Lance_Granger Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) This is just a part of a larger article. I cant post the article link but It is posted in the comments if you are interested in reading more. How I Look at the Earth Earth is not just a floating rock in space, it is a living organism. Like all organisms on our planet, Earth need water, air, energy from the sun and symbiotic lifeforms living within it to survive. In order to survive all live on Earth must have water, air, energy from the sun, reproduce and have other symbiotic lifeforms living inside it. The planet Earth is no different and to start off with I should explain where this idea came from. I was sitting in geography class about two years ago and my instructor started talking about the "Star Core Theory". Not many people know what the Star Core theory is and finding information on it on the internet is very hard so I will summarize it the best I can. The Star Core Theory is an idea that the center of the Earth is actually a star, a very small star. The idea is that there is a huge nuclear reactor in the center of the Earth, (much like a star), that is constantly generating heat that keeps that Earths mantel's melting and cooling eventually resulting in tectonics on the surface. This is the simplest way to explain Star core, if you want more information about it you can try to find it on the net but good luck because it is not easy....... This is just a part of a larger article. I cant post the article link but It is posted in the comments if you are interested in reading more. Edited October 16, 2014 by Lance_Granger ad link removed -1
Phi for All Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 ! Moderator Note Rule violation trifecta! One thread per topic, please. Please don't use us to advertise other sites, especially those with even more advertising. Please don't post non-mainstream concepts in the mainstream sections. Thread moved to Speculations, please take the time to read the special rules that govern that section. Have a great day and welcome!
Strange Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 Earth is not just a floating rock in space, it is a living organism. I suppose if you define "living" and "organism" appropriately ... Is this any different from Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis? The Star Core Theory That is not a theory. Fairy tale, maybe.
Lance_Granger Posted October 16, 2014 Author Posted October 16, 2014 The post is just the first part of the whole article. You would need to read the whole article so see where I back up my thoughts. I suppose if you define "living" and "organism" appropriately ...Is this any different from Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis?That is not a theory. Fairy tale, maybe. You would have to read the whole article to see how I back up my thoughts. But they deleted the link to the article. Here is the link if you want to read more. http://lancegranger.hubpages.com/hub/Earth-is-a-Living-Organism
Strange Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 You would have to read the whole article to see how I back up my thoughts. If you don't want to discuss it, why are you posting on a discussion forum?
Lance_Granger Posted October 16, 2014 Author Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) q If you don't want to discuss it, why are you posting on a discussion forum? I would love to discuss it further with you, but wouldn't you rather read the whole article so you know what the full idea is first. That would answer most of your questions and then i could go into further detail if you need me to. Hope that makes sence Edited October 16, 2014 by Lance_Granger
Strange Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 OK. I skimmed your article. As I thought, you make up your own definition of "living" that matches the Earth and then show the Earth matches your definition. Very good. You fail on some of the basic functions that are normally included in the definition of life, such as reproduction. Anyway, how would you say this is different from Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis? 1
Lance_Granger Posted October 16, 2014 Author Posted October 16, 2014 I did talk about reproduction in the article
Strange Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 I did talk about reproduction in the article So you make up your own definition of "reproduction" as well. Brilliant.
Lance_Granger Posted October 16, 2014 Author Posted October 16, 2014 Explain how its not. So you make up your own definition of "reproduction" as well. Brilliant. Actually just explain what you consider reproduction
Strange Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) Explain how its not. Actually just explain what you consider reproduction Reproduction is the process of creating a copy of the original organism. I don't see any little baby Earth's orbiting the Sun. Anyway, how would you say this is different from Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis? Edited October 16, 2014 by Strange
Lance_Granger Posted October 16, 2014 Author Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) Ok that's a very basic explanation of reproduction and with it you would spawn another debate and whether or the new Earth has to be orbiting anything, being that obit and the formation of the solar system is a product of the Sun and not Earth. I was hoping for a more "nuts and bolts" explanation of reproduction. No worries. The Gaia hypothesis is a great explanation as well. Edited October 16, 2014 by Lance_Granger
Robittybob1 Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 The idea that the Earths core could be a nuclear reactor made me think this core is the heart of the Earth and if the Earth has a "heart", than could the Earth actually be "living"? I spent a lot of time researching and thinking about all of this, the Star core ideas and the if Earth is living. I decided that the whole Star Core idea could be true but it is nothing to hang my hat on just yet. Even though I didn't fully buy the Star Core idea I still couldn't help but think to myself that yes, the Earth is living If the life of the Earth is dependant on nucleotides for its "food" it has a half-life and ultimately there will be insufficient heat to keep it alive. Therefore it will eventually die.
Strange Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 I was hoping for a more "nuts and bolts" explanation of reproduction. Well, if you want to know about the "birds and bees", maybe you should ask in the Biology forum There are many different reproductive mechanisms for both single-cell and multicellular lifeforms. The key point of all of them is that you end up with a copy (reproduction) of the original organism. That is not the case for the Earth. So your idea is dead in the water.
Lance_Granger Posted October 16, 2014 Author Posted October 16, 2014 If the life of the Earth is dependant on nucleotides for its "food" it has a half-life and ultimately there will be insufficient heat to keep it alive. Therefore it will eventually die. Unless it developed systems that could provide energy for it like the spheres of the Earth do.
Phi for All Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 The post is just the first part of the whole article. You would need to read the whole article so see where I back up my thoughts. You would have to read the whole article to see how I back up my thoughts. But they deleted the link to the article. Here is the link if you want to read more. http://lancegranger.hubpages.com/hub/Earth-is-a-Living-Organism ! Moderator Note We get a lot of people who show up only to push traffic to their blogs. That's not our function. I'll allow this link because you refer to its information, but many members are not going to click it. If you have a relevant citation from your blog, please paste it here as part of the discussion. But please don't use your own work to support itself. Also, it's not good science to redefine words you wish others to understand. As Strange pointed out, you seem to be using your own concept to support itself because you've distorted meanings to match what you're talking about. Fallacious, circular reasoning, not supportive at all. Don't respond to this modnote. If you object to it, please use the Report Post function.
