Thread: Points to ponder

Nope, you don't understand it.
"Common" is a relative term, not an absolute term.

10 in 1000 is not more 'common' than 1 in 100.

Yeah. Common denotes how frequently it occurs (1 every 10,000,000 solar systems, say). Not how much (total: 10 species).


No need to go mental over being mistaken, in this fine thread, now.

If the universe is infinite, and as we know life does exist then there must be not just us or a few or even thousands but an infinite number of life forms. Anything short of an infinite number of life forms would mean life is uncommon and virtually irrelevant in relation to the size of the universe.

Nobel may contact me via TD.

^^I'll leave you to your ignorance since it's on display. No need for me to accentuate it.

Good on you for not going too mental, due to being incorrect.

Originally Posted by jabir

If the universe is infinite, and as we know life does exist then there must be not just us or a few or even thousands but an infinite number of life forms. Anything short of an infinite number of life forms would mean life is uncommon and virtually irrelevant in relation to the size of the universe.

Two possibilities exist:

Either we're alone in the universe, or we're not.

Both are equally terrifying.


Arthur C. Clarke.

Originally Posted by Luigi

Brought there via panspermia

...mineral interactions->chemical interactions->biological interactions-> the rise of "life" is inevitable given a wide variety of "right" conditions...the rise of Jebus, however, reflects a mental aberration known to afflict the ignorant...

Originally Posted by tomcat

...mineral interactions->chemical interactions->biological interactions-> the rise of "life" is inevitable given a wide variety of "right" conditions.

My thoughts on the matter, too.

There are more trees on earth than stars in the sky/universe.

Unprovable

Originally Posted by uncle junior

Unprovable

Probably provable to the level of "in theory" (oxymoron acknowledged), but indeed as neither are accurately countable today, unprovable. If the number of stars is finite (and reducing), and the number of trees can always be increased ( to the limit of available space on earth), either way, there is a finite number for both. It is only lack of technology that limits the ability to prove it or disprove it.
I suspect it's correct though, or at least once was, before man, albeit the number of stars is a huuuuge number.

Originally Posted by Luigi

No need to go mental over being mistaken, in this fine thread, now.

And here, folks, we have a fine example of Lulu's MO: Picks on something I said (erroneously), and devolves the discussion into name calling from him and put-downs, also from him... then has the hide to insinuate it's me to blame for derailing a fine thread. Classic Lu.
He picked on my post and I, in the spirit of the thread replyed in a reasonable fashion, whereupon he starts with the name calling and and put-downs.

Originally Posted by Luigi

Good on you for not going too mental, due to being incorrect.

..and continues to derail the thread.

Mods, I hope you will move all discussions about the word "common" (including Stroller's addition) and our back-and-forth to the love fest thread in DH, where I will put his ignorance on display.

Originally Posted by Luigi

Two possibilities exist:

Either we're alone in the universe, or we're not.

Profound.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

if the number of stars is finite (and

Yeah but new born stars are being discovered regularly in an immeasurable universe......

Originally Posted by uncle junior

Yeah but new born stars are being discovered regularly in an immeasurable universe......

Correct, and I was misleading there, sorry. The rate of star birth is declining rapidly, and thus one can extrapolate that the rate will reach zero. Whereas the sprouting of new trees could increase.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Mods, I hope you will move all discussions about the word "common" (including Stroller's addition) and our back-and-forth to the love fest thread in DH, where I will put his ignorance on display.

What's objectionable about my post? It was a straight-forward, factual statement.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Profound.

Yeah, it's probably Arthur C. Clarke's most famous quote.

Originally Posted by stroller

What's objectionable about my post? It was a straight-forward, factual statement.

Points to ponder:

If you plugged Manny into the National Grid, then point out he's wrong, how much electricity would he produce.

Originally Posted by VocalNeal

There are more trees on earth than stars in the sky/universe.

I'd say that's a load of poppycock.

Originally Posted by uncle junior

Unprovable

Originally Posted by Maanaam

It is only lack of technology that limits the ability to prove it or disprove it.

Total land surface on Earth is approx. 148,938,826,000 meters squared.

Total number of stars in the observable universe: about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (that’s 1 billion trillion).

I'd say using lateral thinking and simple math, it's pretty easy to disprove.

Below average intelligence.
Inability to think laterally.
Poor at basic math. :

Originally Posted by Maanaam

It is only lack of technology that limits the ability to prove it or disprove it.

Followed by:

Above average intelligence.
Ability to think laterally.
Not bad at the ol' mathematics. (knows the difference between digits and numbers) :


Allowing for mountain ranges, deserts, ice sheets etc, let's give around 100,000,000,000 meters squared to nothing but trees. (around 2/3rds of the land on Earth)

Divide the number of stars in the observable universe by it.

= 1,000,000,000.

There would need to be about one billion trees per square meter. (btw, the current scientific estimate is around 400 billion for the entire planet)



I would say that's just about disproved in less than the time it takes to nuke a microwavable bowl of chili.

Trees are countless.....seedlings sprouting constantly world wide...including impenetrable rain forests

OTOH...the braniacs at Scientific American say there's 3 trillion trees.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...e-world-video/

There are more stars in the sky then there are grains of sand

Originally Posted by VocalNeal

There are more trees on earth than stars in the sky/universe.

Fraid not.

There are more trees on Earth than in the Milky Way:


There are approximately 3 trillion trees on earth (scientific study), and there are between 100 and 400 billion stars in the Milky way best estimate). So more trees on earth than in the Milky Way.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tr...ars-milky-way/

Using the US counting system one trillion is one thousand billion


So there are 3 thousand billion trees on earth or between 30 to 7.5 times more trees than stars in the Milky Way.

But - the milky way is a tiny proportion of the known universe, one estimate says its 0.00000000000000042 % of the entire universe
https://www.quora.com/How-much-space...-in-percentage


Therefore, there are NOT more trees on earth than stars in the Universe. And that's a fact.

Originally Posted by stroller

What's objectionable about my post? It was a straight-forward, factual statement.

Nothing objectionable. It was a good point, the irony of which Lu doesn't get.

And I see Lu is still derailing a good thread to trying to score hollow "points".

The first man to fly (hot air balloons not included) could have met the first man to walk on the moon, as they were both alive at the same time.


Shows just how fast technologies can develop once an initial breakthrough is made.

Hopefully the manipulation of space-time will develop just as quickly.