Shadow Kurahk Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 (edited) The newest Mars rover, "Curiosity," is now reportedly just hours away from landing on Mars has landed on the surface of Mars!I thought we should take the time to soak in the fact that our technology has advanced so much in the past 50, almost 60 years since the first US Moon landing.What do you guys think there is in store for space exploration? Where do you think we're headed (both literally and figuratively)?I was saddened by the dismissal of the space shuttle program, but am in equal amounts delighted at the privatization of space travel. It'll be a great opportunity for people who can afford it, and soon, I hope to see organizations that can help anyone hitch a ride to space for a few hours.But I was also delighted by the dawn of a new era of science--recently, the Higgs boson was discovered (and confirmed), yet the journey to define the laws of all things is not ending, as the transition is slowly turning towards dark matter, antimatter, and quantum science.I'm amazed at where the world is going and I'm glad to live in a generation where all these crazy and awesome discoveries are being made. What are your thoughts?-SK Edited August 6, 2012 by XII. Larxene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makuta DUSt Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Sounds great! I am afraid about what you said about Anti-matter, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Humva Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 Just my two cents, but somehow I doubt we'll see dark matter or anti-matter in the near future. For starters, we still have a very limited idea of what dark matter is (it's simply defined as matter that doesn't emit EM radiation, we don't know any specific properties other than that), and anti-matter is... expensive and exceedingly dangerous.I think that space will be a great area for the latest in breaking science and such, though. Sending people to other planets is always cool, if rather expensive, and the technologies we obtain by doing so make it worthwhile. Playing golf on Mars may not further science, but getting to Mars furthers engineering and science to great extents. Just look at the crazy stuff they've been doing to try to get there. Quote 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 "In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after." -Isaac Asimov, responding to a letter he had received saying that scientific certainty was false, The Relativity of Wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeavyMetalSunshineSister Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 Well, we've already made antimatter, just in exceedingly small amounts.I am rather amused by some of the pictures Curiosity has sent back, due to the demonstration that, though Mars and Earth are rather a long way away (in human terms - thinking astronomically, the two planets are practically next-door neighbors) the same processes shape the landscapes of both planets - though in the case of Mars, it seems that geothermal processes have long since ceased to play an active role. Quote We will remember - Skies may fade and stars may wane; we won't forget And your light shines bright - yes so much brighter shine on We will remember - Until the skies will fall we won't forget We will remember We all shall follow doom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Kurahk Posted August 12, 2012 Author Share Posted August 12, 2012 CERN maintained antihydrogen for over 15 minutes. It's not particularly dangerous stuff, and even if an antiatom collides with its atom counterpart, both atoms will disintegrate in a small burst of gamma rays and a photon.And as for pictures, my mom keeps waiting for one that reveals a Martian life form. -SK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athmos Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 The Space Shuttle was designed to build the ISS, so it makes sense they stopped it. Smaller, one or two-manned spacecraft might be the future(for the ISS). Quote WIP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Humva Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 I'm particularly interested in SpaceX and their Dragon rocket. It seems to be the future for getting humans from Earth to low orbit, and possibly even returning to the moon. Quote 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 "In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after." -Isaac Asimov, responding to a letter he had received saying that scientific certainty was false, The Relativity of Wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Kurahk Posted August 13, 2012 Author Share Posted August 13, 2012 (edited) Well, it's good that you mention that, because if that technology is worked on and enhanced even more, and the results from this rover's journey deem living on Mars a definite possibility (which I'm confident is true), then we may start developing colonies on Mars within 10-15 years.The only thing I fear is that when that time comes, would only the rich be able to go? That would leave Earth as a chaotic dump...only time will tell.