This re-instated what passes for faith in humanity

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
All of this is related to the Anthropic principle which, while debatable, at least starts from the observable (we are, after all, here).

From the Wiki link:

Dark energy can only have such a profound impact on the universe, making up 70% of all energy, because it uniformly fills otherwise empty space. The two leading models are quintessence and the cosmological constant.

I note that air at one atmosphere, on a standard day, is made up of roughly 70% Nitrogen. The symmetry between dark energy and Nitrogen, both necessary fillers it would seem, is most likely coincidental. Perhaps it provides a sign, a la Bill Engvall "here's your sign."

/Commence free association

The proverbial 80% solution, when seen through this lens, is an overachiever's "good enough" solution. Is the last 20% the pure oxygen that leads to high end burn out? Are shooting stars dark energy that reached for perfection, and failed?

Perhaps "good enough" at 70% is good enough universally. Improvement beyond that energy state allows for excursions into fine tuned quality, yet any reach to perfection remains, thanks to entropy, "just beyonod our grasp" as 1.0 is assymptotically approached when T = infinity in the positive direction. We must go positively, since travel in the other direction from T = now toward t = "negative infinity" arrives at T = 0 before T = -1 and entery into the Unbanged Universe -- which seems a sterile, even frigid, universe to me. No thanks. :whistling:

But I digress. :rolleyes: What's a theory worth without practical application?

70% is the minimum passing grade in most curricula. It was once a D, now it tends to be a C, but the 70% required to get beyond the filler stage remains a constant.

Note the Slacker's Imperative: "If the minimum weren't good enough, it wouldn't be the minimum." Even Slackers are accomadated by a minimum standard of 70%, although if we get caught cheating, we tend to earn an absolute zero. :angry: No free lunch, no short cuts, we must follow the Universal rules.

In application, Patton's maxim that "a good plan vigorously applied now beats a perfect plan tomorrow" fits harmoniously, as it demands energy added to "good enough" in order to preempt a stasis in mediocrity. Put another way, it takes effort just to be average, a state somewhere above "the good enough" energy state.

I conclude, given all of the above, that while the Universe precludes anyone, even a football player, from giving 110% effort, the excursions beyond the minimum is what give life its meaning -- a metaphorical oxygen if you like; is what makes life interesting; and is what makes "all the difference" to poets like Frost. In any event, horizontal or otherwise, it shows Sturgeon to be a curmudgeon.

If I could get Murphy to buy me a frosty ale as we toast Einstein's relatives, we can put a wrap on this bean burrito of a free association. As the Universe is populated by great clouds of hot gas, this latest flatus debatus is right at home, and we can accept that third base meets and exceeds the 70% solution.

/End free association

Occhi

Disclaimer: No caffeine was harmed in the creation of this free association, although a few free radicals might have been. Prudence dictates that we now imbibe some antioxidants. Isn't she sweet? Small wonder John Lennon wanted her to come out to play. ;)
Dolce Prudence, vino rosso per mi amici..

[GenericKen]

Hi,

Not in reply to any particular post, but just for clarification.

Often in arguments involving evolution (of the universe, of life, etc.) the opponents of the theory cite something along the lines of "probability that so-and-so happened by chance (or, often by 'blind chance')".  There are three problems with this argument.  The first is that it implies that *anything* could happen, when, indeed, the number of things that could happen are limited by various properties and conservation principles.  This greatly reduces the potential outcomes, sometimes to just one.

The second problem is that these opponents are often totally ignorant of probability.  An event having a low probability of happening on one trial may still have a high probability of happening if sufficient trials are conducted.  Think of a lottery, where each individual's chance of winning is small, but the likelihood of *someone* winning (eventually) is nearly one.

The third problem that this argument has is that it inverts the cause and effect.  It goes from something like "what is the probability that Earth would be exactly at the right distance from the Sun and have exactly the right ellipticity to support life" to "therefor something must have caused it".  That's like saying that the winner of a lottery must have cheated because the odds of winning were so low.  Instead, the better way to look at the situation is to consider all the solar systems in the universe and ask what is the probability of at least one having the necessary requirements for life.
All of this is related to the Anthropic principle which, while debatable, at least starts from the observable (we are, after all, here).

--Pete
[right][snapback]98611[/snapback][/right]

I don't think I recall anybody in this thread bringing up probability, Pete. You're going to have to step up; I don't think your standardized arguments will have much impact if they're not relevant to the discussion. I appologize if I missed the relevance somewhere.


That having been said, your second point is a terrible generalization, ad hominem, and logically indistinct from your first.

