Moontanman

Can you support this contention? No one has ever been revived after being frozen. Drying out the human body would be just was impossible to revive from as freezing.

No! I wanted to know how long giant squids live!

You left out lazercats!

Everything shakes mentioned and conscious control over pregnancy so recreational sex doesn't result in unwanted children! Oh yeah, practical immortality would be nice.

Check this out juice, it should give you some mental exercise and expand your ideas about life. http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/astrobiology_entries.html

What is at the core of the Earth? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georeactor

Yes, assuming Mars is warmer inside like the Earth there might even be an aquifer on Mars and anaerobic organisms could very well live there.

I think it is misleading to say oxygen is released in the same way photosynthesis releases oxygen, the bacteria actually use nitrogen oxides to produce oxygen it then uses the oxygen to metabolize methane, no free oxygen is produced. This is however an interesting metabolic pathway but some energetic reaction must produce the nitrogen oxides. Many bacteria use oxides of various elements, usually a metal, to produce energy often oxygen is an intermediate part of the reaction but the oxygen is not released as waste like photosynthesis does. Even some metabolic pathways involving photosynthesis do not produce free oxygen. (some release sulfur) There are even metabolic pathways that do not use oxygen as energy at all but actually use sulfur or even hydrogen as an energy source. I think mouse is wanting an underground oxygen atmosphere on Mars due to chemo-synthesis and I doubt this is possible. some sort of photosynthesis using another energy source such as heat or even radioactive particles might be possible in theory but the conditions to allow this are hard to imagine. Some fungi use gamma rays to produce food in a photosynthesis (gamma-synthesis?) process using melanin as a energy gathering pigment. Chemo-synthesis is actually based in the heat energy of the earth released by radioactivity, this excess energy produces chemicals whose energy content is higher than it's ground state and life uses that chemical energy to metabolize. In other words, there is no free lunch. It might be relevant to mention that the surface of mars is thought to contain lots of peroxide chemicals that might be used by life forms, even complex life forms as an energy source, these peroxides are produced by sunlight and might even be used as a body fluid by these life forms since hydrogen peroxides stay liquid at lower temps than pure water. http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/H/hydrogenperoxide.html#H2O2

If I read the equation correctly the end result is eventually ferric oxide.

You'll notice this oxygen is not released into the environment but is used by the bacteria to oxidize more organic material, they have to have organic material to start the process, no net free oxygen is produced by these bacteria.

Do you have a link to the article?

How do they do what?

It would take energy input to produce oxygen from ferric oxide, where would this energy come from? Photosynthesis uses sunlight to produce carbohydrates, oxygen is a waste product produced in the presence of sunlight, in the dark, plants use oxygen just like animals. Without a surplus of energy how would any martian microbes produce oxygen? Doing so would use more energy than they are getting from the chemicals like an over unity energy machine. For chemo-synthetic microbes energy is already bound up in the chemicals.

I am an atheist and I do not get my morals from god but I see the whole sex with a coma patient as fundamentally wrong on every level I can possibly conceive of, and just how deeply does your wife sleep skeptic? I am skeptical any one could have sex and not wake up. I thought my wife was a heavy sleeper

No, the vast majority of chemo-synthetic organisms are poisoned by free oxygen and would do quite well if it were to disappear.

It's no more implausible than nuclear detonations or hydrogen fusion. As for a flying Chernobyl you really should read the article and it's take on risk mitigation. Having made my living at one time at Du Pont and being part of a very successful "risk mitigation" team you should know there is a big difference between the unexpected accident and the expected accident. As is quoted in the article one hydrogen bomb detonation released many times the radioactive debris of Chernobyl and no one died, Chernobyl is not a reasonable example of risk mitigation by any sense of the word and using it as such is nothing more than fear mongering.

I'm not so sure, a space elevator implies an orbit that allows the anchor of the elevator to be stationary over the surface of the object it rises from, a 28 day orbit would mean a very tall, much taller than from the earth, elevator. And why would that be? Risk mitigation can deal with any risks involved.

Building gaseous fission nuclear powered rockets would be much easier and cheaper than a space elevator.

Possibly you missed the link I provided?

Since I am not religious or wealthy I had to send my boys to public schools, they were not bad, they provided students who wanted an education with a very good one, good enough to get my boys in good universities. So now we have at least three points of view.

I'm curious, project Orion which used nuclear detonations to launch a space craft into orbit is being considered as usable technology but the idea of gaseous fusion (nuclear light bulb variant) which could, with relative ease, lift 1000 tons into orbit and return under power one stage, reusable, ground to orbit and back, is not even considered? That's 1000 tons payload by the way. http://www.nuclearspace.com/Liberty_ship_menupg.aspx

I've tried to look for some studies but the subject is so full of people with agendas I suspect a truly neutral study is non existent. As with most anecdotal evidence, your mileage will vary depending on your own point of view

I'll admit it is a personal issue with lots of emotions and assumptions, i was heavily criticized by some for sending my boys to an inner city type school but they both managed to get both a quality education and lots of life long friends. Fear of public schools can be just as real or imagined as fear of home schooling. I have always said the involvement of the parents is more important than who the kids go to school with.

I guess what bothers me the most is what religion represents, I think this God in the pledge thing is a very good example of why religion cannot be allowed to have free reign. I would be the first to agree that if you want to believe your religion is reality then fine believe it, go to your place of worship, make the walls rattle, invoke your god to do what ever it is he or she wants to do. But in public institutions like government and education do not expect your ideas about god to be accepted as the truth nor should you expect to try and teach everyone else your concept of religion anyplace but your own church. Conversely I can see not asserting the idea of atheism either but to these people anything that disagrees with them is asserting another religion. They talk about free speech and tolerance but it's only of if your speech agrees with them do they tolerate you. The idea of neutrality is not in their mind set, everything is us and them or black and white or right and wrong. there is no room for anyone who does not agree except in a subservient role as people to be converted. Give them an inch they want a mile, give them a mile they want it all. i wish you could just coast along and say to each his own, go your own way, but that attitude plays into the religious plan to control everything and every one. Do what you want in your own church, I'll even put up with all the annoying proselytizing from bill boards to door to door, but leave religion out of places that every one much share. Religion has no place in schools or government. I see the religious proselytizing at the university my son goes to they actually accost people and do their best to stop passers by, they do all sorts of outrageous stunts to get peoples attention, often this is disruptive in the extreme. To me it's sad, if religion is so great why do they have to practically yell it in your ear and slap you in the head with it? If you want religion go to church, there is an awful lot of them, if you want to teach religion as reality, do it in church, stop expecting the government to back you up in your endeavor. God knows you get enough money already and you don't have to account for it or pay taxes on it, what more do you want? The main perversion of religion is the idea that they must convert everyone else, by hook or crook they do everything possible to convert the godless heathens so they can get their money and use them to convert more. God in the pledge is just another example of government supported proselytizing.

I was abused as a child, for most of my life i wished I could forget, but it is a apart of me and at least partly makes me who i am so to forget it would mean forgetting at least part of who i am. i came to grips with it a long time ago but the idea of not knowing abuse or knowing is an interesting concept but the abuser is still immoral whether the abuse is remembered or not.