-SK Edited August 13, 2012 by XII. Larxene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Humva Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Yeah, the problem with Martian colonies is that as cool as it sounds... it's too bloody expensive. If it costs a billion dollars to get from here to there, never mention back again, and there's a one in a hundred chance of failure... yeah. Nobody but the richest fot he rich could go, and even then, why go to Mars? It'll be decades before it's even close to economical to grow food there; you'd have better luck shipping food down from orbital space farms than from Mars. Quote 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 "In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after." -Isaac Asimov, responding to a letter he had received saying that scientific certainty was false, The Relativity of Wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athmos Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Just read that the Mars Rover is actually a Nuclear Power Plant as well. SQUEE. Curiosity, with that much energy, will last for decades, even after it's Solar Panels get covered with dust(That's killed a rover before.). @Mars Colonies: It may be expensive now, but in 20, 50 years, who knows what technology will we have then? It only took us around 60 years from first manned-flight to landing on the moon. With our tech now, it would take 6-8 months to get to Mars. With Nuclear power, 3 months. A base on the moon would be the next big step for the World. Quote WIP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Humva Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 (edited) Huh, that contradicts what I heard, that is, that it's nuclear battery will stop working after one year. Could you provide links that say otherwise?Also, it took about ten years from sending a man to space to putting a man on the moon, not 60. The space race kicked off in the 1960s, if it took sixty years to put people on the moon, then the first moon landing would be in 2020. It might just be me and my pessimistic view of extra-orbital space travel, but I think we shouldn't try to ponder the technology we'll have in fifty years time, as really, if you took someone from the 1960s and asked them what 2010 would be like, you'd probably get nothing like what we have today. Edited August 13, 2012 by Game Master Alex Humva Quote 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 "In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after." -Isaac Asimov, responding to a letter he had received saying that scientific certainty was false, The Relativity of Wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athmos Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Huh, that contradicts what I heard, that is, that it's nuclear battery will stop working after one year. Could you provide links that say otherwise?Also, it took about ten years from sending a man to space to putting a man on the moon, not 60. The space race kicked off in the 1960s, if it took sixty years to put people on the moon, then the first moon landing would be in 2020. It might just be me and my pessimistic view of extra-orbital space travel, but I think we shouldn't try to ponder the technology we'll have in fifty years time, as really, if you took someone from the 1960s and asked them what 2010 would be like, you'd probably get nothing like what we have today. I don't know when the nuclear battery will stop, but it doesn't need the solar panels until it does stop, making it last much longer. I know it will stop, just don't know when. :/ Wright Brothers' Manned Flight. Not into space, but above ground. I'm not that clueless. Hey, you have to think ahead of the curve. Quote WIP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Kurahk Posted August 14, 2012 Author Share Posted August 14, 2012 (edited) The nuclear reactor should last for at least 687 Earth days (see here), but it can apparently last up to 14 years (don't know what the conditions have to be for that; see here).Also, Curiosity doesn't have solar panels. It's relying solely on the nuclear power.If the news I heard some time ago that spacecraft are beginning to use plasma-powered engines is true, then that will allow us to get to Mars in record time (the primary type of plasma propulsion engine is 10 times faster than a chemical reaction propulsion engine).All these possibilities are just so promising. I can't wait for the next few years when we get the final results of the rover's journey. -SK Edited August 14, 2012 by XII. Larxene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Humva Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Rats, I already told my father it had solar panels. xDAh, yes, plasma engines. Watched a short documentary on them once. Got them all excited about going to Mars; it was still bloody expensive though. Great for scientific missions, not so great for Martian colonies. Quote 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 "In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after." -Isaac Asimov, responding to a letter he had received saying that scientific certainty was false, The Relativity of Wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athmos Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 A mining base on the moon would pay itself off in a few years. There are large amounts of Helium up there, and the largest mine of Helium on Earth(It's one of the largest, at least.), in Texas, is being depleted. Maybe Mars has other gases and/or materials we need? Quote WIP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Humva Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 (edited) Yes, our helium supply is being depleted. However, shipping costs are hideously high for space; not to mention the artificial price fixing for helium. The only way it'd pay itself off if if helium stopped being price fixed (which by itself would rocket the price of it to tens of thousands of dollars for a single birthday balloon), and even then the shipping costs would be obscene. The result is a balloon for of