Acme

The passage says nothing about crop rotation, which is planting different crops on the same land. Composting only requires leaving the non-edible plant parts; we don't as a rule compost the eatable harvest. And those are Jews doing it for religious and not scientific reasons. OK

Your welcome. I'm reading the other paper and Cameron -who did the computer simulations at the NASA article- is cited frequently. The paper can be downloaded as a PDF and goes into considerable detail.

Computer simulations by A.G.W. Cameron, Harvard College Observatory found here: >> Origin of the Earth and Moon @NASA Other numeric simulations here: >> Simulations of a Late Lunar-Forming Impact Edit: Abstract from Simulations of a Late Lunar-Forming Impact

But presumably we're having a scientific discussion on a science forum, and we have scientific information at hand. Red herring for thee and thy sup. Fortunately I like herring so I'll nibble your bait. Is there some scientific evidence 7 years is better than say 5, or 8, or some other period of cycling? What crops exactly? In what climes? And do vintners today really not prune or harvest every 7th year? And what is the rational for not harvesting that 'which groweth of its own accord '? Should we really let food rot because some unknown writer in a moldy old book sayeth the Lord saideth? Say what?

Meh, getting into decision making with incomplete information there. Well, since planting by the Moon is the topic, 'meh' doesn't quite cover it in my honest opinion. Moreover, it's not incomplete information other than scientific studies show there is no evidence planting by the Moon improves yield, speeds germination, or speeds flowering. Ergo, no rational reason to plant by the Moon, which is to say planting by the Moon is to prefer myth over science. In terms of timing, for many plants the germinating and growing is a matter of an astronomical object, i.e. the Sun. Specifically it's a matter of day length, though different plants exhibit different responses to day length, as well as rising temperature as a result of increasing day length and angle of incidence of sunlight. I don't discount that it is known that the period of darkness is also a factor for plants' growth and that the Moon and light pollution can affect growth, however this again has nothing to do with planting by the Moon. Moon phases cycle in relation to seasons and weather cycles in relation to Moon phases, which is to say there is not always a Full Moon coincident with Spring planting and the Moon may be and often is obscured by clouds. While clouds don't affect the tidal pull of the Moon, scientific studies have found no correlation with that pull, and as I earlier said if there's no water to pull then the alleged affect is moot.

I would add to that the superb and worth-reading writing of Bertrand Russell. An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish

OK, but how is that movement any different than our shark's prey? Or let's take whales as an example as some species hunt krill and whales are closely related to dolphins. Some of these whales recognize the random patterns of schools of krill and working together the whales make curtains of bubbles to herd the krill while other individuals swim upward through the corralled mass and eat them. This exhibits intelligence and cooperation, and yet whales do not build machines or write books. I suppose if you are just writing a sci-fi story you can make it be anything you want.

I think you mean opposable thumbs, not disposable. Anyway, sharks have had millions of years to evolve and they hunt pretty much as your space dolphins do, and yet today they are not even close to human intelligence. In terms of judging/comparing human intelligence with any other animal, we have no peers when it comes to technology and yet many animals have been around longer than we. Exactly why humans evolved high intelligence is a complex affair and still a topic of much debate. It may be that there is no imperative to high intelligence and we are simply flukes of the Universe. . Space dolphinado?

Mind you I am not attacking you personally, just attacking your idea that you have contributed anything with your 'persistence'. Since the Earth would have to have already formed to experience the iron catastrophe or a giant impact, or any post-formation events, then the particulars of those events have no bearing on when the Earth formed. It has been made clear by actual scientific research that the Earth's formation, as for all the planets, planetoids, moons, etcetera, was/were coincident with the formation of the entire solar system. Further 'persistence' is unwarranted and unproductive.

Let me quote from that last link: Yeah, that's a scientifically authoritive source. Nice work. Moreover, none of the material in the last pages is on the [misbegotten] topic of the Earth's age being grossly underestimated, a speculation that was shown to be in error long ago.

In short, there is no rational reason to plant by the Moon.

Knowing the physics is necessary. You posited a solid core of ice for your globule and the physics discounts that. I more or less agree, however we might imagine highly intelligent octopi and so hands per se aren't necessary, let alone bones.