Your third point is very valid and deserves further discussion, though I don't feel it's a entirely cogent rebuttal to the probability argument.

[Occhidiangela]

I don't think I recall anybody in this thread bringing up probability, Pete. You're going to have to step up; I don't think your standardized arguments will have much impact if they're not relevant to the discussion. I appologize if I missed the relevance somewhere.
That having been said, your second point is a terrible generalization, ad hominem, and logically indistinct from your first.

Your third point is very valid and deserves further discussion, though I don't feel it's a entirely cogent rebuttal to the probability argument.
[right][snapback]98656[/snapback][/right]

G Ken: It is relevant to the conversation, as I see it, in reminding us to separate the probable from the possible, and likewise the improbable from the impossible. We have libraries full of partial answers based on the observed, the possible, and the probable causes and effects of life, the universe, and everything. Well, at least 42 libraries. ;)

Intelligent Design may or may not ever succeed as an attempt to explain the observed, the probable, and the possible. Like any other approach, its assumptions influence its chances for success. The more mechanistic approach under the scientific method has done reasonably well, so far, in limited frames of reference both temporal and physical. Extrapolation from "Earth truth" into Universal truth seems to me like trying to hit a small target with a Mangonel: accuracy is subject to limitations of the tools at hand. What impresses me is how often the astrophysicists and physicists have scored a hit: how else did we get to the moon? :whistling:

Note to Jester and GK:

It occurrs to me (in answer to my own question during last reply to Jester) that The Final and Complete Answer (or nearly Final and Complete) is necessary to fulfill a future requirement. If we (we puny humans) wish to terraform successfully other planets and/or moons (playing god at the local level?) we have to better understand and be able to replicate a myriad of cause and effect relationships, or those terraforming efforts won't result in habitable planets: a critical part of the biosphere will be missing.

Of course, we first have to get there, wherever there is, which is a related endeavour bounded by the work that Hawking and others have undertaken to understand "how to get there from here," here being Earth. That will require a considerable leap in understanding and crafting technique.

The leap from horse drawn carriage to the Space Shuttle is immense, but it is a smaller leap in total understanding than will be the leap from the Space Shuttle to a Firefly class transport like Serenity, the Starship Enterprise, or the Death Star.

How intelligent would a human designed a planet be? A moon? Are we intelligent enough? We are already suspect at world stewardship, would ownership via creation make us more responsible, or less? I wonder.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

...
It occurrs to me (in answer to my own question during last reply to Jester) that The Final and Complete Answer (or nearly Final and Complete) is necessary to fulfill a future requirement.  If we (we puny humans) wish to terraform successfully other planets and/or moons (playing god at the local level?) we have to better understand and be able to replicate a myriad of cause and effect relationships, or those terraforming efforts won't result in habitable planets: a critical part of the biosphere will be missing.
...
[right][snapback]98668[/snapback][/right]

I had three thoughts on this; first, ala Star Trek and the prime directive, we should be sensitive to tromping around the universe with our brand of life. From the perspective of Earth being the one basket with all the eggs(heads), perhaps establishing alternative baskets is desirable.

Second, If you take Mars as an example, there are reasons that it is nearly a dead planet, so removing those obstacles(energy, water, CO2, O2, N, cycles) would help life to get a foot hold, but due to it's distance from the Sun (less energy) it would never be quite like Earth. Colonization is a far cry from creation, and much, much easier. We could begin by bio-engineering organisms that could withstand a Martian environment, or my favorite Mars terraforming idea is to smash large ammonia or water rich asteroids into Mars.

Finally, I wonder also (chicken and egg wise) whether we should begin terraforming Earth first to reclaim our own out of whack atmosphere, before endeavoring to build one on Mars. But, we might learn much from doing it on Mars first.

[Gurnsey]

...I can understand how a fourth dimensional object can be immersed in to a third dimensional space...[right][snapback]97991[/snapback][/right]

In a slight tangent, there was a 'young adult' book I read when I was 12 or so, I think the title was 'The boy who turned backwards' or something of the sort. It was about a girl who met a boy who could step into a 4th spacial dimension. The result was, he could reverse himself - much like taking a 2d shape, picking it up into a 3rd dimension, flipping it, and putting it back down. It also dealt with the intersection of 4-spatial-dimension creature with the 3-spatial-dimensions we can see.