hydrogen costs a hundred thousand dollars, which is bad, because a lot of our high tech industry is based around the use of helium. Many things we take for granted like smartphones would drastically increase in price. The moon base, while it'd stop us from running out, would do nothing to help the price, and artificial price fixing wouldn't work with a moon base because the numbers just wouldn't work out.I'm as excited for space mining as the next guy, but perspective has to be put in here; all things show that for a decent amount of time, space is going be very, very, expensive. Edited August 14, 2012 by Game Master Alex Humva Quote 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 "In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after." -Isaac Asimov, responding to a letter he had received saying that scientific certainty was false, The Relativity of Wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lord Of Wednesday Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Thinking about the future is an interesting thing, though I typically find it to be a sort of shizo tech scenario. Like how in older speculations of the world today, we should already have space hotels, have space stations around Saturn, and have dangerously unstable A.I. (referring to 2001: A Space Odyssey). Or at least futures where we have FTL (faster then light) travel and space colonies.I agree that space colonies would probably be something that should wait for a better economy. However, on the Moon I can imagine mining for resources, but on Mars I, at most, usually see it more as a research facility, at least at first. Sure those may come in handy if over population comes along (at least in theory but I could rant about such a scenario playing out much differently, and I happen to find that other possibility more realistic).Anyway, along with cost, Mars does not seem like a practical place to live and would cost quite a bit of resources to create a habitable living space (which at the moment just seems like a building with a proper atmosphere). You would also need some very dedicated people to go there as it is a long way from home, and when you return you would face inevitable medical issues due to the lower gravity of Mars, and the lack of gravity in transit to there. Granted you could think of terraforming, though from what I am told it is not practical (and sometimes I hear it is not even plausible).Speaking of terraforming, I found these artist renditions of various planets and moons post terraforming, or at least ideas of what they would look like terraformed.MarsVenusThe MoonI know these may not be plausible or practical, but it would be amazing if we could someday pull this off. Quote Divinator of Dreams.This Is Proud Stigma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Humva Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Terraforming, sadly, would be a multi-trillon dollar process and take several centuries rather than a magic rocket or something doing it in a month. There's also the problem that we'd have to find some way to kick start the Martian magnetic field, or otherwise the solar winds would tear any atmosphere we put there right off. Quote 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 "In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after." -Isaac Asimov, responding to a letter he had received saying that scientific certainty was false, The Relativity of Wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Kurahk Posted August 14, 2012 Author Share Posted August 14, 2012 I would never support terraforming--it's not proper to alter the condition of nature so drastically.But it wouldn't take nearly as long as you think. They built Palm Jumeirah in 5 years, and though it is much smaller in scale, with the appropriate staffing, a terraforming project on a larger scale (and I'd assume they wouldn't do the entire planet at once) wouldn't take too long.-SK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Humva Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 ...The whole point of doing terraforming is doing the whole planet at once. You can't just have one spot that's a tropical paradise and the rest be barren Martian wasteland. Quote 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 "In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after." -Isaac Asimov, responding to a letter he had received saying that scientific certainty was false, The Relativity of Wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeavyMetalSunshineSister Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Terraforming on Mars would entail, firstly, drastic changes to the atmosphere - as it is, it's much too thin, and there's too little oxygen, proportionally. Changing the nature of an atmosphere is rather a lot more difficult than building an artificial archipelago on Earth - in fact, the two projects are a lot like apples and oranges, if apples grew in five minutes and oranges took decades to grow.Regarding whether it's "proper" to drastically alter the "condition of nature"... Nature is a self-altering thing, first of all. The "balance of nature" is nonexistent. There is no balance, just a sort of dynamic equilibrium. Glaciers advance, then retreat, then advance again. The Earth, right now, is colder than it's been for more than 90% of its history. So, on a planet that isn't dead, if you don't alter nature, nature will do that anyway.As for humans altering nature... I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you live in a house. Quote We will remember - Skies may fade and stars may wane; we won't forget And your light shines