25 Jul '17 08:14>
What ingredients would you put in the universe? Here is my choice.
Love, Poetry, Art, Irony and a double dose of humour.
Love, Poetry, Art, Irony and a double dose of humour.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraBit of a clunky fit but OK.
This is the Science forum.
Originally posted by @christopher-albonIs there something you find distastful about the distribution of elements or ingredients in the universe as it stands now? You do realize love, poetry, art and such are ATTRIBUTES not ingredients, right? And attributes of HUMANS. Human programming if you will. Doesn't have a whole lot to do with the universe.
What ingredients would you put in the universe? Here is my choice.
Love, Poetry, Art, Irony and a double dose of humour.
Originally posted by @sonhouseScience is distasteful when employed against nature. Posers rambling in Greek gobbledegook is distasteful and above all dishonesty to ones own heart is distasteful. Other than that, I'm fine with your billiard ball eccentricity.
Is there something you find distastful about the distribution of elements or ingredients in the universe as it stands now? You do realize love, poetry, art and such are ATTRIBUTES not ingredients, right? And attributes of HUMANS. Human programming if you will. Doesn't have a whole lot to do with the universe.
Originally posted by @sonhouseIs there something you find distastful about humans occupying the universe as it stands now?
Is there something you find distastful about the distribution of elements or ingredients in the universe as it stands now? You do realize love, poetry, art and such are ATTRIBUTES not ingredients, right? And attributes of HUMANS. Human programming if you will. Doesn't have a whole lot to do with the universe.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraOhh, well done Mister Potter.
This is the Science forum.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraWhich "this"?
This is the Science forum.
Originally posted by @lemon-limeI was just wondering what you find distastful about the universe in general. You do know where all of us came from right? I call it star poop. A star, when it explodes in a nova or supernova creates the stuff of us, carbon, iron, O2, and the rest. Iron is the end product of Fission or fusion, it doesn't work worth a shyte for either process. It is star poop. So is carbon and oxygen and such. So if there were no stars, our stuff would have to be imported to make our kind of stuff, out planets and our sun and so forth. So the universe pretty much has to be the way it is for us to be around at all in ANY form. So changing much of anything would create a universe where life never starts.
Is there something you find distastful about humans occupying the universe as it stands now?
I'll admit life appears to be something of an aberration when veiwed next to the physical properties and mechanics of non living matter, and humans have taken it a step further by doing more than simply survive as living entities. But we don't need to have a W ...[text shortened]... e don't belong in this universe? If so, then what sort of universe would be a better fit?
Originally posted by @sonhouseThanks for the science lesson. But you forgot to mention how lighter elements are made heavier by material from stars reforming into new stars, and creating heavier elements from the lighter ones.
I was just wondering what you find distastful about the universe in general. You do know where all of us came from right? I call it star poop. A star, when it explodes in a nova or supernova creates the stuff of us, carbon, iron, O2, and the rest. Iron is the end product of Fission or fusion, it doesn't work worth a shyte for either process. It is star po ...[text shortened]... t all in ANY form. So changing much of anything would create a universe where life never starts.
Originally posted by @lemon-limeThe latest is that more than stars made us: Now shown that galaxies have supernova poop going in very large streams into surrounding galaxies adding to the mix of stuff making new stars besides what we already knew about nova's and supernova's making heavy stuff:
Thanks for the science lesson. But you forgot to mention how lighter elements are made heavier by material from stars reforming into new stars, and creating heavier elements from the lighter ones.
We've been all through this before. Stars recooking and making elements heavier is not analogous to rehashing the same old talking points.
Originally posted by @sonhouseAny change you envision is going to come at a cost to some other part of the ecology, whether the ecology of life on Earth or just limiting the ecology to effects on humans, you and nobody else on the planet has enough wisdom to know what to change without drastic unseen consequences. With that in mind, what would you change?
The latest is that more than stars made us: Now shown that galaxies have supernova poop going in very large streams into surrounding galaxies adding to the mix of stuff making new stars besides what we already knew about nova's and supernova's making heavy stuff:
https://phys.org/news/2017-07-milky.html
Second hand, third hand, whatever, we are still ...[text shortened]... ow what to change without drastic unseen consequences. With that in mind, what would you change?
Originally posted by @lemon-limeYour Uhmm and everything else is made of star poop🙂 Well, maybe star farts....
[b]Any change you envision is going to come at a cost to some other part of the ecology, whether the ecology of life on Earth or just limiting the ecology to effects on humans, you and nobody else on the planet has enough wisdom to know what to change without drastic unseen consequences. With that in mind, what would you change?
I'll need a bigger ...[text shortened]... on hand for wiping star poop off... from off my, uhmm...
Yes, that's it... from off my Uhmm.[/b]