whap2005

I don't think we will ever be able to watch our wounds disapear in just a few seconds like Wolverien in X-man. As I mentioned in an earlier post, stem cells will be the likely key to super healing. Stem cells may allow us to simply grow replacements, or even allow doctors to have organs on standby, even skin and bones.

Probably the 2 most likely areas of science that are going to bring forth the most benefit in improving our biological limitations are going to be stem cell research, and cybernetics. The ability to grow replacement organs or repair existing ones using stem cells will be the next great medical revolution. A close second will be non-bio implants to augment our capabilities such as sight, hearing, immune system, etc. The biggest barriers to these advancements are, I hate to say it, our current presidential administration. I’m a conservative in most areas, but I CAN’T STAND the fact that the pres doesn’t condone stem cell research. (I guess I’ll need to find a political forum to discuss this any further….)

If they can produce it cheaply, it will change the world as we know it.

If we can detect an astoroid collision early enough, even with our current technology we can pretty much divert any collision our solar system throws at us. What worries me is the one that sneaks up on us.. which could very easily happen. For that scenerio, I would place an impactor in orbit so we could more quickly react to the suprise attack. I think it is a much more worthy cause for our hard earned tax payer dollars the say the ISS....

You better check the label on that Tylenol bottle again... or more likely, somebody played a joke on you and put something "special" in your beer when you were out earlier.

I am not a good enough mathmatician to evaluate his math, but I do know that black holes are no longer a thoery, they are fact. This being said, I can't see how his theory could be correct.

Bascule, One way to counter factors that current technology (or any future tech) may have predicting complex systems is to alter or “filter” it so it so it can be predicted. For example, in your solar radiation challenge, it is possible that we could create a huge solar “net” that could monitor every particle of solar radiate that reaches the Earth. Or, it may be easier to use the net to “filter/alter” the radiation so that it can be predicted. Being able to look into your relative future may mean having to alter the inputs to meet your ability to predict the particle interactions. I think we even have the technology now to do this on a very small scale. Although we can’t predict particle interaction in the natural environment, It should be possible to create a controlled environment in a lab were we can completely control all outside influences. We then should be able to accurately predict what happens in that environment with 100% certainty thus, gain the ability to predict the future in that small space. It’s late, so I’ll try to expand on my self correcting algorithms theory tomorrow..

“If you could know where every single particle was and its velocity perfectly and had a computer that could work it out faster than it was happening then it (seeing into the future) could be done but such a computer would need to be bigger than all of the mass of the universe combined.” Insane_Alien I had a discussion with some friends of mine about this not too long ago. To sum it up briefly, the laws of physics flat out prohibit traveling forward in time in the true sense. But, I believe it is possible to “simulate” the ability to look into the future by being able to predict the interaction of every particle in your relative space (you don’t need to know where every particle is in the Universe.) The vast distances between objects in the universe make it possible to reasonable predict their outside interaction on our relative space, which for the sake or argument could be Earth or our solar system. This being said, it may be possible to somehow learn everything there is to know about every particle on Earth and in near vicinity of Earth, and then predict how they are going to interact within the know laws of physics. A quantum computer (which in theory can have unlimited processing potential http://www.physorg.com/news448.html) could then be used to predict the interaction of all the particles. Assuming that human and animal conciseness is also bound by the laws of physics, we could then peer into the future as far as we want. Although this is no easy feat, I do not think it is impossible.

"The composition of the moon is different than the Earth. The Earth has alot of iron, the moon has almost none." There is a reason for this. In computer models that attempt to recreate a possible collision that could have created the moon, almost all see the collision as a glancing blow. Most of Earths iron is contained in the core so it's possible that most of the matieral that makes up the moon came from the crust and mantle.

As we all know, life is based on cooperating events. At its very basic level living organisms consist of cooperating molecules, higher life forms consists of cooperating cells, ecosystems consist of a complex cooperating web of higher life forms, etc.. This leads to the Gaia theory where the planet Earth itself, and all its collective life can be considered a living organism. Life on Earth at all levels has become great a adapting to changing events on our planet, and actually plays a vital role in keeping the planet habitable. The mechanisms life uses to protect itself from threats and changing events is evolution (developing defense mechanisms and new tactics to excel). Since the beginning of life on Earth, there is one thing life hasn't been able to adapt to or protect itself against. That is threats from space such as asteroids, comets, and other non-terrestrial events. Could human beings be evolutions solution to this threat? We are the only organism in the history of life that actually has the ability to detect and protect the Earth from these types of events. In addition to our role of helping to protect life on earth, we may also play a role in its reproduction in the form of colonizing another habitable planet or terriforming one to make it habitable. One of the requirements of life is that life must be able to reproduce or replicate itself. I believe this is necessary in order for the Gaia theory to hold true within our understanding of life. What are everyone’s thoughts on this?

"Do you really think that you can say without a doubt that no one, such as her husband, would be harmed?" Your looking at this soley from his perspective.... Do you really think that her accident and condition hasn't subjected her blood family to the same stress as her husband? Like I said, he has moved on.. and is being selfish for net letting her family care for her.. Legally his is the guardian so it is his choice. If he is causing her death just to relieve his own suffering then he is indeed being selfish.

Ok all, Here is a fact I find hard to argue with. There is not much doubt that her severe brain damage has left her in a state in which she basically does not even know whether she is alive or dead. What is the harm in letting somebody else care for her? Her husband has moved on but her blood family has not, and will be devastated by watching her be starved to death by the courts… Her husband is just an incredibly selfish and stubborn azzhole, that is basically the root of the whole issue here.

"Tyrannosaurs were famously huge predators. This one, estimated to have been 18 years old at death, was not as large as most. Its femur, or thigh bone, was 3 ½ feet long; some T-rex femurs are at least a foot longer. But the creature was large enough so that some of the rock-encased long bones had to be broken in half to fit a helicopter rig - not a thing paleontologists like to do." Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/24/science/24cnd-dino.html?ex=1112331600&en=5a88279207414f4b&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY Some support for my theory that it probably wasn't T-Rex...

Your figure of 550 people is way off. The plane can hold as many as 800 passengers.

I hate to break it to you guys, but has anyone considered that maybe it wasn't a T-Rex bone??? There is not way any DNA survived 65 million years unless the bone was somehow preserved in some kind of super deep freeze (like near absolute zero).

Jac, In my opinion your model is flawed. Your basing it on an unproven variable you call "Scalar motion" which can not be proven. The scalar motion you reference is actually similar to the "dark matter" theory which scientists use to convieniently to fill the unknown voids in our current model of the universe. What you've actually discovered is what we already know which is that we still don't know what the F@#$@%$K is going on lol.

I believe it does but I would say its a theory shatering find. We don't know exactly when the universe began or can even proove it has a begining.