Discussion in 'Community' started by Jabbadabbado, Sep 26, 2012.
Geoffrey Rush didn't say that. Kevin McNally did.
I haven't watched that thing yet, but wouldn't the Earth freeze up like Pluto without the Sun? I don't think living in a rich country would save you...don't think we'd even last a week.
You should definitely watch the video VLM linked, it's snazzy. The gist is yes, we are screwed in such a scenario, contrary to Lee's thinking. But there's a lot of bacteria and sea critters that would be fine.
Which would hold the possibility of being seeds for new evolution, should our planet drift into proper orbit around another star.
D'oh my memory. lol
Well, if all the 3rd world folks die off then that's just more food for us 1st world folks. But, will no plants mean at some point we all get scurvy?
You'd run out of calories and starve before you'd run out of vitamin C.
Actually scratch that; you'll freeze to death before you'll starve to death.
That was part of the whole thing that we might not(all) have to freeze to death. And in fact it occurs to me that plant life can exist in the ocean and live as well as the non-plant life.
I don't see how any humans could survive past a week or two. Every night we lose like what, 10-15 degrees Fahrenheit of heat? If the sun never came back up, then that temperature would just keep dropping, and no amount of fossil fuels, geothermal energy, or nuclear power that we have on this planet will be sufficient to make up for the loss of sunlight. Extremophile microbes would have more luck, but I still can't imagine them lasting billions of years.
They point out we would have a temperature of 32 F, but beyond that the ocean might form an icy crust but would remain liquid beneath, geologic activity would remian, and the oceans would remian warm enough to support life. They are not saying it would be fun, but life need not end if the Earth shot away from the Sun.
I loved the reference to "A Pail of Air." One of the truly great sci fi stories I read as a child.
Just in case you thought NASA was being run and used correctly
This makes me laugh and shake my head. Oh well.
I don't see why sending someone to the moon is of the highest scientific priority.
And like the head of NASA you are wrong.
But this has become a minor concern as scientists have...
Combined choclate and alcohol!!!!!!
Even more Neuromancer
Time to invest in solar power stocks
Only Montie, not millions of scientists everywhere, knows where NASA needs to be headed.
"millions" of scientists?
And again he shows his lack of knowledge for space activism, capabilities, corporate interference, the history of it all, and the fact that we have already gone to the Moon and the tech was only sidelined for war.
Yeah, the people Montie claims to like but then he ignores when they say things he doesn't like to hear.
I'd retort but at this point you have become a bad caicature of yourself. Move along now. Grown folks are talking about the day's headlines.
You're approaching Poe's Law levels.
You went from zealot, to reasonable, to ridiculous. So sad.
Except he's vehemently objecting to the rather unsettling tendency, as of late, for these science threads to be less about good, backed-up science and more about
with anyone who offers even a slight objection to the plausibility of the subject in question being dismissed out of hand by a bunch of folks who cannot be bothered to actually go read scientific papers. I can't fault Vivec for smug dismissal when he's up against unwavering, unquestioning devotion to fantastical pop science that mirrors honest-to-god religious fundamentalism. It's like any thread about warp drive or space exploration is required to distill the worst aspects of the cancerous cesspool that is r/atheism.
I don't even see how we can call anything Vivec has said "smug" when we look at who he's responding to. VLM literally just told an adult with a post-graduate study and an active degree in one of the fields directly relevant to these discussions, and which he claims to admire, that "grown folks" were talking. It sort of trumps posting links to information about why someone is wrong with a mildly sarcastic sentence appended at the end.
I'm not a fan of those "go science" threads, they are full of speculation and misinterpretations. At the very least I hope that those who read these threads become curious and go search for the peer-reviewers papers that originated it, and come to their own conclusions.
On the other hand, I don't always agree with Sean's method but Montie's posts are really a test to one's patience so I can see where he's coming from.