MolotovCocktail

Here is a website:

link: http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/200molecgeom.html

there is also information on Lewis Dot Diagrams too.

Well then, I suppose I can now throw out the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster .

You know, the one thing that really bugs me about TNG is Q. He is portrayed as being a God, which of course doesn't quite fit in either science or science fiction.

Wow, its been a while since I posted in this forum, busy with graduation lol.

Well, anyway,......

I've only recently started accepting that I'm a little different from everyone else (about a year, but relatively speaking: I've known for 7 years). I denied it for the longest time and tried to teach myself how to be social because I just don't want to be different (this is why I've read so much about conversation and everything else).

Yeah, I know that feeling. But in my many travels I learned that being the same as everyone else isn't quite worth it. I have always valued my individuality and my intellect (2 traits that "everyone else" seems to lack). This just isn't restricted to you, I'm sure everyone at some point in their lives wanted to be like "everyone else", and those who learned to admire their differences are the ones who turn out to be the most successful .

I'm a senior in high school and it feels like I've missed out on a lot of things. I work at a baseball park just to get out cause I never go anywhere with friends, and several of my closer friends work there as well. People always think it's weird that I don't go out and do things, and they think it's even weirder when I tell them that I consider working "going out." (which I've stopped telling people cause of it -- is it so wrong to enjoy working? Should I go find a place I hate working that maybe pays more? People see working like a chore, and in the end I don't even care about the money cause I only spend about $10 a week, plus I have my entire college payed for with excess money over top of that!)

Well, when you mean by missing out, do you mean being able to do the stuff that the typical teenager likes to do like dating and sports? Been there, done that. Well, sort of. Personally, I always found "hanging out" and all of the other things that typical teens do to be rather boring, simply because most of the time its chatting and we always go to the same places (I like to travel to exotic places a lot, and I only go to stores if I want to buy something). As for dating, I'd have to say that I don't have much experience in this realm unfortunately. I had one back in the 8th grade and another in the 11th grade, and I find that its better to date people from other towns rather than the same school. As for working as entertainment, that depends on personal taste. If you like your job then it really shouldn't be an issue.

I was just wondering what you think about telling people that you have AS. I've only told one person (two days ago) because I've been denying it, and recently because I figure people might think of it negatively, but I kind of feel like it might help my relations with people if they knew.

Well, this is up to you. The policy that I have on this is that the only people who are allowed to know about my AS are close friends and family, and anybody who has to know about it.

Besides, talking is a distraction. Our job was to wrap hotdogs -- what didn't she understand about that?

I find that when I work, it is always helpful to establish some connection with my co-workers through talking. Even though your not paid to do it, you will improve your social skills in that manner and in many cases it does relieve stress in the workplace.

There's this forum called wrongplanet for asperger's syndrome, but I'm asking here because there are a lot of neurotypical people here, and also because a lot of you seem to have good insight (wrongplanet seems divided on the issue anyway). So if you were to meet someone who was maybe a little strange do you think it'd be better to think of her/him as being a little weird, or to refere to him/her as the person with that "condition?" I'm still 17 so at this point it's ok for me to "lack common sense" but as I get older I think people are going to start expecting things of me that I really cant pull off, and telling them I have aspergers might be able to help.

In every Asperger forum I've been to (and this includes Wrongplanet), I find that they are not only divided on the subject, but they aren't very helpful in addressing any issues that a person may have. It may be great with meeting other people with AS but I find most people go to sites like that in order to get away from dealing with the real world. And, wrongplanet is full of spammers and attention seekers, I used to post there as MolotovCocktail and I didn't like it at all.

As for stuff like common sense, that is just something you learn through experience. Some learn that faster than others. Hell, I know a bunch of "NT's" that have less common sense than I do :rolleyes:. But I don't think that you should use AS as an "excuse". While there will be plenty of things that will be difficult because of AS, you must keep in mind that you have to do what you have to do. And one of the things you have to do is learn stuff like common sense and social skills. It ain't easy, but the reward is great if you do learn these essential skills.

Btw getting out or working is probably the best thing to do if you have aspergers. I think it's really helped me a lot, not just working with other people, but interacting with customers.

Oh absolutely. I don't have much job experience, but I do go out and do a lot of extra-curricular activities, such as compete in chess tournaments. I also have experience in public speaking as well, and recently I spoke at a teacher's workshop about Asperger's Syndrome. The presentation was so good that they are going to put it on TV! I also have it recorded too, so you guys can see it once I put in on youtube .

In reality, it's all speculation and we can't really know for 'sure' what will happen, but we like to speculate here on SFN, don't we?

 

Anyway, I have a great parcel of land for sale in Gusev Crater if anyone's interested

I'll offer 50K for it ! (remember, cheap land will attract buyers)

Guys! you all have to remember that this is all pure speculation We don't know what we will accomplish once on Mars. And I don't think anyone here has to address any of Sayonara's points because they may very well be wrong. We are not NASA scientists, or politicians, or sociologists, or futurologists.