bright - yes so much brighter shine on We will remember - Until the skies will fall we won't forget We will remember We all shall follow doom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenLuke Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 (edited) I've been looking at some of the photos the rover has taken and going "WOW that's amazing!" a lot. Sending something to someplace so far away, even if we've done it before, is a awesome achievement.I would never support terraforming--it's not proper to alter the condition of nature so drastically.And why isn't proper? There really isn't anyone on Mars who would complain. Really, terraforming a planet with a existing ecosystem might be unethical, but a lifeless rock like Mars?...The whole point of doing terraforming is doing the whole planet at once. You can't just have one spot that's a tropical paradise and the rest be barren Martian wasteland.Well, you could terraform only part of a planet by building a giant enclosed area and pump air into that. Still terrible inefficient, though. Edited August 14, 2012 by BenLuke-116 Quote BZPRPG Profiles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Humva Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Yes, you could build a giant*** greenhouse, but that's not terraforming, that's... building a giant*** greenhouse. Quote 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 "In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after." -Isaac Asimov, responding to a letter he had received saying that scientific certainty was false, The Relativity of Wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenLuke Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 And you know what a planet is?A giant*** greenhouse, that's what. Quote BZPRPG Profiles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeavyMetalSunshineSister Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 No, a planet is a ball of rock - molten core optional - that is large enough to both keep itself roughly round and keep its atmosphere from running off.A greenhouse is a house made, more or less, of glass, with plants inside. You don't even get proper clouds in a greenhouse, much less volcanoes. Quote We will remember - Skies may fade and stars may wane; we won't forget And your light shines bright - yes so much brighter shine on We will remember - Until the skies will fall we won't forget We will remember We all shall follow doom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenLuke Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 (edited) Well, I was talking about habitable (to Earth life) planets, but yeah, good point.I still thing the idea of building a "worldhouse" would be a more efficient way of colonizing Mars then terraforming the whole thing at once. Dodges the pesky solar wind/radiation problem, at least. Edited August 14, 2012 by BenLuke-116 Quote BZPRPG Profiles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lord Of Wednesday Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Terraforming, sadly, would be a multi-trillon dollar process and take several centuries rather than a magic rocket or something doing it in a month. There's also the problem that we'd have to find some way to kick start the Martian magnetic field, or otherwise the solar winds would tear any atmosphere we put there right off.Indeed, as for the magnetic field you could do that if you could restart the planet's now solid core (as is the case with Mars), but the only method I currently know of to pull such a thing off would be to heat up Mars with a massive collision, and who knows how long it would take for the planet to cool off, assuming your collision even worked.This gets me thinking about the death of various things. Such things like the inevitable ends of the Universe, or even Earth or life. whether you trust Wikipedia or not it is an interesting thing to think about. Quote Divinator of Dreams.This Is Proud Stigma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Humva Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 The heat death of the universe is a known fact; it'll just take trillions of years to happen. Quote 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 "In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after." -Isaac Asimov, responding to a letter he had received saying that scientific certainty was false, The Relativity of Wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Kurahk Posted August 14, 2012 Author Share Posted August 14, 2012 No, it's not a matter of ayone on Mars caring. I'm not going to support the destruction of any member of our solar system. Nature has created the planets this way, and I wouldn't support messing that up just to make it a bit more habitable.-SK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Humva Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 You speak as if nature is an intelligent entity in this situation and has a plan. That isn't nature, that's religion. Nothing wrong with believing that we shouldn't screw with this stuff, just don't call it nature.Sorry, just a bit of a pet peeve; people act as if nature has this cosmic plan for us and we should dare not interfere with it. Nature is a process, a series of events from A to B to C to so forth. The same logic you're using there is baby steps away from the logic that says we shouldn't help someone with a natural disease because nature created diseases, so who are we to interfere with it's great and almighty plan?Even if nature did have a cosmic plan and was intelligent, it sure as **** hasn't come up and spoken it to us, so we're forced to proceed as if