/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6027022]

>The astronaut who took this photo is the only human being in the known universe not within the frame of the image (at the time)

[Anonymous No.6027027]

>>6027022
You don't know for sure, homosapians could be a really common evolutionary path.

[Anonymous No.6027029]

>>6027027
i do know for sure
keyword: known universe

[Anonymous No.6027035]

>>6027029
Implying you "know" the biosphere of every planet we can observe

[Anonymous No.6027038]

>>6027035
negative. known is simply what we know now, as in our current state of knowledge. It does not imply that we know everything.

retard.

[Anonymous No.6027041]

>>6027038
>dat ambiguity
>dat ad-homenim

[Anonymous No.6027045]

>>6027041
poorly trolled 2/10

[Anonymous No.6027053]

>no stars

[Anonymous No.6027057]

>>6027053
You do realize how bright the earth is right there right?

[Anonymous No.6027060]

>>6027053
>seeing stars close to the moon
yeah right. what did you say?

[Anonymous No.6027066]

You 'taters need Wittgenstein.

[Anonymous No.6027434]

>>6027060

Viewing the moon and stars from the bottom of an ocean of air is not the same as viewing the Earth from above it.

As bright as the moon has ever looked to you, you were always looking at it through an entire ocean of air. That image was taken above that ocean. When this image was taken, the Earth was shining much brighter than the moon ever appears on Earth. If you had wanted to take a picture of the Earth and stars both, you've have to be okay with a totally over-exposed Earth and lunar surface.

[Anonymous No.6027977]

>>6027022
People on the other side of the earth are not in the picture. That's like trying to take a photo of someone behind a wall.

[Anonymous No.6028184]

OP: Forgot Jesus.

[Anonymous No.6028195]

i don't see anyone in that picture

[Anonymous No.6028367]

>>6027022
>the only human being in the known universe not within the frame

NEGATIVE OP
Anyone dead before and anyone not born until after the image was taken is clearly not within the frame.

[Anonymous No.6030010]

>>6027022
What about all the people behind the planet?

[Anonymous No.6030039]

Do people on the far side of the Earth count, though?

[Anonymous No.6030045]

>>6030039
>Do people on the far side of the Earth count, though?

Why wouldn't they? If you're going that route, most people on the close side would be indoors and not "in frame" either.

[Anonymous No.6030074]

"Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there-on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam."

[Anonymous No.6030208]

>>6027027
Homo sapiens analogues could be a really common evolutionary path.

However, the probability that such analogues would share sufficient genetic homology to be considered part of H. sapiens is astronomically tiny. Even just shuffling the genes around the chromosomes would produce a vast number of ways-to-make-a-human, and there's nothing saying an H. sapiens analogue would need to have the same genes.

[Anonymous No.6030248]

>>6030074