Birth of Earth

[nstansbury]

i find it disconcerning that people here are always willing to rule out something they dont understand

 

It's not a case of not understanding, aside from the fact he has no experimental evidence to backup his ideas - his logic is fundamentally flawed.

 

Just because the rings on a tree might be analogous to the earth's crust doesn't make it true.

 

A good friend of mine looks like George Clooney. That doesn't mean he is George Clooney.

[iNow]

Reminds me also of the face on Mars.

The human mind is primed to find patterns, even when none exist.

 

The ideas are analogous, not homologous.

 

 

Old people often look like prunes. So what? Doesn't mean they are prunes, or that they're made of prunes, or that prunes are made of old peopel, or that they have the same functions as prunes, or even that they've been in the water for too long.

[Klaynos]

OMG!! nstansbury knows George Clooney!!!

[DrP]

Anything is a possibility and even if you cant back it up, it is still intersting to think about the many options that could be real.

 

 

I agree - it is nice to think about them as things that could be. But not to try and publish them as real science. I mean come on - the earth birthing an asteroid as a seed for another planet! I really don't want to slag the sweet little idea off but it really is ridiculus!

 

 

 

Anything is a possibility .

 

Well that's the whole point - it is not! A fish is not possibly a goat! A planet is not possibly a tree. I cannot possibly believe this dross.

[Phi for All]

I find your theory fascinating and i find it disconcerning that people here are always willing to rule out something they dont understand. Anything is a possibility and even if you cant back it up, it is still intersting to think about the many options that could be real.

Please note that jsispat's idea (not a theory) was not "ruled out". His methodology leads him to a false conclusion. He has taken an analogy too far.

 

Perhaps he should define what he means by "alive", since it obviously doesn't conform to any definition recognized by science. Having common definitions is crucial to the scientific method.

 

A good friend of mine looks like George Clooney. That doesn't mean he is George Clooney.

Oooh, could you get me something that looks like his autograph?

[nstansbury]

Oooh, could you get me something that looks like his autograph?

 

Be delighted to.... but if his autograph looks like George Clooney's surely it must be George Clooney's?

 

Which would be odd because his name is Rod

[jsispat]

It's actually quite a nice romaniticism.. I used to let myself daydream and think about the solar system being one big atom with the sun at the centre and the planets as electrons etc.. but then you have to wake up, smile and say 'that was a nice idea - it cheered me up for a moment, but, it's obviously fantasy so lets get back to the real world' When I saw you picture of the tree etc. I let mind wander into thinking about a living earth with trees and stuff - and we were like ants on the tree.. and we all love each other... and it made me smile a bit. Then I though 'what a nice idea...... obviously complete fantasy though' and then got back to work.

 

I'm off to hug a tree.....

yes it is true that we are like ants on big tree.this looks dream at initial stage but true after dedection.

[MrSandman]

Has anyone noticed how everyone ties philosphy with science. It's like cream cheese and pickles, yuck!

[jsispat]

 

 

This doll is alive. Note the hair, just like a real human woman. Note the dress; no lifeless thing would wear a dress like that. She has hands, a head and neck, and although you can't see them, she has legs and feet just like a real person.

 

Conclusion: Barbie is a real person.

 

Q.E.D.

doll can not be a living thing because it is man made not made by nature. earth is made by nature.so totally different.tree is also grow with natural system only.

 

trees and the earth are not the same. their chemistry is very very different.

 

a glass of water and a glass of methanol look the same. they are very very different things.

chemistry of growth of tree and earth is not same but formula or procedure is same

[MrSandman]

Well what is truly living anways...something that has cells, well maybe the earth is just one big effen cell.

[jsispat]

Well what is truly living anways...something that has cells, well maybe the earth is just one big effen cell.

 

how you can say that earth doest have cell ?

[Edtharan]

Pls see the attached snaps for more clarification.

What you have fallen for her eis the Equivocation Logical Fallacy. It is an easy one to fall for, especially as humans are good at arbitrary associations and pattern seeking even when none exists.