Anyway, end of tangent. Good book, and pretty advanced concepts for its target age-group. Semi-related to that 'Flatland' book everyone and their mom is forced to read in some class or another.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Second, If you take Mars as an example, there are reasons that it is nearly a dead planet, so removing those obstacles(energy, water, CO2, O2, N, cycles) would help life to get a foot hold, but due to it's distance from the Sun (less energy) it would never be quite like Earth.  Colonization is a far cry from creation, and much, much easier.  We could begin by bio-engineering organisms that could withstand a Martian environment, or my favorite Mars terraforming idea is to smash large ammonia or water rich asteroids into Mars.
[right][snapback]98703[/snapback][/right]

The distance thing is not a big problem. By the time we realistically have the technology to contemplate terraforming, we will have the technology for moving planets. Not fast, but in a few dozen years, Mars could be moved to one of the Trojan points in Earth orbit. Throw a few comets at it (dirty snowballs, rich in water :) ) and we'd be well on the way to Earth 2. Then pull Venus back to the other Trojan and snag a big (Ceres, maybe) asteroid for its moon to help get that atmosphere thinned out, and we'd have Earth 3.

Personally, though, I think we should go for a ring world (or even a Doyson sphere) right off the bat ;)

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
==snip==
Throw a few comets at it (dirty snowballs, rich in water :) ) and we'd be well on the way to Earth 2.  Then pull Venus back to the other Trojan and snag a big (Ceres, maybe) asteroid for its moon to help get that atmosphere thinned out, and we'd have Earth 3.

Personally, though, I think we should go for a ring world (or even a Doyson sphere) right off the bat ;)

--Pete
[right][snapback]98724[/snapback][/right]

After pondering the law of unintended outcomes, incremental effort, and a gut level cost benefit hunch, I will suggest that the energy investment required to move the amount of material necessary to build a Ring World, not to mention a Dyson Sphere (or perhaps a Dyson Whiffle Ball) would be orders of magnitude greater than the energy investment required to move two planets to self sustaining orbits. I say we crawl before we try to walk. :)

I should probably do the math.

I am also puzzled over how climate/weather sytems are handled in a Ring World, given its different make up compared to the self contained "sphere in a blanket" model of Earth 1. Am I correct in assuming that this is described in a Ring World book?

After moving the other two planets about, we can proceed to worry about correct SPF for sunscreen, or ear muffs, on Earth 2 and Earth 3. :)

If Earth 2 and Earth 3 can be reasonably assured as {Hillary Duff and Ashley Simpson}-free environments, then I say "what are we waiting for?" (Hmm, cost effective Occhi thinks a wood chipper may be the better route to take, in a morally unconstrained environment . . . wait, isn't that Hollywood now? :P )

Pres Bush is being far too modest in his call for a mission to Mars, though maybe that is merely a first step. Funny, that is similar to CK Anderson's title for his Mars mission novel: A Step Beyond. Good down to earth science fiction, that one. ;)

Occhi

[Chesspiece_face]

After moving the other two planets about, we can proceed to worry about correct SPF for sunscreen, or ear muffs, on Earth 2 and Earth 3.  :) 
[right][snapback]98768[/snapback][/right]

If we're talking about cost-benifit ratios of creating earth 2 or 3 I don't think this discussion can go any further until we factor in the destructive power of Bizzaro. hmmmm. Do we really want to open this bag of worms?!?!?

[kandrathe]

I am also puzzled over how climate/weather sytems are handled in a Ring World, given its different make up compared to the self contained "sphere in a blanket" model of Earth 1. Am I correct in assuming that this is described in a Ring World book?
[right][snapback]98768[/snapback][/right]

I recall the edges were very high(1600 Km), and it rotates around it's sun sufficient to produce an artificial gravity due to centrifugal force. So, iirc, it's not a flat band, but rather a very strong U shaped trough. So now we just need to discover an asteroid belt made of a scrith like material.

Weather on our planet is driven by heating and cooling (night/day cycles), moisture evaporation, ocean currents (more passive solar release), and lunar/earth effects. Since Ringworlds night/day cycles are well regulated, and there are no lunar/earth effects, weather would more consistent than on earth. I'm sure you would get high and low pressure zones, and rainfall would also be more predictable (like every morning). Areas that are far from water would get little rainfall, therefore an initial design to provide sufficient moisture would be important.

[Occhidiangela]

If we're talking about cost-benifit ratios of creating earth 2 or 3 I don't think this discussion can go any further until we factor in the destructive power of Bizzaro.  hmmmm.  Do we really want to open this bag of worms?!?!?
[right][snapback]98777[/snapback][/right]

We can pre-empt a Bizarro takeover on Earths 2 and 3 by performing decapitation strike on all persons named Lex Luthor before the movement of Venus and Mars into Trojan orbits (Here on Earth 1, Will Farrel will remain in Trojan Orbit, trapped by the gravity of his USC fandom.)

