GameBanshee Forums

@ C Elegans

original post:
If earth and moon separate, we will loose tidal effects. We will not loose seasons I think, since this depends on the angle of and the earth's orbit around the sun. However, since I would sorely miss the beautiful moon reflecting the sunlight at night, I suggest we catch a new moon if this one should leave us

Did the text you read explain why a loss of the moon would make earth inhabitable? I don't understand why that would be the result.

Sorry for the late resonce but my provider was out again



To explain why we would lose seasons, this is because the moon keeps the earth stable.
Without it, we would spin around out of control.

Due to the lack of spinning around the same all the time(round in 24 hours), it would be that the sun could be directly above the north pole instead of the amazon rainforests at 13:00 and one hour later it would be above the south pole.(due to the angle of the earth to the sun)

So all animals whould die decause they have to live in weather they didn't live in normally or great storms or something.
And we could die to...

Originally posted by Tom:
<STRONG>
The Indians were not evolutionary backwards, that is a misunderstanding. Their immune
systems were not familiar with the strains of backteria that the europeans brought over.</STRONG>

You understand wrong. I don't mean that the indians were genetic backwards. I mean that they were genetic foward, better than the europeans because they don't have sickness as the europeans, because they still in the natural selection, they still the evolution. But the europeans, totally out of the natural selection, were sick, lots of sickness, prevented by the medicine.

Hi everyone..Just a reminder, everyone has a right to an opinion as long as it's expressed in a civil manner.
@ Tom, your post was well within forum rules.
@ Saturn, not everyone has the same beliefs you do, they are still allowed to express their opinion.

Posted by Tom -

its funny that this question was reasently asked in Metro (a free london newspaper). Some one wrote in and gave what i think is the right answer.

The Metro is cool I like the cryptic crosswords

Originally posted by josh:
<STRONG>A similar question to this is what happens to light when it reaches the edge of the universe?</STRONG>

The universe is expanding faster than the speed of light.

Originally posted by josh:
<STRONG>C Elegans: Geomagnetical reversals, so is that what it is called. Its been a couple of years since I saw a documentary about this so I could remember half of the things said. Sorry if I got some facts wrong.
This could affect some animals that may rely on the magnetic poles for navigation.</STRONG>

I'm far from an expert on this area, but a lot of evidence show that many different animals use geomagnetic orientation. Among those animals are sea turtles, lampreys, sea slugs and species of fish that has been around for many, many million years. My guess would be that since the geomagnetic reversals are so gradual, those species adapt enought to it to be able to survive.

Originally posted by Rob-hin:
<STRONG>To explain why we would lose seasons, this is because the moon keeps the earth stable.
Without it, we would spin around out of control.

Due to the lack of spinning around the same all the time(round in 24 hours), it would be that the sun could be directly above the north pole instead of the amazon rainforests at 13:00 and one hour later it would be above the south pole.(due to the angle of the earth to the sun)

So all animals whould die decause they have to live in weather they didn't live in normally or great storms or something.
And we could die to...</STRONG>

Hm...where did you read this article, Rob-hin? It sounds to me like a very unlikely catastroph scenario.

The moon does not keep the earth stable, the earth would be stable without the moon, just in a little different orbit. (It's the centre of gravity in the earth-moon system that orbits the sun, so if the moon disappeared, the centre of gravity would of course change)

Earth would not start to spin around much more irregularly because the moon disappered - the loss of 3/4 of our tide would certainly make a difference, but just look at planets without moons - they spin around just as regular as earth.
The tilt of earth's axis would hardly be affected at all - the slow precession would be even slower, that's all.

What astronomers believe would happen though, is that marital life would be affected by the loss of tide. The sun would still cause tide of course, but it would only be 1/4 of the moon tide, so life depending on the interrim ecosystem (ie birds that feed from molluscs they can only catch when the tide is low, fish that breed in the tidal zones) would be affected. Some species would likely go extinct, since some ecosystems would disappear. However, life on earth in general, including human life, would go on just fine.

Originally posted by Tom:
<STRONG>When the univers was smaller the effect of gravity on the shape of the universe would have been much greater or so it seems to me.</STRONG>

That is correct, but it has no bearing on my statement. What that effected was the rate at which the spacial dimensions of the universe travelled through the temporal dimension.

Originally posted by Tom:
<STRONG>I am sorry if you were offended but i think what i said was just a bit of fun. After all i just expressed my opinion although in a slightly silly way.</STRONG>

The problem is that you stated it, not as opinion, but as fact. This comes from the English language commonality of dropping of certain words/phrases, thus changing a statement of opinion into what is actually a statement of "fact," even if you don't mean it to be fact. To not take the time to say all necessary words to state that it is your opinion is purely laziness and quite offensive. There was in fact no need for you to answer the question at all as it was not, if I am right, asked to non-Christians; but to Christians as they are going to answer with why they believe God allows evil to exist in the world. Since you do not believe that God exists, you do not fall into the category of someone that the question is relevant for.

