Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 25 Jul '17 08:14
    What ingredients would you put in the universe? Here is my choice.

    Love, Poetry, Art, Irony and a double dose of humour.
  2. 25 Jul '17 09:18
    This is the Science forum.
  3. 25 Jul '17 09:20 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
    This is the Science forum.
    Bit of a clunky fit but OK.

    edit. Reminds me of a joke about a programmer who's wife asked him 'can you get me a carton of milk and if they've got eggs, get me a dozen please?'.

    The man returned with 12 pints of milk. His wife asked 'why did you get all that milk??'. He replied. 'They had eggs'.
  4. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    25 Jul '17 15:07
    Originally posted by @christopher-albon
    What ingredients would you put in the universe? Here is my choice.

    Love, Poetry, Art, Irony and a double dose of humour.
    Is there something you find distastful about the distribution of elements or ingredients in the universe as it stands now? You do realize love, poetry, art and such are ATTRIBUTES not ingredients, right? And attributes of HUMANS. Human programming if you will. Doesn't have a whole lot to do with the universe.
  5. 25 Jul '17 15:28 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    Is there something you find distastful about the distribution of elements or ingredients in the universe as it stands now? You do realize love, poetry, art and such are ATTRIBUTES not ingredients, right? And attributes of HUMANS. Human programming if you will. Doesn't have a whole lot to do with the universe.
    Science is distasteful when employed against nature. Posers rambling in Greek gobbledegook is distasteful and above all dishonesty to ones own heart is distasteful. Other than that, I'm fine with your billiard ball eccentricity.
  6. 25 Jul '17 15:39 / 2 edits
    Your infinite improbability drive your no doubt busying yourself with is just another voodoo device. The V was split into a 2 for you. Have a nice day. Frum Ma'at.
  7. Standard member lemon lime
    blah blah blah
    25 Jul '17 16:09 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    Is there something you find distastful about the distribution of elements or ingredients in the universe as it stands now? You do realize love, poetry, art and such are ATTRIBUTES not ingredients, right? And attributes of HUMANS. Human programming if you will. Doesn't have a whole lot to do with the universe.
    Is there something you find distastful about humans occupying the universe as it stands now?

    I'll admit life appears to be something of an aberration when veiwed next to the physical properties and mechanics of non living matter, and humans have taken it a step further by doing more than simply survive as living entities. But we don't need to have a WHOLE lot to do with the universe in order to be a part OF the universe.

    Or do you think we don't belong in this universe? If so, then what sort of universe would be a better fit?
  8. Standard member lemon lime
    blah blah blah
    25 Jul '17 16:33
    Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
    This is the Science forum.
    Ohh, well done Mister Potter.
  9. Subscriber FreakyKBH
    Acquired Taste...
    25 Jul '17 18:26
    Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
    This is the Science forum.
    Which "this"?
    Your "this," my "this," someone else's "this," or the 'that' which appears to contain them both?
    Does the 'that' end?
    If so, where?
  10. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    26 Jul '17 22:07
    Originally posted by @lemon-lime
    Is there something you find distastful about humans occupying the universe as it stands now?

    I'll admit life appears to be something of an aberration when veiwed next to the physical properties and mechanics of non living matter, and humans have taken it a step further by doing more than simply survive as living entities. But we don't need to have a W ...[text shortened]... e don't belong in this universe? If so, then what sort of universe would be a better fit?
    I was just wondering what you find distastful about the universe in general. You do know where all of us came from right? I call it star poop. A star, when it explodes in a nova or supernova creates the stuff of us, carbon, iron, O2, and the rest. Iron is the end product of Fission or fusion, it doesn't work worth a shyte for either process. It is star poop. So is carbon and oxygen and such. So if there were no stars, our stuff would have to be imported to make our kind of stuff, out planets and our sun and so forth. So the universe pretty much has to be the way it is for us to be around at all in ANY form. So changing much of anything would create a universe where life never starts.
  11. Standard member lemon lime
    blah blah blah
    27 Jul '17 16:16 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    I was just wondering what you find distastful about the universe in general. You do know where all of us came from right? I call it star poop. A star, when it explodes in a nova or supernova creates the stuff of us, carbon, iron, O2, and the rest. Iron is the end product of Fission or fusion, it doesn't work worth a shyte for either process. It is star po ...[text shortened]... t all in ANY form. So changing much of anything would create a universe where life never starts.
    Thanks for the science lesson. But you forgot to mention how lighter elements are made heavier by material from stars reforming into new stars, and creating heavier elements from the lighter ones.