Once planetary repositioning is complete, the temptation to breed only males on Earth 2 and only females on Earth 3, so that Men will come from Mars and Women from Venus, will be mitigated by a strict policy of cohabitation on both colonies. Each spaceship bound for those planets, with colonists, will be named Ark 1, Ark 2, Ark n, with equal numbers of male and female colonists.

"The colonists are comin'
Two by two . . ."

Bizarro will remain a paper figurehead, living in his black mansion on Euneva Ainavlysnnep.
He is well-meaning but witless, super-powerful but pathetic. His speech is illiterate and ungrammatical.
Wait, has he moved from Htrae to Pennsylvania Avenue? :blink:

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

I recall the edges were very high(1600 Km), and it rotates around it's sun sufficient to produce an artificial gravity due to centrifugal force.  So, iirc, it's not a flat band, but rather a very strong U shaped trough.  So now we just need to discover an asteroid belt  made of a scrith like material.

Weather on our planet is driven by heating and cooling (night/day cycles), moisture evaporation, ocean currents (more passive solar release), and lunar/earth effects. 

No sir, you depict weather incompletely. You neglect convection, or perhaps I should say convective heat transfer. Airmass movement, the most significant form of weather, is a macro level turbulent convection that runs 24/7. Airmass movement is a function of solar heating and earth radiation/reflection, friction between the gas blanket around earth, Coreolis effect, and the 0-30-60 High and Low airmass generation.

Since Ringworlds night/day cycles are well regulated,  and there are no lunar/earth effects, weather would more consistent than on earth.  I'm sure you would get high and low pressure zones, and rainfall would also be more predictable (like every morning).  Areas that are far from water would get little rainfall, therefore an initial design to provide sufficient moisture would be important.
[right][snapback]98780[/snapback][/right]

Why would you get high and low pressure zones within a torous that always faces the sun? How is night created, and hence heating and cooling? A ring world, by geometry, is terminal daylight, with the only interruption being cloud cover . . . or is there an internal semi ring constructed to block sun's radiation for 1/2 the day?

Obviously, I need to read Ring World to get a sense of what's going on here.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

No sir, you depict weather incompletely.  You neglect convection, or perhaps I should say convective heat transfer.  Airmass movement, the most significant form of weather, is a macro level turbulent convection that runs 24/7.  Airmass movement is a function of solar heating and earth radiation/reflection, friction between the gas blanket around earth, Coreolis effect, and the 0-30-60 High and Low airmass generation. 
Why would you get high and low pressure zones within a torous that always faces the sun?  How is night created, and hence heating and cooling?  A ring world, by geometry, is terminal daylight, with the only interruption being cloud cover . . . or is there an internal semi ring constructed to block sun's radiation for 1/2 the day?

Obviously, I need to read Ring World to get a sense of what's going on here.

Occhi
[right][snapback]98782[/snapback][/right]

Yes, there is another set of orbiting flat plates to block out the sun during the night cycle.

[Occhidiangela]

Yes, there is another set of orbiting flat plates to block out the sun during the night cycle.
[right][snapback]98784[/snapback][/right]

Ah ha. Won't comment further than to say

"Gee, thanks, another book to add to my 'must read when I can get around to it' list." :D

Occhi

[BruceGod]

(We is used collectively in this case, to represent the general set of humans with reasonably well functioning brains.)

In my experience, that is a vast minority of humans. :P

[BruceGod]

An event having a low probability of happening on one trial may still have a high probability of happening if sufficient trials are conducted.

That is why million-to-one chances show up nine times out of ten. :shuriken:

[BruceGod]

In a slight tangent, there was a 'young adult' book I read when I was 12 or so, I think the title was 'The boy who turned backwards' or something of the sort.  It was about a girl who met a boy who could step into a 4th spacial dimension.  The result was, he could reverse himself - much like taking a 2d shape, picking it up into a 3rd dimension, flipping it, and putting it back down.  It also dealt with the intersection of 4-spatial-dimension creature with the 3-spatial-dimensions we can see.

Anyway, end of tangent.  Good book, and pretty advanced concepts for its target age-group.  Semi-related to that 'Flatland' book everyone and their mom is forced to read in some class or another.
[right][snapback]98713[/snapback][/right]

That would be "The Boy who Reversed Himself." Great book, I heartily reccomend it for readers of any age.