EDG said:
captainjack23 said:
What do we get when you whack a planet with another one, and then make every effort to maximize the damage ? Let me know if it can model that.
You get what happened with the Earth about 4.5 billion years ago, [snip of the same old stuff about the scenario that you want to impose] This has all been modelled before in the "Giant Impact" simulations.
That was in the journal of "giant impacts caused by immortal alien lizards doing nothing more than just tossing an asteroid and walking away" right ? Must have missed it.
I don't know what's so hard about this for you to grasp. If you hit a planet hard enough, it will explode and not reform. If you don't hit it hard enough, it will reform. There's no way for it to spread around the star as a result of a single, discrete event. [repeat]
Yes, that is the problem. Why are you so obsessed with the idea that it was a single discreet event ? All your arguments are based on that point, which need not be the case ? Yes, I can grasp a single discreet impact, that acts just like a single discreet impact will look like a single discreet impact regardless of why it happened. But why are you insisting that that is how it was done ? Why is it so hard for you to grasp that your scenario is not what I am talking about ?
EDG: The problem here, is that you are using random, non-instrumental events to insist that intelligent meddling is impossible. Thus: a planet cannot naturally collide with another and produce a belt like that described by a non-natural, instrumental intervention; therefore, the belt cannot exist, and the mechanism of intervention is nonsensical.
No, the problem here is that you don't know what you're talking about. I don't know what you're talking about half the time either for that matter, because you're so wrapped up in patting yourself on the back and impressing yourself with your "witty" banter and facetious commentary that you don't even make sense most of the time.
By the way. Good job of staying above sniping and snarkiness.
No, the problem is that you can't see past your grudge and general hostility towards me (or possibly anyone who disputes your right to define a discussion in your own terms) to try and read my posts for anything but arguing points.
To paraphrase JTK, and not facetiously, either- "I take the discussion seriously. It is you that I take lightly"
Last try,
Here's the point. We really have no idea what is meant by anomolous belts, or even what is meant by belts, or what is meant by "grandfather destroyed planets". Given that, the attempt to define the event in such a way as to intentionally make it impossibly bad fiction really isn't useful. It is fiction. probably bad fiction. And okay, if that makes me an antiscience idiot in your opinon, so be it. But, can you tolerate a discussion of such a woefully silly scenario without trying to tie it into your deep and pervasive opinion that the OTU sucks, just for a minute, please ?
Try this.
Find broken glass. Assume a window broke. assume that a branch broke it in a windstorm. Then note that the glass is ground up and scattered, or is more or less than was in the window, and not just in the pieces or pattern suggested by a simple branch breaking it.
Is it useful to argue that the situation cant exist because it is, a. glass, b. broken and c. can't be explained by a preconceived explanation that does not consider some other initial source of what happened ? And insist that since a single impact cannot explain the evidence, that the whole scenario is unscientific ?
To avoid your distate of anology and metaphor, I'll translate:
Glass = rocks.
Place where the broken glass is found = belt.
Fact that the ground up glass and more or less than expected = anomolous finding.
Arguing that the window doesn't exist, because your scenario is violated by the findings, is your position.
Insisting that what we have to describe the even in terms of a single random branch whacking the window is your defense.
Where is the science in that ? Strikes me as a better model of the kind of "my way or the highway " theorizing that you decry as bad science.
EDG: And besides, you're just putting intent into their mouths so you can pillory it. Show me the ad copy, message or interview that states their intent being as you describe it. Or your Psionic registration card. One or t' other, please.
And I'm really not interested in your endless petty sniping. Either stick to the point or shut up.[/quote]
Funny, given that you shoved the point into the discussion in the first place. Or does "you brought it up, you should expect it to be discussed" only apply to others ?
Regardless, given that this is one of your usual way to back off of an indefensible point (ad hominem attacks , petty sniping, leaving in a huff -some others being to just walk away and never post again, or, more recently disrupt, tantrum, and bitch to the admins about your mistreatment until the thread is deleted), I'll assume that you are at least tacitly admitting that you are talking out of your hat. Thanks for that.
:wink:
