Leaderboard

! Moderator Note NO! You have too many misconceptions you need to address before advancing more "ideas". And this thread is 8 pages of unsupported soapboxing, so it ends now.

So far the replies assume industry as equivalent to what we see now, why should it be? Weren't the Romans, Egyptians etc. industrious?

No one knows.

Unidentifowls.

Pareidolian entities.

The entire population could also fit in Rhode Island. But it wouldn't end well: https://what-if.xkcd.com/8/

Direct water power is still considered pre-industrial and I should have included it in my post. Basically, the dividing line between industrial and pre-industrial is the start of the industrial revolution. Coal started forming in the Carboniferous Period 390-360 million years ago. There are also coal deposits from the Cretaceous age 65-114 million years ago. Coal goes through stages in formation. First forming brown coal (Lignite), then the black coals, (sub-bituminous, bituminous, anthracite ) With anthracite being the highest quality. Any industrial civilization prior to ours would use the highest quality of coal available to them, which in turn, would reduce the amount of anthracite deposits around for human use. Any significant use of coal by some pre-human civilziation would have left evidence in the coal deposit records that we would have noticed.

That'll learn me to read the entire thread, apologies, but that means the speculation is falsifiable as explained above. We've mapped the tree of life (mostly) and there's plenty of room for a type of industry that's not human, just not our type of industry.

lol - we don't really need them moontan - I was attempting that humour thing that people go on about. The first 3 replies to your OP made me laugh a lot.

I know these, i’ve seen them lots of times, they’re a special kind of bird called: ”Shoot at higher ISO with a faster shutter speed”

The unusual lighting conditions does make them look pretty spooky. (But they are obviously porgs.)

Ok thank you.

Ok. Thank you for the effect explaining it to me.

It would be massively more expensive to try and construct a single parabolic mirror, if it were even possible. Using multiple mirrors also makes it easy to track the position of the sun to maximise output.

You really don't seem to get philosophy at all, or indeed the point of a/this forum, it's not a competition (It's a meeting of minds, not a beating of minds). Arrogance can only block (your) understanding because as long as you think you're right you'll always miss the nuggets of wisdom that almost everyone has in their locker, true intelligence recognises there are many versions of clever. Dunning and Kruger have a lot to say on the subject but no doubt you'll reject their findings because they're scientists (spit).

It was repeatedly said to you that it was repeatedly said to you that there are no non-local interactions. So stop asking. No consensus? I think all nearly all physicists agree that there only are non-local correlations. It follows directly from the formalism of QM (and QFT is simply the most modern form of QM), and Bell-like experiments have shown that QM is correct in this respect.

I think the easiest to understand "who" did it is to understand that the universe is developing from the lowest possible state to eternity. From Nothing (0) to Everything(1) we have today. What is important to understand I think that if the first moment of existence, a simple information, (the application of the laws of nature, basic consciousness, will of existence) will be everything in proporion to Nothing. Everything we have today has some informational connection(evolution) to that moment through space time. I.e. we are part of God as an atom is part of our body...I think God evolving with the system. We are simply too primitive to have more connection, what we have through the physical reality today. I believe in God (higher intelligence naturally connected to the first moment of existence)

I suspect you are confusing matter with mass. Mass is a number, & matter is that stuff we can hold in our hand. It's true we often don't bother distinguishing & take the shortcut (substitution). That doesn't tell me much. Theory is the assumption. What about the evidence? Yes I do my best. What's that? a.dul(l).ed. What are you you talking about? Is it physics? ? I write this way to reduce errors, also because this website's software produces errors. I have not a better method to reduce them (errors). If I make comprimises (I get confused) & you guys lock my threads faster. That's NOT true! That's only your opinion (=guess, or bias). Newspaper columns are also narrow. That I carriage return formally at the end of a phrase is not much different & has a natural pause. What's your problem?

I'm so sorry for all of you people. I am praying for each one of you that the Lord would reveal His Truth to you. There is a God who created you and has an inifite love and joy beyond what we can imagine. I have that joy... Nothing would make me happier than for you to experience it too. I cannot prove the existence of God to you. I cannot prove Him to anyone. Only God Himself can prove Himself to you - that is how someone believes in His existence and trusts in Him. It is a basic fundamental idea - we haven't seen God, so we need faith to believe in Him. We haven't seen the creation of the universe, the stars, the galaxies, the back holes, and everything else - so we are using faith in scientific experimentation to believe what could have happened.

There is evidence we're here. Obviously, it exists, so it must have had a beginning. If it didn't have a beginning, then you're going to have a hard time explaining that to me without saying it's supernatural. Well, our universe had to come from something. And that something had to come from something. Etc. So at some point where did the first something come from? That's a pretty cheap way to undercut the entire argument wouldn't you say? Clearly, it had to have a beginning.