    We've been all through this before. Stars recooking and making elements heavier is not analogous to rehashing the same old talking points.
  12. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    27 Jul '17 23:13 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @lemon-lime
    Thanks for the science lesson. But you forgot to mention how lighter elements are made heavier by material from stars reforming into new stars, and creating heavier elements from the lighter ones.

    We've been all through this before. Stars recooking and making elements heavier is not analogous to rehashing the same old talking points.
    The latest is that more than stars made us: Now shown that galaxies have supernova poop going in very large streams into surrounding galaxies adding to the mix of stuff making new stars besides what we already knew about nova's and supernova's making heavy stuff:

    https://phys.org/news/2017-07-milky.html

    Second hand, third hand, whatever, we are still star poop.

    The thing is, you have no idea what changes would do if you were somehow appointed to be the god of the universe with the power to change whatever you want.

    It is a delicate balance of forces, like the 'fine structure constant', 1/137, if that changed by a smidgen we might not exist or matter as we know it might not exist if it went to 200 to 1 or 50 to one or some such.

    You can't futz around with these constants and expect an improvement of some kind.

    You could maybe try for bigger brain humans where the average IQ is 200 compared to us (their IQ would be 100 for them) but it turns out our brains already suck up like 25% of the energy of our body and maybe you could add 10% to that but the human body would have to be pretty much redesigned to accomodate that much energy increase needed to support a brain like that and I don't think 10% would make THAT much of a dif to human intelligence.

    So what would you change? Just humans? Leave life that may exist in the universe untouched? Make humans lifespan a thousand years without affecting reproduction issues, like how do you keep the population from being one trillion a thousand years later and such, so if you did do that you would have to have them stop having kids at age 30 or some such.

    Any change you envision is going to come at a cost to some other part of the ecology, whether the ecology of life on Earth or just limiting the ecology to effects on humans, you and nobody else on the planet has enough wisdom to know what to change without drastic unseen consequences. With that in mind, what would you change?
  13. Standard member lemon lime
    blah blah blah
    28 Jul '17 01:17 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @sonhouse
    The latest is that more than stars made us: Now shown that galaxies have supernova poop going in very large streams into surrounding galaxies adding to the mix of stuff making new stars besides what we already knew about nova's and supernova's making heavy stuff:

    https://phys.org/news/2017-07-milky.html

    Second hand, third hand, whatever, we are still ...[text shortened]... ow what to change without drastic unseen consequences. With that in mind, what would you change?
    Any change you envision is going to come at a cost to some other part of the ecology, whether the ecology of life on Earth or just limiting the ecology to effects on humans, you and nobody else on the planet has enough wisdom to know what to change without drastic unseen consequences. With that in mind, what would you change?

    I'll need a bigger ego before attempting to answer that question. For now it's enough for me to keep enough toilet paper on hand for wiping star poop off... from off my, uhmm...

    Yes, that's it... from off my Uhmm.
  14. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    28 Jul '17 01:47 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @lemon-lime
    [b]Any change you envision is going to come at a cost to some other part of the ecology, whether the ecology of life on Earth or just limiting the ecology to effects on humans, you and nobody else on the planet has enough wisdom to know what to change without drastic unseen consequences. With that in mind, what would you change?

    I'll need a bigger ...[text shortened]... on hand for wiping star poop off... from off my, uhmm...

    Yes, that's it... from off my Uhmm.[/b]
    Your Uhmm and everything else is made of star poop Well, maybe star farts....