Do heavier objects fall faster?Posted 6 years Ago

That is technically correct. But a fatter, lazier and heavier rock climber will fall off a cliff faster than a lighter fit dude.. come to think of it, I guess that would be "sooner" rather then "faster"... So I guess I got nothing. Well done.

At 11/10/2014 5:28:58 PM, mortsdor wrote:
BARELY.
Though not anywhere near big enough worth considering for non planetary-sized objects


Actually, I don't think it would.

F=ma --> a=(F/m)


F(gravity)= G(m-earth)(m-object) / (distance^2)

so
a(grav)= G(mearth)(mobject)/ [(distance^2) (mobject)]

so,
a(grav)= G(m-earth) / (distance^2)

so, I don't think the acceleration due to gravity depends upon the mass of the object.
Forums Home > Science

Fermi Paradox--Answers and RebuttalsPosted 6 years Ago

The problem with Fermi's question is the assumption that they ought to be here. Just as Europeans colonized the modern world, or just like Humans from Africa colonized the prehistoric planet, the assumption is that Alien Intelligence is similar in its tendency to expand. Aliens are assumed to be 15th century Europeans.. in Space.
Earth is not a resource abundant environment - there are far more rich places in water and precious minerals and elements in space - rocks, comets, gas giants, etc.
Life may be a scientific curiosity to them as it is to us, and since we did not co-evolve, there is probably minimal gastronomical interest (if any). We have little to offer them, other than to feed their curiosity. And if the relationship between us and them is like between wild animals in savannah and a crew of BBC Planet Earth, than they would much rather film us from afar, so as to monitor our natural way of life, than to make contact or claim real-estate. So they might simply be content watching us through a telescope (perhaps even through one parked somewhere in our oort cloud).

As far as colonization goes in principle, any long-lived civilization may have had to go through a period of being confrontation of how daunting interstellar travel is and how relatively cheaper it is to find a way to live in equilibrium with the resources in their own star-system, and have thus learned to curb, or have outgrown entirely the drive for expansion or ever increasing use of resources. Thus, colonization may not be really something that long-term aliens want anyway - and its an adolescence phase in technological genome that either passes through time, or dooms it to a short existence.

It may be that we are the first. It may be that we are alone. But space is big, we are not THAT important to draw their presence or artifacts. So the question is probably relatively meaningless.

At 12/30/2011 3:50:55 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
Today, during a practice SAT test, I stumbled on a critical-reading passage(s) discussing the Fermi Paradox. For those of you who do not know what the Fermi Paradox is, it is the apparent contradiction between the high probability of extraterrestrial life, and the little evidence of actual contact. In the words of Fermi--, it can be asked in the following form, ""Why are no aliens or their artifacts physically here?"

Any responses, agreements, or rebuttals with the paradox?
Forums Home > Science

God & Objective MoralityPosted 6 years Ago

The term "Objective Morality" has as much descriptive power as the term "Objective Standard of Human Beauty" - which is, to say, none - for they are both objective forms of subjective phenomena.

We are a social species, dependent on each other for survival, thus moral, socially accepted behavior - is part of our being - just as sexual attraction is. Enough of us have to find enough of the opposite sex attractive and desirable in order for the species to go on. Similarly, enough of us have to be attracted to social forms of behavior - or at least find the antisocial behavior repulsive or even abhorrent.
The standards of sexual attraction change - the concepts of what is sexy varies by culture and time somewhat - but the basics remain the same: heterosexual attraction favors younger healthier individuals even while fashion stanards change. Likewise moral behavior can be described by a social behavior summarized by the Golden rule: do not do unto others what you wouldn't want done to you.

The mistake of the people who introduce the term Objective is probably in confusion between Subjective and Arbitrary, which renders the term Subjective somehow inadequate, or not sufficiently firm. However, while sexual beauty is subjective, it is a safe bet, that Angelina Jolie is found to be sexier than a 70 year old woman with missing teeth and deformed nose by the vast majority of heterosexual men. Does it make Jolie objectively more beautiful? - No, because this distinction is probably meaningless to non-human sexually reproducing intelligence - say, chimps or elephants. But there is a myriad of biological factors which results in most of us agreeing, largely caused by the makeup of our genes, that this is so.

Also, it is not necessary for all of us to agree on what is sexy - as long as enough of men agree (naturally) that those females who are younger, of child bearing age and healthier, and perhaps genetically are sexier than old or unhealthy women, the longer our species will go on. We don't even have to be aware of the reasons, or need to explain them - it is just part of who we are.
There is at the same time ample room for homosexual individuals, or heterosexual individuals with aberrant fetishes - just as long as they are not the norm, our species goes on. No need (explanatory need, that is) for an Objective Standard of Beauty or the Objective Beauty Standard Giver - not unless you want to call her Aphrodite :).

Similarly, affinity for empathy and compassion, loyalty, duty, respect for fellow society members in enough of us keeps us going as a social creature - for we rely on each other for survival and a cohesion in a tribe is vitally important for defense, raising the young and getting food. Immoral, or anti-social behavior is therefore by necessity rare - or at least is infrequent enough that it interferes with this natural tendency in the minimally allowed way. There is room for it of course - just as there is room for homosexuality - but both are a natural deviation from the norm and a natural minority in a perpetuating specie of social individuals. Particular laws vary by society and by time, but those practices that promote cohesion in a group over long time are ingrained in our genome - empathy, feeling guilty when doing wrong, aversion to injustice are, i think, just as natural, as favoring someone like Angelina Jolie over an old lady with asymmetric face and crooked teeth.

Thus, the first step in addressing the subject is to establish whether or not Objective Morality is even a thing. For if it is and in the same way that Objective Standard for Human Beauty, than the God in question would be very similar to Aphrodite - which is to say outdated as explanation, although certainly a culturally appealing form of expression.
Forums Home > Philosophy

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.