 

Just because something is like something else, it does not mean that they actually share the same attributes.

 

Just because a tree has layers, it does not mean that because Earth has layers then they both must share the same property: "Alive".

 

It is a bit like the scene from the movie: Shrek, where Shrek is trying to explain to Donkey that Ogres are complex. Shrek uses an onion to explain that Ogres have "Layers", but Donkey keeps misunderstanding and making the Equivocation Fallacy and keeps thinking that Shrek is talking about the other properties of onions (like if you leave them in the sun the grow little white hairs). So in Shrek, just because Onions and Ogres have layers, it does not mean that if you leave an Ogre in the Sun they will grow little white hairs.

 

It is that same between the Earth and Trees. Both might have layers, but that does not mean that they both must be alive (or that if you leave them in the sun they grow little white hairs, or are big, green, bad tempered and and sound like Mike Myers ).

 

how you can say that earth doest have cell ?

Well cells have a dual layer of lipids around them, and the Earth doesn't for one. Also, there are fundamental size limitations for cells (as chemicals needed for their operation have to diffuse into them through pores in the lipid layers) and beyond a certain size the cell would cease to operate.

 

- not know meaning of simuli

Actually plants have many stimulus responses, this means that they do know what stimuli are. Many plants tilt their leaves to face the sun, this means they must have some way of detecting the angle of the sun and responding to it. Some plants even respond to touch and will close their leaves up to prevent themselves being eaten.

 

So yes. Plants do know stimuli.

 

doll can not be a living thing because it is man made not made by nature. earth is made by nature.so totally different.tree is also grow with natural system only.

Humans are part of Nature, so what we do is also part of nature (and just because something is natural does not mean it is good. See Naturalistic Fallacy).

 

Also, if I was to go and pile up a lot of rocks and dirt into a hill, this would be part of the Earth. But it is also Man made and by your argument it couldn't be alive. But you are also saying that Earth is alive. So would that hill be alive or not, and as it is part of the Earth would the Earth be alive or not.

 

pls tell me what is the strong reason that you say planets can not be alive thing.

What do all living things do:

 

Reproduce/Growth: They take material from their environment and use it to build a new version of themselves.

 

Excrete: They take in all sorts of things, not just the stuff they need, so they then eject those undesirable materials.

 

Now it might be argued that a planet can grow because it pulls in material from its environment (in the form of asteroids and comets), but it doesn't get rid of anything, it keeps it all. Planets don't excrete.

 

Life is an auto catalytic process. That is, living things make more living things and discard that which does not aid them in making more of themselves (its not a complete answer to what is alive, but it is a property that all living things share).

 

There is no process that exists on planets that allows them to do this. As this property is common to all known living organisms, planets therefore are not alive.

[jsispat]

earth has very thick crust and we have just gone 12 km deep only from land not from see.

2. we live on dead skin of earth because very upper layer is shrinked dead skin like shrinked skin of tree.

3. can you tell me any single thing produced by nature having skin or crust or layer . having inner layer with temrature.

[Phi for All]

earth has very thick crust and we have just gone 12 km deep only from land not from see.

This does nothing to support your idea. You are suggesting our penetration into the earth's lithosphere to date is insufficient for gathering evidence that the earth is alive. It is just not logical to assume we will suddenly refute all previous evidence by digging deeper. That's not how science works.

2. we live on dead skin of earth because very upper layer is shrinked dead skin like shrinked skin of tree.

Please see Edtharan's excellent post above regarding logical fallacies. It does NOT follow that the earth is alive just because the lithosphere resembles the bark of a tree.

3. can you tell me any single thing produced by nature having skin or crust or layer . having inner layer with temrature.

The list is enormous, but doesn't include rocks.

[Klaynos]

Is the bark of trees dead?

[insane_alien]

just thinking about this thread, and i have to ask, seeing as you interpret the crust to be dead, does that mean that you interpret magma to be alive?

[Sisyphus]

Has anyone noticed how everyone ties philosphy with science. It's like cream cheese and pickles, yuck!

