possible that we just happen to be in a period
where all the inner planets have reasonable tilts, but I'd be more inclined
to question the reason for the theory in the first place, in the absence of
any observed evidence.