Sayonara

Is 'old sea scroll' the same as Dead Sea scroll?

Gloating now you've got the playground to yourself just shows that he was right to walk away from this.

Use the search function. There are a couple of threads on these.

Cadmus, you have added absolutely nothing to your original proposal, which I have already very concisely refuted.

Consider the volume occupied by matter, versus the volume that is not occupied by matter. Then list the anomolous high-density bodies that might account for the shortfall.

Don't discount abiotic factors out of hand. There is no 'top of the ladder' as such. What comes next will be decided by how our habitat and interspecies relationships change in the future, which is - unfortunately - not very predictable.

I think if we're going to assume that I'm willing to reverse-engineer someone else's technology and see what they did in order to produce a competing product, we can also safely assume I have the means to legally acquire that technology without purchasing it, which doesn't require that I have any such agreement with the vendor.

Dunno.

I could not resist the opportunity to show you what I meant in the other thread, so I'm glad you recognised it. Yes, it was this I was referring to: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3696092.stm I think I simply got my year wires crossed.

And somewhere else.

Muah ha haaa. /waits for someone to start on the density path of this discussion

Take a look around. Infinite matter occupies infinite space.

We know it's not infinite, which comes to the same thing.

Sorry, I just saw that and for some reason it was tremendously funny at the time. Onward! Yes, because there's not really any way it's going to happen. We don't need to disprove that it can happen, because the only reason we might (reasonably or unreasonably) expect it to be manifest is that we are hypothesising infinite outcomes among infinite planets. Probability isn't a factor (well, not for Elephant-Jam world anyway - it'll still have an effect on the distribution of planetary manifestations, but only the ones that exist). Yes, but that's factually wrong, so it's not really the best point you've made.

lol

It's really very simple: 1) The definition of planet specifies no compositional criteria, therefore 2) If there are infinite possibilities, we might reasonably expect to find a planet made out of something wacky at some point, however 3) Since you can't have a non-infinite factor of infinity in real terms, there must be a finite number of planets, thus 4) Not all possibilities can be realised, so there are not going to be planets with developmental routes that make no sense.

No.

Because the definition of planet specifies that the body must be bigger than that. Planetoid would be the next step down. What has my choice of adjectives got to do with anything? If you are going to make an argument by definition, at least read the definition.

It's more relative to the intensity of available light (who cares if it's visible or not), seeing as it will scale in the same way whether it's being watched or not.

If you take away the non-visible light, "the darkness" would still be there.

Actually you're wrong: the definition of planet does not attempt to specify compositional criteria, on account of it not being relevant.

This thread is about "the universe", i.e. - this one.

Bear in mind that your model is already broken, because in order for all planetary possibilities to be realised, there has to be an infinite number of planets. That is quite clearly not the case, nor could it be.

Because, although it sounds contradictory, not all possibilities are possible. For instance there will not be any planets made exclusively of jam and elephants.