Political freedom is an entirely different than technical freedom. And I was only attacking your claim that Martian colonists will always need to rely heavily on Earth for its survival.

 

 

 

No, we are not making the case that you need to take everything with you for colonisation (although it would certainly help!)

We are making the case that - as I stated several posts ago, and you disputed without reasoning or evidence - a Martian civilisation would always require imports from Earth. It is not the same thing.

What are you talking about? You did not just merely claim that it would always require imports, you were implying that it would never be able to sustain itself independently from Earth, right here:

Sayonara³"][/b]

- Earth has material commodities which Mars will require' date=' however the reverse is not the case.

- Mars will not have, and almost certainly will never have, large-scale disaster relief facilities.

- Even a terraformed Mars will require regular organic and chemical donations from Earth in order to maintain a healthy biome.

- Without expert skills from Earth, Mars will have to predict social and technological requirements a generation in advance, and plan schooling on that basis. God forbid they should ever have to cope with the unexpected.

- Without academic input from Earth, Mars will have to conduct its own research (this could be considered covered by the commodities point, but I disagree that they are the same thing).

[/quote']

 

I know that it will need imports of some kind (and so will Earth), but the way you stated this, you are making it seem like it needs Earth for it to function by itself when in fact it does not. You are not only implying that, but you are also claiming that it would never be able to develop the means to do so.

 

I never stated that it would never need imports, I was just simply listing ways that it can be sustainable and develop its own industry and raw materials.

That was merely one example, and I'm not even sure of the historical accuracy of what you just said. I defer to someone who knows more history.

 

But the point about Mars still stands.

I could quote my history textbook if you want.

For food, not for natural resources.

 

 

 

If you want to be limited to celluloids. Plastics such as polystyrene are formed with petroleum products.

 

There are a vast number of other natural resources you'd have to be able to collect as well. You also face the question of practicality: the mineral might exist on one of Mars's moons, but is it really practical to harvest it from there? There is already a significant risk in launching a spacecraft from Earth, and there would be a greater risk in launching one from a small spaceport on Phobos and landing it on Mars. You're assuming a level of sophistication we have not yet reached.

The escape velocity on the moons is not as high as that on Earth or on Mars. Blasting off on a moon as small as the ones around Mars will take a lot less fuel and will be cheaper. I think what you are thinking of is the difficulty of putting a rocket in orbit around the moons, in which the difficulty lies with the fact that the shape is irregular.

As for petroleum products, I'm not sure that the people on Mars would need to manufacture them in any case. The US, for example, gets the raw material from the Middle East. I'm sure that Martian colonies could set up some sort of trading system.

"All we need to do"? How do you propose raising the atmospheric pressure? How do you propose to replace the 95% CO₂ atmosphere with one of around 20% oxygen? How do you propose we raise the temperature of the planet?

Well, while raising the pressure would be difficult, raising temperature is not and changing composition is not. In fact, we are already doing that with our own atmosphere on Earth (e.g. global warming). It would take a long time, rest assured. I watched a show on this and they proposed "polluting" the atmosphere with ozone and greenhouse gases.

All of those really are big problems that would take many years to solve, even if we did have the technology. Replacing the atmosphere of a small planet is not something to sneeze at.

I may have unintentionally implied this, but I did not say that it would take place overnight. I was just responding to the fact that you guys are assuming that you need to take everything with you for colonization. However, I have pointed out how colonization can be sustainable without the need to import everything from Earth nor would they need to terraform right away.

I don't even think the American colonies really were "self-sufficient" in any way - to produce sufficient food for themselves, they needed to constantly import slaves, for example. Trans-Atlantic trade was going from the very start.

Not necessarily. The American colonies mostly used slave labor to make the cost of crops a lot cheaper and more profitable. And they were mostly used on big plantations where they grew tobacco and cotton. As for food, they were able to sustain themselves without slave labor.

Yes I can. It's all pretty much self-evident, in fact.

 

Unless you propose that moving to Mars makes people have babies which know everything you could ever need to know, and that Mars has magical properties that let one wish up vital commodities such as milk, insulin, antibiotics, and computer chips.

No, but we can plant crops in Martian soil. And native life on Mars hasn't been ruled out quite yet. In the initial colonization phases, food and water are much more important. In the case of Mars, one would also need to set up a small biosphere or greenhouse that would allow people to have access to fresh air. Once this is set up, it should be pretty self-sufficient.

You do realise that neither colonisation nor terraforming will magically bestow Mars with uranium, gold, tin, copper, aluminium, zinc, phosphor, calcium, or any number of other vital metals and minerals? Not to mention the fossil fuels required for plastics and petrodistillates.

 

The American colonies were "self sufficient" because they were begun in a verdant and plentiful land. They did not have to terraform the Americas, and they had significant trade opportunities which they used. You aren't self sufficient just because you have political independence from one particular nation state.

 

Self-sufficiency after 50 years? Come on.