Note: It is spelled God with a capital G because it is a proper noun, specifically a name. "god" with a lower case g is refering to any diety. There is a difference and it is offensive when you don't use a capital g because that is a result of laziness. I'm usually rather tolerant of this, but CE misquoted EMINEM by lower casing the g.

That is all I have to say on this as I do not wish to get into a religious discussion.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>Hm...where did you read this article, Rob-hin? It sounds to me like a very unlikely catastroph scenario.
</STRONG>

I got my info from discovery channel, they tend to know what they are talking about.(I think)

[ 10-06-2001: Message edited by: Rob-hin ]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by C Elegans:
Have you seen, with our own eyes, that the earth is round?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It's not, I tried to walk around the earth, then I fell off.


A cliff.

A cliff. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Wasn't Cliff a bit offended?

No more then usual...

@SailorS This is a public forum and as such any member is allowed to post their opinions on any subject. It is not very good form to post a message for just one group of people. If you wish to have a conversation with a select few and ignore others then please take that to Private Message.

The issue of whether God should be spelt with or without a capital is also a moot point as it can be as much mistake as intention. Technically in a sentence 'I' should always be a capital, but that is hardly ever upheld.

There are a lot of multi cultural posters, and to complain about the grammar and spelling is not very accepting of the gap in languages.

[url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/sitefeatures/forumrules.php"]Forum Rules[/url]

[url="http://www.gamebanshee.com"]Gamebanshee[/url] - Make your gaming Scream

Originally posted by Mr Sleep:
<STRONG>@SailorS This is a public forum and as such any member is allowed to post their opinions on any subject. It is not very good form to post a message for just one group of people. If you wish to have a conversation with a select few and ignore others then please take that to Private Message.</STRONG>

I was not disputing the right to post one's opinion. I am not offended by the opinion. I am offended by the fact that it was not stated as opinion, but as fact.

Originally posted by Mr Sleep:
<STRONG>The issue of whether God should be spelt with or without a capital is also a moot point as it can be as much mistake as intention. Technically in a sentence 'I' should always be a capital, but that is hardly ever upheld.</STRONG>

It is not a moot point. As I said, I am quite tolerant of this; and the only reason I said anything about it was because the lack of the capital "g" resulted in a misquote.

Originally posted by Mr Sleep:
<STRONG>There are a lot of multi cultural posters, and to complain about the grammar and spelling is not very accepting of the gap in languages.</STRONG>

As I just said, I was not complaining about bad grammar or spelling. I was complaining about the misquote. The reason I was complaining about the misquote is that it changed the meaning of the quote from specifically talking about God to talking about any diety.

I have done nothing wrong and I do not appreciate getting fussed at for it.

Originally posted by Rob-hin:
<STRONG>I got my info from discovery channel, they tend to know what they are talking about.(I think)
</STRONG>

Rob-hin, IMO the Discovery channel is not a reliable source of information. Discovery channel is a mix of some good and serious programs, some rather outdated information, some highly speculative programs, and some extremely populistic, pseudo-scientific crap that at best has an entertainment value. My advice: never trust this kind of popular science without checking the sources.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>Rob-hin, IMO the Discovery channel is not a reliable source of information. Discovery channel is a mix of some good and serious programs, some rather outdated information, some highly speculative programs, and some extremely populistic, pseudo-scientific crap that at best has an entertainment value. My advice: never trust this kind of popular science without checking the sources. </STRONG>

I agree. The only good shows I've ever seen on Discovery Channel were Next Step and Beyond 2000, both of which are no longer on the air(at least, not in the US). I liked them for the same reason I like the What's New section in Popular Science. They showed new and innovative stuff.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
[QB]As I just said, I was not complaining about bad grammar or spelling. I was complaining about the misquote. The reason I was complaining about the misquote is that it changed the meaning of the quote from specifically talking about God to talking about any diety.
It seems that you take things for granted and that you DO take offense on opinions that differ from yours on that specific subject.I am the first to respect it,I also respect the free EXPRESSION of opinions/facts whatever.Upon this rests PROGRESS.On a lighter note,I would be glad to discuss with you Theological subs of a wide scope when the opportunity arises.

Have a "great question": Do the ends justify the means?

Now, don't answer with stuff people/books have told you. Actually think about it.

Originally posted by Gaxx_Firkraag:
<STRONG>Have a "great question": Do the ends justify the means?
</STRONG>

Gaxx, I agree this is indeed a great question, and one that I for sure does not have a generalized answer to. IMO it's a question we should constantly ask ourselves.

For me personally, working in medical research, it's a very relevant question.

Originally posted by Gaxx_Firkraag:
<STRONG>Have a "great question": Do the ends justify the means?</STRONG>

This is a great question and my answer to it is this: There are too many factors involved to be able to have a set answer for every situation.