 

Where do you see philosophy?

[jsispat]

bark of tree may be dead but not sure because lot of scientist says that earth has not cellular body. actually i an without any lab and facility to prove . you can help me in this matter

[insane_alien]

answer my question please, do you consider magma to be alive?

[Edtharan]

earth has very thick crust and we have just gone 12 km deep only from land not from see.

We can used vibrations to examine what lies inside the Earth. This is not conceptually different from using something like an Ultrasound machine to examine inside a patient (in fact it is the same physics - so if you can accept that ultrasound machines can tell us about a developing foetus, then you also have to accept that this technology can tell us about the insides of the Earth).

 

Using these vibrations (caused by earthquakes or powerful explosions) we know what is inside the Earth and we can also know that it is not a living organism. Just because we have not dug down further than 12 or so km, doe snot mean we have no idea about what lies below that depth.

 

2. we live on dead skin of earth because very upper layer is shrinked dead skin like shrinked skin of tree.

Again read: Equivocation. Just because something appears to resemble another thing, doe snot mean that they share any properties at all.

 

However, surprisingly, the surface of the Earht is actually quite smooth. If you were to shrink the Earth down to the size of a basket ball, the largest difference in height (that is the height of mount Everest to the bottom of the Mariana Trench) is less than the bumps used for grip on an actual basket ball.

 

So, using you logic of "if it resembles it then it must share the properties", Earth is actually a basket ball.

 

3. can you tell me any single thing produced by nature having skin or crust or layer . having inner layer with temrature.

A frozen lake.

 

It has a "crust" of ice. Also the deeper you go the warmer it can get (to around 4 degrees C ).

 

Actually the reason that the inside of the Earth is hot is mainly because the Heat has nowhere else to go.

 

Once the Earth had a molten surface because it was being bombarded with asteroids and meteors so often that it didn't have time to cool down before the next one hit. SO it just got hotter and hotter. Also because there was so much in falling material, the size and mass of the Earth got bigger (over a long period of time). This occurred around 5 billion years ago (that is 5,000,000,000,000 years ago).

 

It took around 500,000,000 (5 hundred million years) for the surface to cool sufficiently that organic molecules could exist in complex reactions (and then a bit longer for life to actually get started).

 

Now the only way that the Earth can cool down is to radiate the heat into space. SO the cooling of the surface would occur quite quickly. However, Rocks are not good conductors of heat, so any heat below the surface would not radiate away nearly as quick.

 

So we started off with a molten surface (because it was so hot), and then the Earth started to cool. This created a solid layer of Rock (a poor conductor of heat) which trapped the heat from the still molten rocks inside the Earth.

 

Now as this heat (and molten rock) is trapped inside the Earth, any heat it radiates is also trapped in there, and, due to the insulating layer of rocks on the surface that heat can't escape.

 

It is a bit like in winter when you have several blankets on. The outside of the blankets might feel cool, but underneath them they can be quite warm (which is really good on these cold winter nights).

 

the other thing is that the Earth is a sphere. This is a good shape for retaining heat as there is very little surface area for the volume (in fact it is the best shape for that). As the only way the Earth can loose heat is to radiate it out into space, the less surface there is to radiate as compared to the volume of it the slower it will loose that heat.

 

Now for the difference between living creatures and the Earth. The temperature of the Earth's core is a relic from it's formation. It is the kinetic energy of the in falling asteroids converted into thermal energy.

 

However, in living organisms, the heat generated by them is due to chemical reactions, not from in falling asteroids.

 

So although they both can be warm in the inside, the process about how this came about is completely different. Also, the process as to which the acquired their "skin" is also completely different (solidified molten rock for the Earth and chemical reactions for the organisms).

[JohnB]

A fish is not possibly a goat!

Depends on what sort of parties you go to.

[jsispat]

answer my question please, do you consider magma to be alive?

 

to be very honest with you i have no lab so i can not test it. but in my opinion magma is not alive because it is not coming from orginaly core.it is created in crust only. it is like a wax coming from tree from outer portion or crust not from core of tree.can you help me on this matter with vast scientific knowledge. i am sure my idea is very true but difficult to prove without facilities.