Terraforming Mars has been proposed as a way to make it more habitable for humans and Earth based life. As for the claim that Mars has no natural resources, this is off the mark. For example, there is hydrogen in the polar ice caps (and underground). Mars itself is a rocky planet composed of silicate compounds and iron-oxides, and I'm sure there are plenty of specific metals and minerals there to use (though not found yet). And whatever cannot be mined on Mars can most certainly be mined on its moons. As for plastics, cellulose can also be used to make them as we do on Earth.

And why would we need to terraform Mars to be exactly like Earth? After all, there is research going on in being able to manipulate the genetic code of humans. Sure, in its current state we probably won't survive even with genetic manipulation but all we really need to do is make the atmosphere breathable and the temperature high enough for liquid water to exist. And raise the atmospheric pressure of the planet somewhat.

Isn't this contradictory?

Mars will always be totally physically dependent on Earth, because:

- Earth has material commodities which Mars will require, however the reverse is not the case.

- Mars will not have, and almost certainly will never have, large-scale disaster relief facilities.

- Even a terraformed Mars will require regular organic and chemical donations from Earth in order to maintain a healthy biome.

- Without expert skills from Earth, Mars will have to predict social and technological requirements a generation in advance, and plan schooling on that basis. God forbid they should ever have to cope with the unexpected.

- Without academic input from Earth, Mars will have to conduct its own research (this could be considered covered by the commodities point, but I disagree that they are the same thing).

Well, you don't know that. I'm sure that at the beginning of Martian colonization that would be the case, but I'm sure that after 50 or so years Mars would probably be self-sufficient. Take the case of the American colonies over 300+ years ago, they were pretty much self sufficient after about 20 or so years within colonization.

Well, light is both a particle and a wave and thus exhibits the properties of both.

As far as I understand it, the hardness of a material is determined by the molecular structure, which also determines strength of the bonds.

In a diamond, for example, the carbon molecules are arranged in a pyramidal like structure, which allows the atoms to form very strong bonds with each other. In Graphite, on the other hand, the bonds between the molecules are weak and they are arranged like flat sheets, so they easily slide right off.

Note that both Graphite and Diamonds are made of carbon, but because of their molecular structure, they have different strength.

???

It's in trouble because there we haven't yet found away to test the theory through experiment. We need an enormous amount of energy in order to probe the plank length, and we don't have any idea on how to test for it indirectly either.

Well, it is supposed that these extra dimensions are wrapped up in the strings themselves. The idea is that on macroscopic and even atomic scales, things only appear to be 4 dimensional because the extra dimensions are so small that they cannot be seen. However, at Plank sizes, these extra dimensions can be observed. An analogy would be that of a strand of hair, in that from a distance it looks like a one dimensional line but close up it is 3 dimensional.

As far as I understand, these strings are supposed to be responsible for all of the physical laws that govern our universe, and it is theorized that particles are in reality specific resonant vibrations of these strings.

Here is some layman's article on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

Creationism is actually a rather recent phenomenon, created sometime in the early 20th century in response to nihilism and criticism around interpretation of the bible. Believe me, these guys can get really crazy.

Well, there is the idea that we are all self-preservationalists in one way or another, that most of the time we only do something to support our own self-interests.

Here is the complete list of extra-solar planets compiled by the California & Carnegie Planet Search. Updated as of January.

link: http://exoplanets.org/planet_table.shtml

So "cosmological pluralism" would be equivalent to multiple universes? So we would be discussing quantum splitting (which really would be plural realities), bubble universe, or multiple universe.

I guess that was what it would mean. To be honest, I've never seen those two words used together. Socrates was probably just trying to show off.

As for extraterrestrial life, a lot of it depends on the conditions of the planet. It may not even be water based, I think ammonia-based life was also proposed. And there are still a few candidates in our solar system for the possibility of life. Mars hasn't been ruled out yet, and I know some of Jupiter's and Saturn's moons are speculated to hold life of some kind.

I can make a ghost that completely follows the laws of physics. All I need is a fog machine, some black lights, a big piece of white cloth and a black marker for it's features. A fan on low setting should work too.

Sulfuric Acid

Bleach

Chlorine Gas

Sodium

Propane

Methane

Methanol

Hydrochloric Acid

Acetate

Dihydrogen Monoxide

I remember seeing an episode of Star Trek TNG in which they were unable to simply replicate a vaccine. They captured Natasha Yar and were threatening to cease trade of some vaccine that they needed (and risk being blown to bits).

You have to remember that there are still other forces going on as well, such as friction, etc. That means that in order to move something, you have to be able to apply a force greater than the force that the object has on it.

To be honest, if there was no gravity, I don't think planets the size of Earth would even exist, nor would they have atmospheres. A planet is formed because gravity holds all of that material together, including the atmosphere.

You know, I also wonder what type of economy they had too. According to current economic theory and psychology, all people demand some sort of pay for their work even if it is their hobby. After all, we have been bartering for goods ever since the prehistoric ages.

My guess is, they probably have some sort of socialist system or something. But then again, probably the fact that their were aliens in the galaxy may have forced humans to work together without demanding pay for work, more like a survival thing.