Philosophical topics/speeches

[vashmata]

Wolf Wizard, while I agree that floods and droughts are more numerous because of us, volcanoes etc. are not. They are completely natural. I have the right to say this, because last year, instead of learning geography in geography class, we learned about all the natural disasters, like volcanoes, tsunamis, floods, and hurricanes.

Candyman Jr, Master Procrastinator, Joe Green, Vashmata

[EricG1793]

OK, let's get back on topic....

We were originally talking about us humans ceasing to exist. I think that the pollution aspect of us humans ceasing to exist has been discussed to the point that it can't be anymore. So let's start talking about other aspects of it, such as what would happen with our buildings, cars, etc. Would monkeys take everything over and get to be just as sinister towards the environment as we are?

[wolf_wizard]

I think it would be inevitable for other animals not to eventually do the same, but I think that what is left behind from us would all slowly deteriorate, some animals would be harmed from the garbage and other stuff left behind, and the trees and other plants and animals would start to rebuild in population. The animals some people capture as pets, or those that were dieing off because we were ruining their habitat would also start rebuilding their population. And Eric, I thought that this thread was under philosophical speeches, meaning we could start talking about something else, though I don't think this topic is dead yet.
Vashmata, when did I say that Volcanoes, etc. are caused by us? If you're talking about when I said that we are making some animals extict, etc. I was talking about how we're destroying their habitat, which then, in turn kills some them off. If you're talking about when I said we're speeding along natural causes, I was talking about climate change. They climate is slowly warming up naturally, but we (humans) are speeding it along quite a bit to the point where some animals aren't able to adapt quickly enough. Sorry for getting off topic, I just wanted to explain my point so people didn't think I was so unintelligent that I thought we directly affected volcanoes.

[vashmata]

I would like to start a side topic that can be discussed. It is about where is up. I think it is kind of philosophical, so here goes.

My thoughts are that up is in the opposite direction of the ground you're standing on.
Your semicircular canals tell you where you are in relation to the area around you, a bit like a level would tell you if an object is straight or crooked. But if you are in space, a vacuum, there is no gravity, so the liquid in the level, or the semicircular canals, would be anywhere. Therefore, in space there is no up, and if you are on land, no matter where, up is opposite to the ground.

Candyman Jr, Master Procrastinator, Joe Green, Vashmata

[Tuttle]

Up as the opposite direction of the ground you're standing on doesn't make sense to me. This would mean that if you are standing on the side of a mountain that up would be towards where your head is. At least that's the only way I can read it.

As you mention, our inner ears can tell us if we're tilted. This means that even to our perception up is not necessarily towards our heads but towards the sky. Or in other words against gravity.

How I would define gravity is the direction a (three-access) accelerometer (a sensor which measures the deviation from freefall in acceleration) sitting still, would say it is accerating. When there is gravity and it is sitting still the acceleration read would be directly opposite to and parellel gravity. This direction is in my opinion, up.

This does mean that if there is no gravity (real or artifical) then there is no 'up'. I feel this is appropriate.

[Rhi]

Up is in the opposite direction of down So if we go by that logic, the direction of up is relative, not something concrete. Then where is down? Down must be the direction in which you are being pulled, I guess. So on earth, down is toward the ground and up is toward the sky, but in space where there's no gravity, up and down would be irrelavant because there would be no forces acting on your body. That doesn't mean there's no up or down at all in space; when being pulled toward something (sun, planet, black hole) down would become the direction of the pulling force and up would be away from it. I think that makes sense...

[wolf_wizard]

I think technically there is no universal down. It's all relative. Because planets have gravity that is across from each other, say Mars from Earth. You can see Mars, and to you, Mars is up, but to the people on mars, Earth is up. So there is only a local up, depending upon where you are. This means you probably cannot accurately state there is just an "up" without saying "for the Earth" or whatever, even though this is probably still wrong because what of the people on the opposite side of the earth? whould that make them down? So I guess you would have to say "in relation to me". OK, I'll try to stop getting off topic now.

