Edit | Leave a Comment | Favorite
More Like This: (Beta Temporary Feature)
User Comments:
Anonymous commented at 2015-08-05 22:43:29 » #1789860
What if I told you that the best "sci-fi" artists produce art that resonates with us so strongly because they are performing a variety of accidental remote viewing?
This is closer to how people live on other planets then you might think.
0 Points
Flag
What if I told you that the best "sci-fi" artists produce art that resonates with us so strongly because they are performing a variety of accidental remote viewing?
This is closer to how people live on other planets then you might think.
0 Points
Flag
Anonymous commented at 2018-11-18 09:42:18 » #2303726
Gravitation is in disagreement with you for two reasons anon.
1. to have life you need gravity, our molecular structure doesn't work right without it. As we understand life today, limited within our cocoon called Earth, we're bound to our 1G, observations up there in the space station(s) has shown that we're severely at a disadvantage when trying to breed outside its influence. And if biomolecular strata works the same across the universe, and there's no reason to think otherwise, then life out there, is more similar to life here than you'd think, with variations based on adaptation.
2. those structures aren't in tone with what can be done with gravity in place. there's limits to the materials we have at our disposal, and by fluke, we seem to have a lot of them (some star died and gave us loads of beautiful elements to play with).
Last but not least, building on rocks is a pretty bad idea. Any planet that can support life is by definition an active planet, like our Terra. Venus, Mars, they can't support life because they are (either too close to Sol, or simply put, dead or close to being dead in terms of tectonic activity, yet another fluke that gave us life).
I can very much tell you that all the mountains you see, all the incredible nature borne structures you can find, they exist based on a precarious balance. Mountains are narrow at the top, not cubic or square-ish. There's few formations that are straight cut, and usually don't go too high because they erode.
Adding all the weight necessary to create such structures would destabilize that precarious balance. And the slightest movement, would send the rock tumbling down with the structures on top.
A very good example of our limitations is found in China (but also Asia at large), where they bore in to the rocks and make very complex passages and roads for people to visit the natural wonders of their lands. All of them, with very few exceptions are constructed very close to the rock face, very small per cubic cm, and most importantly, require extensive bracing and hidden structure.
In conclusion, this kinds of vista is limited to sci-fi drawings and civilizations so high up the ladder of technology, that they wouldn't need to have such structures in the first place.
2 Points
Flag
Gravitation is in disagreement with you for two reasons anon.
1. to have life you need gravity, our molecular structure doesn't work right without it. As we understand life today, limited within our cocoon called Earth, we're bound to our 1G, observations up there in the space station(s) has shown that we're severely at a disadvantage when trying to breed outside its influence. And if biomolecular strata works the same across the universe, and there's no reason to think otherwise, then life out there, is more similar to life here than you'd think, with variations based on adaptation.
2. those structures aren't in tone with what can be done with gravity in place. there's limits to the materials we have at our disposal, and by fluke, we seem to have a lot of them (some star died and gave us loads of beautiful elements to play with).
Last but not least, building on rocks is a pretty bad idea. Any planet that can support life is by definition an active planet, like our Terra. Venus, Mars, they can't support life because they are (either too close to Sol, or simply put, dead or close to being dead in terms of tectonic activity, yet another fluke that gave us life).
I can very much tell you that all the mountains you see, all the incredible nature borne structures you can find, they exist based on a precarious balance. Mountains are narrow at the top, not cubic or square-ish. There's few formations that are straight cut, and usually don't go too high because they erode.
Adding all the weight necessary to create such structures would destabilize that precarious balance. And the slightest movement, would send the rock tumbling down with the structures on top.
A very good example of our limitations is found in China (but also Asia at large), where they bore in to the rocks and make very complex passages and roads for people to visit the natural wonders of their lands. All of them, with very few exceptions are constructed very close to the rock face, very small per cubic cm, and most importantly, require extensive bracing and hidden structure.
In conclusion, this kinds of vista is limited to sci-fi drawings and civilizations so high up the ladder of technology, that they wouldn't need to have such structures in the first place.
2 Points
Flag
1
