Guest Babylonian Dream Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 I want some of what he's snorting if its a good high man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxie Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 4. God did it. 5. It was the Langoliers. Never saw that one coming!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Or maybe we're living in the Perryverse and Them Ones are out there... http://www.perrypedia.proc.org/wiki/Moby (German page... German series ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 Umm... guys... The klingons did it! Isn't it obvious? Who else would be so willing to destroy an entire solar system, and feel no emotion in doing so? The Romulans, duh! Neither... There would be no honor in doing so. Therefore, the Klingons are out. No moral justice could be served in doing something like that. So, no Romulans, either. This was clearly the work of the Borg or the Jem Ha'dar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryper Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 or the simpler explaination. The theory of planetary formation needs to be updated. Like any model of how something works, it is correct in a majority of cases sa 75% - 80% of the time. That other 20% of the time something goes wonky. Or even simpler, as happens in cosmology alot, we just happened to be in the right position to actually see the process "in action" thus leading to the first point. I'll go with that Stryper. But the consequences (if your take is the correct one) are just staggering! We'd have to drop the familiar timeframes of millions of years for astronomical events, in favor much, much shorter ones - perhaps centuries or millennia. This article... http://www.space.com...ar-systems.html ...and the links within it suggest that Alan Boss' new Disk Instability model can deal with rapid planet formation, whereas the original Core Accretion model can't. If things pan out in Boss' favor, then we've got a ringside seat and can watch new worlds assembling themselves before our very (telescopic) eyes. Thanks, BAA. Given that the old time frames were established in the Victoria era when Europe was and always would be masters of the earth and nothing unsettling happened like asteroid strikes occurred..... then I'd say it needs updating a bit. Additionally, it could be something like the difference between Newtonian, Einstein, and Quantum Physics. Hell, the last time economic theory was updated significantly was in the 1970's and now I personally feel it needs to be updated again. The point being there seems to be layers to physics. So it could be there are certain conditions which we can't detect from here which accelerate the process in certain conditions. Based on what we know about evolution, it can happen rapidly. So why couldn't cosmology be the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 ...Hell, the last time economic theory was updated significantly was in the 1970's and now I personally feel it needs to be updated again... I'm sure someone's going to hate me for saying this but... economic theory wasn't updated in the 70s, it got turned back to before the great depression. We call it "neo"liberal, and we should better call it neofeudal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryper Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 ...Hell, the last time economic theory was updated significantly was in the 1970's and now I personally feel it needs to be updated again... I'm sure someone's going to hate me for saying this but... economic theory wasn't updated in the 70s, it got turned back to before the great depression. We call it "neo"liberal, and we should better call it neofeudal. Actually, I was referring to the Monetarists from the Chicago School led by the late Milton Friedman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Actually, I was referring to the Monetarists from the Chicago School led by the late Milton Friedman. I haven't studied economics but to the interested layman I (hope I can) call myself this seems to be largely the same thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts