Daveyboy

Money should not be an issue if NASA is willing to allow corporate sponsors to get involved. I'm sure Microsoft or Coca-Cola would pay a heft sum to have their logos plastered on the rockets, or to have the first landing astronaut hold a Coke can in his hand as he sets foot on Mars.

Cracking idea. Without it I cant see how it would get funded. Unless it was a global effort, hardly likely. Mars 2010- No.

LOL' date=' I`ve no idea in all honesty, I`ve never been that close to measure a bovine fart

 

but yes, Methane is a serious greenhouse gas, and of course it`s the accumulation of these little cow indiscretions over several heads of cattle over many farms that creates the problem, or at least part of the problem. I`m fairly sure that Sheep are taxed in a similar way too.[/quote']

 

 

We have all been looking in the wrong place. Its not factories, cars etc that are causing global warming, its mass farming

This is true, but you can certainly measure the costs of striving to attain it against the rate of success.

True. Ive probably got a biased attitude towards the subject, due to my intersest in it. Is the Mars "outreach" program costing an estimated $Trillion.

Probably a fair argument to say there are more pressing causes on the planet worthy of that money.

actualy' date=' if I`m not mistaken, either in Australia or New Zealand, they have a "tax" on methane emmisions from cattle (farts).

I`m not quite sure how it works, but it`s quite true

 

here, I found this: http://rucus.ru.ac.za/~wolfman/Essays/Cow.html

 

see, I WAS being serious afterall

How much methane does a cow produce then. Does it really add to a greenhouse effect.

People who vote no should say how much "enough" is, and justify it.

fair point. Dont know how you can put a price on knowledge though.

How long would it take a solar sail propelled craft to get to mars from Earth.

[url']http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4584[/url]

cheers. That clears that up then.

One thing though. I was reading his website. Can anyone ecplain this to me??

Q: How can freezing water expand, even bursting

metal pipes, with no energy input to explain it?

A: According to today's science, this is impossible. As we

all know, every energy output requires a balancing energy input

to remain within our laws of physics. A balloon left in the sun

will expand and burst, in the process doing work against the

surrounding atmosphere as well as its elastic skin, but this is

balanced by the energy input from the sun, so it is no mystery.

However, freezing water has no energy input. In fact, it has just

the opposite of an energy input -- energy is continually drained

from the water as it cools toward freezing. So, how does the

water suddenly expand with such force from within that it easily

bursts metal pipes? No scientifically viable answers to this

mystery can be found from today's scientists -- only confused

explanation attempts that crumble under logical scrutiny.

I think someone was going to invite the author onto the site to discuss his book at one point.

Didn't happen i guess. What a surprise.

By the way I think theres another thread somwhere about that book. Or at least it was mentioned somwhere else. Try doing a few searches.

cheers, will do

Has a book disproving science ever 'stood up"?

True.

I've just been told of a book called "final theory" by Marl McCutcheon. Has anybody heard of or read this book. Does the book stand up.

http://www.thefinaltheory.com

Its something my lecturer gave to the class. Just a brainteaser for us i guess. cheers

Yeah i know that, but does it hold up mathematically just doesn't add up to me

Can anybody make any sense of this???

A thought experiment illustrates this. Imagine a company, United Differences (UD), operating in a community that is 25 percent black and 75 percent white and 5 percent homosexual, 95 percent heterosexual. Unknown to UD and the community is the fact that only 2 percent of the blacks are homosexual, whereas 6 percent of the whites are. (The numbers are fictitious and chosen for illustration only.) Making a concerted attempt to assemble a work force of 1,000 that "fairly" reflects the community, the company hires 750 whites and 250 blacks.

However, just five of the blacks (or 2 percent) would be homosexual, whereas 45 of the whites (or 6 percent) would be (totaling 50, 5 percent of all workers). Despite these efforts, the company could still be accused by its black employees of being homophobic since only 2 percent of the black employees (five of 250) would be homosexual, not the community-wide 5 percent. The company's homosexual employees could likewise claim that the company was racist since only 10 percent of their members (five of 50) would be black, not the community-wide 25 percent. White heterosexuals would certainly make similar complaints.