New Earth like Planet Discovered

[espritduo]

I never said it would stop the rotation.

You're right, you didn't. I just assumed that's where you were going, since I don't really know what else you would be implying by saying there was any importance in the moon stabilizing Earth's axis in regards to life on Earth. And honestly, I still dont. More on that later.

You're correct. Axis stability isn't a requirement for a planet to have a magnetic field, but once again, I never said that. I said that without a proper axis, the magnet field would go haywire, meaning that there would be no stability within the magnetic field.

Go haywire, huh. Define stability of the magnetic field, since you seem to be misunderstanding what that actually means as far as the field goes and how it impacts life. A stable field is not required for life as we know it, only a sustainable field. There's a difference.

Too bad I don't know the argument. This just seems like a bunch of bullshit relating to earth's magnetic field and the brains of gorillas, but not actually about the topic that this thread is about.

You're the one that insisted on bringing them up in the first place in defense of your "no intelligent brain possible anywhere else" statement. I've simply been trying to get you to see that they, in fact, do not have anything to do with your statement, which whether you like it not, is now the topic this thread is about. If you've finally agreed that neither of them have anything to do with your original statement on the uniqueness of intelligent brains, then we may finally have a breakthrough here, folks.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I never have been. But for some reason, you keep bickering like a little schoolgirl.

Sure you are. Every time I try to explain why your assumptions surrounding your "unique intelligent brain" theory are wrong on a basic scientific level, you disagree and make up some other reason as to why they aren't, forcing me to continue correcting you ad infinitum.

Well perhaps that's because I never saw any five points, considering that I discard most of what you say.

That's a shame, because they're the entire crux of your pet theory, and if you'd bother to pay attention to them and answer them, you'd go a long way in the credibility department.

I agree. They could be the building blocks to intelligent life, but nobody knows how an undiscovered species is going to utilize their brains. Despite what the E-Sprit Duo thinks, I never denied alien life from existing. It's very likely that it exists, but the circumstances that it took for humans to, not gain intelligence, but to utilize intelligence may not be present on that particular planet. Concerning that only one species on earth utilized intelligence, out of trillions more species, the chances of it happening on that other planet are unlikely, but just like on earth, it could happen. Let me guess, Espritduo has a complaint about this comment as well, even though I wasn't addressing him?

The only complaint I have is that it now gives me nothing to argue because you've just recinded your original statement that intelligent life is not possible outside of humans, which is the core of what I've been arguing with you about from the beginning. In case you've forgotten:

I'm not saying that other life doesn't exists, just not intelligent life. Think of the circumstances that occurred on earth for humans to be where we are today. Billions of species were wiped out by natural disasters. The chances of those disasters happening exactly the same way to exactly the same billions of species is astronomically low. The atmosphere on the new planet would have to be exact to that of earth's, and the evolution of the brain would have to be exact to that of humans. It's impossible. No intelligent life will ever be found, because no other intelligent life exists besides humans. Whoever disagrees obviously didn't look into the matter and is living in a world of science fiction. Real science will tell you that it's astronomically impossible.

THAT is what I've been arguing against since the get-go.

If you're willing to admit that in the vastness of space there is the possibility that intelligent life other than ourselves could exist, then you've undone every other argument you've made since then, and I'm as pleased as punch to throw in the towel. Congratulations, and welcome to the other side of the fence.

It's hard to find them on one source, but information from multiple sources will give you your answer.

Reville, W., "Looking on the bright side of the moon," The Irish Times, May 30, 2002.

McWilliams, B., "Our primordial indebtedness to the moon," The Irish Times, August 21, 2002.

Put them together, and you have your answer. If you want to know more, do the research yourself.

I found one of those two articles online here, It appears "Looking on the bright side of the moon" is nothing more than a simple crash course on the basic facts of the moon. While informative, it states absolutely nothing about the moon's affect on Earth's magnetic field. I have found nothing on the second article you listed, so I can't say one way or another what it claims. I tried looking through the Irish Times, and it wasn't there, and there is no record of Brendan McWilliams ever writing that article. If you have access to it, post it here so I can read it. So here we stand again, with still not one single shread of evidence on your part requiring the moon for earth's magnetic field.

Plus, anybody with half a brain would be able to figure out that a stable axis equals a stable magnetic field, because without a stable axis, the magnetic poles would be out of place, and continuously moving.

And this is where you are right, and yet so wrong. You're right that a stable axis will allow for a stable magnetic field, but stable is completely different from sustainable, as I mentioned before. One of these is useful, but not vital, the other is vital. The only real impact an unstable magnetic field would have on life on earth is that we wouldn't be able to use things like compasses to find our way(and I guess birds would get lost more easily). The actual strength of the field and the beneficial effects of the magnetosphere would not be impacted in any meaningful way by moving poles. Even with moving poles, the field is still there, still sustaining itself through dynamo processes, and still protecting us from the solar winds. Heck, as long as the poles move in a predetermined and calculatable fashion, we could still use them to navigate, albeit in a more roundabout way.

And hey, look at this, you want an article about the moon's stabilization of Earth's axis and how it impacts life on Earth? Well here you go, I'm going to do the job you should be doing.

The Moon And Plate Tectonics: Why We Are Alone

This guy makes a much more compelling argument about the importance of the moon to life on Earth, and I wouldn't mind debating with him on the finer points of his theory, because it actually has real facts supporting it and is well reasoned and properly researched. Oh, and look at this excerpt from his article:

"The bulk of arguments about the Moon relate to its effect on the orbital dynamics of the Earth-Moon system (which is stabilised against spin-axis inclination variations, unlike Mars), and to the tidal influence on ecosystems (developing broad coastal flats with regular currents, water-depth variations, and monthly cycles).

None of these are compelling arguments for the origin or nature of life. Instead, we look here at plate tectonics as an essential engine for maintaining the continent/ocean duality on Earth, which enabled advanced life to emerge on land and develop to a tool-using electro-mechanical civilisation (our definition of "advanced life"?)."

So there you go. An actual scientific article written by a scientist saying flat out that the stabilization of Earth's axis by the moon(and thus anything related to this stabilization) does not have an impact on life. Of course he goes on to say that the removal of 70% of the earth's crust by the formation of the moon was necessary for highly intelligent life and technology to develop, but that's a whole other can of worms that I could debate with you on as well if you like, but I don't think you want to keep this going forever, do you?