stars create planets so that life can thrive on it and eventually evolve into a space exploing society once the sun knows the planets are ready and they are stocked with fuel,it slowly expands to engulf all the planets so that it will beable to live off the fuel the planets provide.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I get it; botchi is personifying science in order to understand it. Stars make baby planets and then they expand and live off the planets when they're ready. Yet isn't it funny that as soon as the sun starts living off the planets it starts to die (?). The fact that he says that the stars expland because they know there's rocket fuel on the planets has got to make you laugh. It's a little silly. silly like this:www.geocities.com/ipuprophecy/ipu.html Try to look at those recipes without laughing. No offense to all those unicornists out there...or these living starists....You sure make a lot of sense. But you make me laugh so I like you. Welcome to sciforums.
ok maybe i was a little too "pie eyed" when i wrote this theory but i'll tell you the gyst.the oldest man on the planet is a little over 120.and it takes a billion years for a star to die,so how do you know that a star starts to die when it starts living off the planets.are you actually the oldest man on earth?have you been around for a billion yrs and seen with your own eyes that stars start to die when they start living off their planets. so let me explain! our planet has a few million yrs to go before it is engulfed by the sun.which means we have a few million yrs more to evolve and possibly colonize our little solar system,giving our sun a tasty little treat.77 20 red
Think about it...what makes a thing 'alive'? Reproduce? Stars do that, in a way, with supernovas. Develop? Yep, stars do that. Maintain themselves against entropy? Yep, stars do that with nucleosynthesis Eat? Yep, nucleosythesis. Now, I don't think that we have any evidence that stars think, or act with a purpose, but I think they are alive. Hi everyone!
Think about it...what makes a thing 'alive' Thank's Xev ! That's the explanation for the gaia-theorem,...Things really don't have to think conciously to be alive,... Good point
<> why is the perception of a billion year old nuclear life giving force as a living entity such a difficult pill to swallow? i applaud the idea and believe it to be in accordance with nature that stars are indeed alive, if not conscious to a certain extent. it is an unfortunate trait of post agrarian society to regard non animal life forms as neither sacred nor alive in their own right. let's take this conversation 25,000 years in any direction and discuss it from that particular vantage point.
Why? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Why not discuss it in any other arena than the now? If we try to al put on different glasses of viewpoints that no longer belong to any relevance in our society, it is no longer relevant in our society. Maybe the fact that today's people don't accept stars as living beings is a signal that today, not yesterday's, logic is how we should measure ideas today.
hmm well,...one of my personal views that I like, is that we al percieve things to our own consiousness,...so If someone is not able to 'SEE' that a star is alive or consious,... then they indeed cannot 'SEE' that,... On the other hand: someone who DOES see that a star is alive,...and consious,...then (for example) all the interactions between us and the sun begins to make sens,... So what I'm really saying is that it's all related to perception I think,... And one is free in it's perception,...no? (even if there's 'sienctific counterproof') And one more: if you define something alive just because it talks and walks then there are a lot of zombies walking and talking around,... get it? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
gaia the reason i wanted to take the vantage point of 25,000 years beyond this phase of human society is that i'd like to discuss the concept of living stars without the "glasses" of mainstream society which has abandoned its sacred view of the universe. this viewpoint is the exception rather than the rule as far as the whole of human history is concerned. but since meeting resistance in that direction, we'll stick with the here and now. i read about the gaia hypothesis earlier in this thread, which of course is the theory that planet earth is a living (conscious?) entity, and i believe it to be relevant to this discussion, for if a planet can be considered alive, then why not a star, who gives life to said planet? stars breathe and die in extatic explosions, so why can't they live as well? a tree is alive. there are forms of bacteria which can live in alkalinity that would peel our skin right off. just because something doesn't drive a car or go fetch your paper in the morning doesn't mean it's not alive. in fact i will now argue that if a star isn't alive, then neither are we, since without our puny yellow star, we would cease to exist, unless of course we found another one to sustain us. is there a universally accepted definition of life? and if so what might that be?
I dunno. Living? Conscious?? If I were a conscious entity, and was covered by humankind -- tearing at my skin to get underneath, emmiting noxious waste products that poisoned me, etc -- I think I would scratch, or shake, or take some action to rid myself of a detrimental parasitic infestation. Wouldn't you? Is it happening and I am missing it? Peace.
indeed... excellent point goofy: ) yes humans are acting in an extremely sycophantic, parasitic fashion towards our mom, and she may well be planning to get rid of us. plague, famine, earthquakes, volcanoes, ice ages, desertification, etc. i wouldn't blame her if she decided to favor the cockroaches and do us all in for our primitive and selfish monkeylike behavior. however, she may also be smart enough to know that we are her only chance at reproduction at this point, since as far as anyone knows, we're the only ones currently capable of leaving her and spreading her seeds across the universe. we are also the only organism capable of setting up a deflection system to thwart the thousands of earth killing objects crossing our orbit. maybe she's betting that we'll avoid self destruction long enough to save her from a mars-like fate, where she is turned into an icy rock. in other words, perhaps we are the better of 2 evils. it all hinges on how intelligent we are as a species, and how capable of evolving beyond selfishness. of course the paradox is that our selfishness is part of what has allowed us to survive and evolve.
Presumptuous, I think. Perhaps a "seed" is ejected at the end of her life, resulting in the sundering of the planet, and the destruction od all life upon it. In any event, based on size considerations alone, I hope that *I* am not chosen to become the bearer of Gaea's seed! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Peace.
livingston i presume presumptuous perhaps, but it's just a theory. not necessarily even my theory. and i certainly don't condone the behavior or attitude our species exhibits toward the planet. maybe we'll appreciate the earth more once we get into space and realize how lucky we are to have breathable air and trees and other stuff. <http://www.mkzdk.org>
botchi, That's brilliant! Have you ever thought about it with Universes? I've been developing a theory of Universe reproduction... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I like your ideas... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Love, Nelson
You mean Creation of parallel Universe by a universe on its own? Does that happen asexually?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! bye!