[Dragon Writer]

I think if we ceaced to exist, the world might be in trouble...the world exists in ballance. You destroy a species, you ruin that ballance. admittidly, we destroy that ballance as well, and our only nautural enemy is ourselves, but still, we also keep that ballance in some ways...
for example, there are reasons that there are hunting seasons for certain animals that would otherwise overpopulate. Without humans, the animals do over populate, destroy plants in vacinity, which destroys the bugs, which destroy the creature which eats that, which destroys the creature that eats that...Of course, it would stop somewhere donw the line, but then another creature would eventually overpopulate and it all starts over again. Destroy the dominant species, and the effects are bound to be turmoil. (The last time this happened was dianasours, and i think a lot changed after that, though that might have been the ice age)

[kk]

Yay for the ecosystem! I agree with yr. Killing all humans would damage all life, and so on, and I think it would all probably end in Earthly doom.

Now there's just the fact of getting my friend to stop obsessing over this, and coming up with theories about how she's going to kill all the humans...

[Dragon Writer]

Give her my argument, and use the florida aligators as proof. They tried to kill THOSE a while back, and only ended up almost killing all the other animals there...

[wolf_wizard]

Yes, YR, but none of the alligators would have died had the humans not interfered with them. Also wolves would not have been hunted nearly as much for sport had humans not been around. Many species of animal would still be in existence. Also, humans and alligators are totally different. humans live all over the world, from the North Pole to the South, and so I think the Earth would be a little better off without as many humans. I know it's kind of a daunting thing to think about (For me anyway) but I think it's true. Not all, but some.

[mysss]

I think down has to do with our subconscious and our inner ear. Down and up are both relative to the Earth species that you're talking about. I have to think of the down explanation in Ender's Game too, where there -is- a down in space, but you can decide where it is yourself. If those are mutually exclusive, pick the second one. ^^

[wolf_wizard]

I don't know. I think down would be what everyone agreeed was down, though in space you couldn't tell. Up in space, when the astronauts are in the space shuttle htey use all the area in the space shuttle; there techniclyy is no up, so they use the "ceiling" as well.

[EricG1793]

Well, this isn't exactly a philosophical topic, but... I don't want to start a brand new topic for it, either. So here's the best place.

Will an airplane take off on a giant treadmill, with the treadmill moving in opposite direction of the airplane?

Same concept as walking on an exercise treadmill.

My answer is:

YES! Airplanes to not taxi by their wheels; the wheels only brake. Airplanes get their force for movement by burning jet fuel, and shooting the hot air out, causing a reaction with the cold air behind the engine, thus propelling the airplane forward.

Therefore, the plane would move ahead regardless of whether the surface its wheels were on top of was moving or not.

My science teacher disagrees with me; she says "No way!"

However!.... My math teacher partially agrees with me. She says it depends on exactly HOW FAST the treadmill would be moving.

Now, wait! Before anyone starts saying it's impossible to put an airplane on a giant treadmill, it has been filmed on Mythbusters.. I was just watching a video of Adam explaining why this myth wasn't on Airplane Hour (somewhere around December 12th). He said that it was expanded and that it was going to be shown "very soon". In that video, he actually called it a conveyor belt, rather than a treadmill. Just so we discuss it correctly in official Mythbusters terms.

A couple days after the show that it was missing from was aired, it caused... um... let's say an outrage by the fans on the Mythbusters fan site (They had to lock everything because people were flooding in complaints about it. And even in "normal" circumstances, people are always making one-liners, double-posting, making duplicate threads... goes to show that this site is VERY tidy, and there are three admins for this site; there's only one moderator there to handle all that, so the admins here, in my opinion, have it quite easy, as compared to moderators at the Discovery forums). The moderator quoted what a producer had posted, and the producer said it was going to be aired in late January.

So. Before it airs... any predictions?

EDIT:

And with this, The Topic of Great Randomness is out of the Recent Conversations list, for the first time since I've been registered.

[wolf_wizard]

Yes, I think that it would- but it all depends on how fast the airplane is being propelled forward. It would take off, as normal, IF the force it was propelled in the opposite direction, and the force being aplied still had an unbalanced force. and this force would have to be equal to the amount of force an airplane that is lifting off normally would have. So, my answer is that it all depends.
Not much of an answer, i know, but It's true. and that's my best (so far- after looking at the problem once) guess.