Lance_Granger Posted October 16, 2014 Author Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) Well, if you want to know about the "birds and bees", maybe you should ask in the Biology forum There are many different reproductive mechanisms for both single-cell and multicellular lifeforms. The key point of all of them is that you end up with a copy (reproduction) of the original organism. That is not the case for the Earth. So your idea is dead in the water. Sigh..... again I was hoping for something with substance not bad humor. Again, please explain how something like a mountain isn't a reproduction of the Earth? Please try to explain your though, if you can't that fine just say so and we can move on. ! Moderator Note We get a lot of people who show up only to push traffic to their blogs. That's not our function. I'll allow this link because you refer to its information not going to click it. If you have a relevant citation from your blog, please paste it here as part of the discussion. But please don't use your own work to support itself. Also, it's not good science to redefine words you wish others to understand. As Strange pointed out, you seem to be using your own concept to support itself because you've distorted meanings to match what you're talking about. Fallacious, circular reasoning, not supportive at all. Don't respond to this modnote. If you object to it, please use the Report Post function. Not pushing anything, I just didn't see the point of reposting the entire 2000+ word article to a blog site. I felt it would be much easier to reference it. Maybe someone should just ask next time rather then just assume the worst. Edited October 16, 2014 by Lance_Granger -1
Strange Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) Sigh..... again I was hoping for something with substance Me too. Again, please explain how something like a mountain isn't a reproduction of the Earth? Please try to explain your though, if you can't that fine just say so and we can move on. Again? Anyway, it is up to you to provide support for your theory. But, a mountain is a part of the Earth. It is not a planet. It is just a case of moving the material around. Would you consider a wart to be a form of human reproduction? Edited October 16, 2014 by Strange 1
Lance_Granger Posted October 16, 2014 Author Posted October 16, 2014 ! Moderator Note We get a lot of people who show up only to push traffic to their blogs. That's not our function. I'll allow this link because you refer to its information, but many members are not going to click it. If you have a relevant citation from your blog, please paste it here as part of the discussion. But please don't use your own work to support itself. Also, it's not good science to redefine words you wish others to understand. As Strange pointed out, you seem to be using your own concept to support itself because you've distorted meanings to match what you're talking about. Fallacious, circular reasoning, not supportive at all. Don't respond to this modnote. If you object to it, please use the Report Post function. I would also like examples of how im "distorting or redifining words" so that I have the chance to back up what I say
Strange Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 I would also like examples of how im "distorting or redifining words" so that I have the chance to back up what I say You have come up with your own definition of "living" that doesn't appear to have much in common with mainstream definitions. Admittedly, it is a hard thing to define. You have also redefined "reproduce" to mean change shape slightly.
Lance_Granger Posted October 16, 2014 Author Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) Me too. Again? Anyway, it is up to you to provide support for your theory. But, a mountain is a part of the Earth. It is not a planet. It is just a case of moving the material around. Would you consider a wart to be a form of human reproduction? I have no issue with backing up what I say. I was asking for your opinion as to what reproduction is, as in the nuts and bolts and function of reproduction. That way I could approach my response correctly. No I don't think a wort is a result of human reproduction. It is not a copy of a human. A mountain is a "copy" of the Earth, it has all of the same make up, life cycle and spheres the Earth does. Just much smaller and shorter. I agree with you that Life is hard to define. Kind of the point to the article to begin with. Edited October 16, 2014 by Lance_Granger
Phi for All Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 Not pushing anything, I just didn't see the point of reposting the entire 2000+ word article to a blog site. I felt it would be much easier to reference it. Maybe someone should just ask next time rather then just assume the worst. ! Moderator Note We're pretty patient here... until we're not. I asked you not to respond to modnotes, since it takes the discussion off-topic. Your OP is no different from those who are pushing their own agenda. I hope you can see that I have no history with you that would allow me to assume the best. I also hope you can appreciate that the staff are all volunteers who've agreed to enforce rules designed by the Administrators and members over more than a decade. You did agree to follow those rules when you joined. Please take a deep breath. A little perspective may be needed to understand how your methodology is hurting your part in this discussion. AGAIN, please report this modnote and another member of the staff will discuss your grievances. Do not take your own thread off-topic again.
Strange Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) A mountain is a "copy" of the Earth, it has all of the same make up, life cycle and spheres the Earth does. So you think a mountain is spherical, with a liquid iron core generating a magnetic field and a solid inner core, covered in oceans and landmasses where plate tectonics occurs? Or perhaps you can clarify in what whay you think they are the same, because I just don't see it. And do these baby Earths ever leave their mother and become independent organisms in their own right? And how would you compare your idea with the Gaia hypothesis? Edited October 16, 2014 by Strange
Robittybob1 Posted October 16, 2014 Posted October 16, 2014 Lance just agree the idea has no chance. 1
Lance_Granger Posted October 16, 2014 Author Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) So you think a mountain is spherical, with a liquid iron core generating a magnetic field and a solid inner core, covered in oceans and landmasses where plate tectonics occurs? Or perhaps you can clarify in what whay you think they are the same, because I just don't see it. And do these baby Earths ever leave their mother and become independent organisms in their own right? And how would you compare your idea with the Gaia hypothesis? So are saying that a new life form must, "leave is mother" to be considered "alive"? Lance just agree the idea has no chance. Why would I do that, when this is how I think. How do you think? Edited October 16, 2014 by Lance_Granger
Recommended Posts