Not just fine motor control, but digits I think. Arguably dolphins have fine motor control, but it's hard to imagine building any machines using flippers or even using tools held in the mouth. Fire, again, just has a lot of problems. One might argue I suppose that fire could be developed at the surface on floating mats, but it would take a rather large area to support and dry enough fuel for even a small fire. We have a thread here on the topic of how humans came to control and make fire that may cast some insight into the problems water worldians would face. >>Early use of fire by hominds

Just saying 'I know I could' does not satisfy the reasoned scientific explanation implied in the OP. Moreover, if there were such a thing as a planet composed of nothing but water, then if the core were solid ice so too would the outer 'layers'. Then too, there is no evidence or mechanism I have seen that posits a planet made entirely of water, but by all means enlighten us if you have such evidence.

To have an 'air' filled underwater chamber, the air would have to be at a high enough pressure to keep the water out. Were you to vent an 'air' filled underwater chamber to the surface it would immediately flood. In the early days of diving suits there was no valve in the air hose and when the hose would break at or near the surface the water pressure at the divers depth would literally squoosh the diver into the helmet.* A Brief History of Diving

Except that a fire in an underwater 'dry' cavern would in short order consume the oxygen and fill it with toxic exhaust gasses. Moreover, if the creatures could move on land than they would no longer be underwater creatures, and the OP specifies a water-world with no land.

I'd say that without fire there would be no 'human-like' technology, at least not along the development line that humans have followed. One might imagine the development of mechanical computers like the tinkertoy computer but even then it would have to be massive to match our current computers. They might have crabs in their programs rather than bugs.

As to tidal effect, it would depend ultimately on available water. If the soil is dry then the Moon phase has nothing to act on. As to the light, the article on light you cited says: So they say right up that Moon planting is superstition, there is no clear mechanism, they don't say what 'particular' seeds, and 'could have' is next to useless. There is also an assumption that flowering occurs a month after planting and no particular example of plants with that habit given, and as I earlier pointed out it is undesirable to have many vegetables flower. One does not want beets, spinach, or radishes to bolt for example. What we are left with is oodles of superstition and confirmation bias and virtually no scientific evidence that there is any benefit to planting on a full Moon.

Pymander, the whole basis for your arguments is pseudoscientific nonsense that has been debunked time and time again. Whether it's Cayce or Maxlo or whoever you throw in next, it is a foundation of sand and a monumental waste of bandwidth and peoples' time here. Were this topic to be done any justice it would be locked in the trash as the others. Note: In the locked thread on expanding earth that I earlier cited, Klaynos cites 4 other threads here of the same name. That one of them isn't locked is simply a staff oversight. Expanding Earth Locked Expanding Earth Locked Expanding EarthLocked expanding earth Open

You can find a discussion already here of Maxlow & Neal Adams in the forum trash. >> Expanding Planets

No, I mean about telling me to suck a bone. While this is admittedly off-topic, you opened the door so I'm in. Basically you're saying snottiness is OK when you find it funny, and since you didn't find any humor in my comment you saw fit to neg rep it. Again, how gracious & fair of you. I don't suppose you have anything on the topic of planting by the Moon perchance?

Photoperiod often determines flowering time and if you get a lot of clear nights with strong moonshine it could affect the timing of the flowering. Thank you I'm sure, but I'd still like to hear from Endy. Moreover, since flowering is actually detrimental to some vegetables in the garden then there is no preponderant benefit. Of course if you have any bona fide studies relating the Moon to vegetable flowering, please present them. At any rate, Ant's question is about planting by the Moon. I have to ask: why did you see fit to call out my being snotty and let Ant's retort pass?

How perfectly civil of you. Not that you follow explanations well, but I will explain what this has to do with gardening. You start the thread saying: I, et al, give citations that there is no evidence for it. Then, you opt for ignoring that there is no evidence and return to an 'alternative science' site saying: At that link they make claims that actual scientific study disclaims. They say: StringJunky then points out an article that explains your error in reasoning, which is ultimately a gardening mistake. He didn't quote from the article, so I will. So that's what this has to do with gardening. Well, what impact exactly are you referring to? An increased yield as Ant first asks about? Early germination as talked about in some of the cited studies? Gardeners being able to work at night? And what is 'photoperiodic time measurement interference' exactly and how would that influence a garden?

Want a screen shot of the notice? As we all know, complaining about the rep system is a fool's errand.

There is a limit of 3 negative votes per day. IIRC the positive vote limit is around 10 times that. You're welcome.