iNow

Why not just view BHs as collapsed stars... as has been demonstrated repeatedly to be viable and likely?

It might be useful as a quicklink, or even just a url on the advanced search window somewhere.

foodchain, I must admit that I've always struggled with your writing style, and have difficult time understanding you. Are you trying to ask, "Does decoherence explain how entanglement causes the measurement problem known as Heisenberg Uncertainty?" ... because even that rephrasing doesn't make much sense to me.

Hi Nemanja, The biggest point to consider is the challenges involved with going so far so fast. It takes light a long time to travel the distances you describe. I agree that it's a goal worthy of consideration and effort, but there are some significant challenges to be solved before we can make this feasible. It's not that your end goal is an undesirable one, it's that you are being challenged on the methods you've described for reaching it. Another point that has resonated with me is that we must change our approach to the way we care for the world we already have, instead of just transporting our bad habits to another celestial body. Cheers.

Can you cite one single supported example? Even if you can (but I don't think you can), how is this relevant to a call to end all research and spend all money on space colonization? Can you cite a reputable source which validates this claim? Even if you can (but I don't think you can), how is this relevant to a call to end all research and spend all money on space colonization? Where in the FDA policies is this approved? Even if you can provide a citation (which I don't think you can), how is this relevant to a call to end all research and spend all money on space colonization? I'd be curious to see the IP addys tied to the logins on all the users who have posted for the first time in this thread, but that's beyond the permissions of my account.

You'd probably have to know: The pressure of the water in the pipe (if the pipe is not completely filled to the brim with water, then clearly a freeze will not have as much explosive force on that pipe as one that has little to no air... only water from top to bottom). You'd need to know what pressure the pipe can withstand, and factor in the years of degradation and erosion and any faults that happened when they were installing and if the earth has moved since the install and... ellipsis other faults that could have become part of the pipe system. You'd need to know how that variable amount of water in that pipe of unknown construction was reacting to the slowly decreasing outdoor temperature, and ... well... It'd be a very "fuzzy" guesstimate more than an hard and solid data point. It's not like "Pipes will burst = x + 7 x 5t..." There are too many unquantifiable variables, and those you can quantify are likely to be pretty error ridden. I'm not mathemagician though... so don't rely too heavily on my word for this one. Would pouring Irish Whiskey down the drain keep them from freezing? I know it warms me up on a cold night, but pouring it down the drain would be sacrilage.

... A special form of retarded ...

Hmmm... There sure are a lot of first time posters who happen to have created accounts just to tell you how much they like your idea. Curious...

Seemed to me to be an intentional error... one of those ... you know... what do they call them? Attempts at humor? Note also the reference to "Bushisms" in post #19.

Try here: Misconceptions About the Big Bang - SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, March 2005 http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147

It doesn't matter. You said that there was controversy over the idea that humans are still (or, have stopped) evolving. Paralith showed one single source (among... I'm sure ... scores she could have) which showed how anybody who claims humans have stopped evolving is either seriously misunderstanding the situation or lying. Evolution is always happening.

On the street where my house is, they paint the house numbers on the curb. When they do, they put this "glitter" like material over the paint. It almost looks like finely crushed glass or sparkley sand, but it has the same effect. They paint, then sprinkle this stuff over it, and voila... it reflects even minimal light quite well.

Here's a gorgeous shot of SIX! http://www.sai.msu.su/apod/ap070912.html Six Rainbows Across Norway Credit & Copyright: Terje O. Nordvik Click the link above to visit the links within the explanation.

How does something which has no edges have a center? Without the ability to measure the space between edges, how can one find a center? If I asked you what was the center of a forest, you would need to know where the edges were to find that center. The universe doesn't have edges.

You might look here: http://unitednuclear.com/glow.htm http://www.dayglo.com/products_nightglo.asp http://glowinc.com/SearchResult.aspx?CategoryID=3 http://www.hobbyglow.com/

Nice.

Why do I get the feeling that you're not going to last long here?

Would You People Stop Spamming This Site!!!

How much are you willing to pay me? I'll give you some rep... for a price.

I shudder to think that I'm actually proposing this path... again... but... What is your definition of intelligence? What is your definition of "happiness?" Both seem a bit "loosey goosey" and far too gray to serve as a reasonable "scientific" metric. It's like trying to correlate my awesomeness with my awakeness. ... Not exactly good parameters, ya dig?

I disagree with your comments above COMPLETELY. Conservapedia is a total intellectual abomination which blatantly lies to people and twists facts to suit some closed minded purpose and support prejudiced ideologies. It's like saying that the dictionary and encyclopedia are liberally biased and people need a christian dictionary and a conservative encyclopedia. How stupid can we get? We seem to continue pushing the edges of that proverbial envelope. NPR did a story on the site last March, which is where my distaste began: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8286084 Click the "Listen Here" link on that page to hear the story.

Hence, the comment you made above (quoted below) is just wrong. Sometimes, removing details and simplifying things makes matters WORSE!

Or... Just go to the Advanced Search window, type your username in the "Search by Username" field, select "Show Results as" - "Posts" (instead of "threads"), and search... same thing happens. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/search.php

You have a sampling bias and non-representative population in your study ta boot.