[Klaynos]

So, what's special about the core? The magma that is there has not always been, it is melted rock just like any other magma.

[jsispat]

So, what's special about the core? The magma that is there has not always been, it is melted rock just like any other magma.

this is like a pumpil on human body pus arises just upper skin actually this is excess pus in upper body.

 

We can used vibrations to examine what lies inside the Earth. This is not conceptually different from using something like an Ultrasound machine to examine inside a patient (in fact it is the same physics - so if you can accept that ultrasound machines can tell us about a developing foetus, then you also have to accept that this technology can tell us about the insides of the Earth).

 

Using these vibrations (caused by earthquakes or powerful explosions) we know what is inside the Earth and we can also know that it is not a living organism. Just because we have not dug down further than 12 or so km, doe snot mean we have no idea about what lies below that depth.

 

 

Again read: Equivocation. Just because something appears to resemble another thing, doe snot mean that they share any properties at all.

 

However, surprisingly, the surface of the Earht is actually quite smooth. If you were to shrink the Earth down to the size of a basket ball, the largest difference in height (that is the height of mount Everest to the bottom of the Mariana Trench) is less than the bumps used for grip on an actual basket ball.

 

So, using you logic of "if it resembles it then it must share the properties", Earth is actually a basket ball.

 

 

A frozen lake.

 

It has a "crust" of ice. Also the deeper you go the warmer it can get (to around 4 degrees C ).

 

Actually the reason that the inside of the Earth is hot is mainly because the Heat has nowhere else to go.

 

Once the Earth had a molten surface because it was being bombarded with asteroids and meteors so often that it didn't have time to cool down before the next one hit. SO it just got hotter and hotter. Also because there was so much in falling material, the size and mass of the Earth got bigger (over a long period of time). This occurred around 5 billion years ago (that is 5,000,000,000,000 years ago).

 

It took around 500,000,000 (5 hundred million years) for the surface to cool sufficiently that organic molecules could exist in complex reactions (and then a bit longer for life to actually get started).

 

Now the only way that the Earth can cool down is to radiate the heat into space. SO the cooling of the surface would occur quite quickly. However, Rocks are not good conductors of heat, so any heat below the surface would not radiate away nearly as quick.

 

So we started off with a molten surface (because it was so hot), and then the Earth started to cool. This created a solid layer of Rock (a poor conductor of heat) which trapped the heat from the still molten rocks inside the Earth.

 

Now as this heat (and molten rock) is trapped inside the Earth, any heat it radiates is also trapped in there, and, due to the insulating layer of rocks on the surface that heat can't escape.

 

It is a bit like in winter when you have several blankets on. The outside of the blankets might feel cool, but underneath them they can be quite warm (which is really good on these cold winter nights).

 

the other thing is that the Earth is a sphere. This is a good shape for retaining heat as there is very little surface area for the volume (in fact it is the best shape for that). As the only way the Earth can loose heat is to radiate it out into space, the less surface there is to radiate as compared to the volume of it the slower it will loose that heat.

 

Now for the difference between living creatures and the Earth. The temperature of the Earth's core is a relic from it's formation. It is the kinetic energy of the in falling asteroids converted into thermal energy.

 

However, in living organisms, the heat generated by them is due to chemical reactions, not from in falling asteroids.

 

So although they both can be warm in the inside, the process about how this came about is completely different. Also, the process as to which the acquired their "skin" is also completely different (solidified molten rock for the Earth and chemical reactions for the organisms).

can you tell me pls that what modren machines proves is earth has dead in core.

[Klaynos]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pus

Pus consists of a thin, protein-rich fluid, known as liquor puris, and dead cells, which are part of the body's innate immune response.

 

Doesn't sound much like magma, I ask again what is the difference between magma created in the crust and closer to the centre?

 

can you tell me pls that what modren machines proves is earth has dead in core.

 

It's more that there's no evidence it's alive so there's no reason to assume that it is.