The Moon: What is it's purpose?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by John99, Jan 23, 2009.

1. TrippyALEA IACTA ESTStaff Member

Messages:
10,890
If you actually think that the use of a coin had something to do with there being two opinions, then clearly you have completely failed to understand the point that was being illustrated.

I could have just as easily suggested a 10 sided dice, or a 100 sided dice, or any contrivance to arrive at a choice out of n possibilities - flipping a coin was the simplest, and easiest way to demonstrate the error of your assumptions.

Namely that if some contrivance capable of giving n possible answers arrives at some arbitrary value k, then your logic dictates it should always give k as an answer.

I notice you also completely failed to address the fact that out of the 240 planets we have observed, we have direct evidence for life on precisely one of them.

3. EnmosRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
43,184
Even the bible states that life came from non-life :bugeye:

5. NasorValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,221
Are you surprised? He obviously has some sort of mental block against accepting that a sample size of one is statistically meaningless. I pointed out that "batting 1.000" is meaningless after a single time at bat, and he thought I was saying that we should assume that a person who hits a home run on his first try probably got lucky - even though I explicitly said that we can't know one way or the other.

7. swivelSci-Fi AuthorValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,494
The sample size is always meaningful. The larger the sample size the more confident we are with a statistical analysis of the results returned.

The results for life in a warm, wet planet only have a sample size of 1, but a return of 100%. I keep acknowledging that the sample size is a factor, but you guys keep explaining away the 100% as LUCK. :bugeye:

I'm not pretending that my half of the argument is the only one that matters, YOU guys are.

And the dice analogy is as flawed as the coin analogy for the exact same reason. We know that coins and dice have even statistical odds for each side, because of the shape of the die, the evenness of each side, and the way gravity operates. What you don't understand is that Life Forming and Life Not Forming are not KNOWN to be equal in size as far as their statistical likelihood is concerned. For all we know the true analogy would be to roll a 4-sided die shaped like a pyramid. If the die comes to a rest on one of its four sides, that is analogous to Life Forming. If it balances on the tip, upside-down, that would signify Life Not Forming. Laboratory tests actually bear this out.

Until you guys find another wet, warm planet we are stuck with a sample size that I cannot apologize for and a result that I cannot ignore.

8. TrippyALEA IACTA ESTStaff Member

Messages:
10,890
So then what's the temperature of an Oxygen atom with a velocity of 100 m/s?

If a sample size of one is as meaningful as you claim it is, then you should have no trouble with answeing this question.

Once again, you completely fail to understand the point being illustrated, and come out with an objection that actually has nothing to do with what i'm saying.

Again, you seem to think that i'm attempting to actually quantify the probability of this happening, i'm not.

9. NasorValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,221
Unless your sample size is one, in which case it's not meaningful. I don't know why I'm making one more attempt at explaining this to you, but I'll give it a shot. Suppose I have a special roulette wheel with the spaces numbered 1, 2, 3... but you don't know how many spaces are on the wheel. I spin the wheel one time, and the ball lands on space 1. Can you tell me how many spaces are on the wheel, and what the odds are that the ball will again land on space 1 on the second spin? No, you can't. There might only be one space, or there might be 100 spaces. You can't know until the wheel is spun more times.
No, that is exactly not what we are saying. I'll repeat it, because somehow you keep failing to understand it even though we have explicitly told you many time. We are not saying that it was luck! We are saying that you can't know whether or not it was luck. It might have been luck, it might not have been. We won't know until we observe more earth-like planets and see if they have life. Just like we won't know if a baseball player is any good until we see him bat more than once, or how likely the ball is to land on space 1 for our mystery roulette wheel until we have spun it more than once.
Nice, once again your super-human ability to miss the point saves you from understanding what Trippy was saying.

I'm actually starting to suspect more and more that you're simply a troll, since it's hard to believe that anyone could so consistently miss the point after it has been explained so many times in so many ways.

10. SaquistBannedBanned

Messages:
3,256
There is NO record showing where life comes from. If I'm in error I wait your documentation that logs time location and conditions as verifiable substantiated proof.

I could engage in an excercise of futility with what you think the bible says Enmos but I've found you lack not just the understanding but you really don't know what it "says" at all.

As you mentioned it. the exact notation comes to mind and it does not say at all what you think it says. I would wager few if any translations would support the conclusion or the the lazy-eye you've put in your post.

Sorry.

11. D HSome other guyValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,257
The theory of evolution is all about life coming from other life. :bugeye:

What we don't have is any recorded observation of life coming from non-life. That is abiogenesis, which remains completely in the realm of the hypothetical at this point in time. Speaking of which:

Seconded. Do you have a reference that shows "it is also clearly on record that life comes from non-life"?

12. swivelSci-Fi AuthorValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,494
*looking around*

13. SaquistBannedBanned

Messages:
3,256
Bravo, swivel, Bravo :bravo:

14. EnmosRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
43,184
Newtons Third law of motion..

Every particle of matter in the universe attracts every other particle with a force that is directly proportional to the product of the masses of the particles and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

15. John99BannedBanned

Messages:
22,046
...and of course size and distance is a major factor. I wish you can show how this disproves my theory that the moon may have no effect on the Earth.

I believe that it is too small and too far away.

16. John99BannedBanned

Messages:
22,046
Last edited: Jan 27, 2009
17. D HSome other guyValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,257
To do that you would need to use something other than pictures. Something like mathematics.

You're wrong.

18. John99BannedBanned

Messages:
22,046
What, in your estimation, is the best scaled representation\model?

19. John99BannedBanned

Messages:
22,046
That is possible. If i am wrong then this has been a very long time for the moon to just happen to be in the perfect position. And what accounts for supposed weather cycles?

Messages:
43,184

21. EnmosRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
43,184
It isn't in the 'perfect position' or whatever that is supposed to mean. It's moving away from Earth as we speak, and has been for a very long time.

22. swivelSci-Fi AuthorValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,494
Cool factoids:

Current estimates suggest that the Moon's position relative to the Earth will stabilize in 15 billion years to a distance 1.6 times the current one. The length of day will increase to 55 of our current days.

But... since the Sun will expand in ~7.5 billion years, this will never actually happen.

The increase in orbit size is currently about 1.5 inches per year.

In 500 million years total eclipses of the sun will no longer occur... so we were quite lucky to have seen some during our time!

The way the moon slows the Earth down is by "dragging" the tidal bulge across the ocean floor, so... by using simple friction.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/astronomy/q0262.shtml

23. John99BannedBanned

Messages:
22,046
Figure it out. if it is moving away then it had to be moving away for billions of years and if it has such a dramatic effect then it would be much more obvious. As a matter of fact we would be able to use this as a gauge for the distance in comparison to its effect on the earth. But there is none that i know of, unless you know of a way to do this.

Out of curiosity do you, or anyone reading this, believe that the moon was once part of the earth?

To me this seems unlikely but i am open to all possibilities.