there was no plan because, well, we don't bloody know the plan so we've got to continue as things are; with us making decisions based on how we perceive and understand things. Quote 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 "In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after." -Isaac Asimov, responding to a letter he had received saying that scientific certainty was false, The Relativity of Wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeavyMetalSunshineSister Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 It's not destruction, and it's not like nature has something specific in mind. The planets just sort of lumped themselves together from an accretion disc, and things just sort of went this way or that from there. Quote We will remember - Skies may fade and stars may wane; we won't forget And your light shines bright - yes so much brighter shine on We will remember - Until the skies will fall we won't forget We will remember We all shall follow doom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Kurahk Posted August 15, 2012 Author Share Posted August 15, 2012 (edited) The disease thing is fair, but to me, science and the natural birth and death of things is a religion. Our very own Earth is screwed up because we tampered with it.Maybe it was my phrasing that was strange, but I just meant that by the forces of nature, all the planets (except for our own) ended up the way they are now without us touching them. That in itself is a beautiful thing that shouldn't be changed. If we're gonna live on Mars, we'd better not industrialize and destroy the planet like we did this one.It's not that nature planned for the planets to end up how they were, it's that nature is the natural process by which that happened (and it was entirely random). It's like sticking a rod inside bicycle stokes. It halts the natural flow of the turning of the wheel.And yes, nature is a step by step process, but that doesn't mean interfering with it isn't stupid.-SK Edited August 15, 2012 by XII. Larxene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenLuke Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 This planet (Or, more accurately, Earth's ecosystem) has been screwed-up far worse in the past, dude, without anyone around to do said screw-uping. Things like meteor strikes and ice ages are part of nature, and both of those have caused more death and extinction then we ever could. Giving people cures to normally fatal diseases is "interfering with nature".Natural =! Morally sound.Interfering with nature is only stupid when it's done without thought of the consequences. Quote BZPRPG Profiles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeavyMetalSunshineSister Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 Plus, really, if humanity disappeared today, it would take, in geological terms, a blink of an eye for everything we've done to be undone. Sure, there might be some fossils left, maybe a few things that don't decompose, but all of our cities would crumble, and be replaced by that which they replaced when we built them.The funny thing is, though, that by BZP's rules, if science is a religion for you, then that falls under Political and Religious Discussion, which is forbidden, which, taken to its logical conclusion, would suggest that we - yes, all of us, as one of us here views science as a religion - should not be discussing scientific matters. Quote We will remember - Skies may fade and stars may wane; we won't forget And your light shines bright - yes so much brighter shine on We will remember - Until the skies will fall we won't forget We will remember We all shall follow doom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lord Of Wednesday Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 (edited) I am not sure if it means we all view it as a religion (I most certainly don't, I am follow philosophical idealism personally though that is beside the point), but it would have meant that we all took part in a "religious" discussion. Edited August 15, 2012 by Proud Stigma Quote Divinator of Dreams.This Is Proud Stigma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Humva Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 (edited) Ultimately I fail to see how bringing life to a dead planet is harming the cycle of nature, because, well, nature is a bloody process, it's not going to complain about us 'interfering' with it. Your argument really puts you in a bad position because it's the same argument that can be used to say that medicine should be abolished because disease is natural, so who are we to interfere with the cycle of nature and life, stopping people from dying?Science isn't a religion. It can be elevated to a state of godhood and dogmatism, in which it becomes a cult, but so far, none of us seem to be doing so. Science is simply, by definition, us observing our world and coming to conclusions from said observations. Edited August 15, 2012 by Game Master Alex Humva Quote 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 "In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after." -Isaac Asimov, responding to a letter he had received saying that scientific certainty was false, The Relativity of Wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeavyMetalSunshineSister Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 to me, science and the natural birth and death of things is a religion.This is what I was replying to. Quite straightforward, and I've found that, regardless of one's own opinion, it is unwise to argue with the religious via an internet connection. Quote We will remember - Skies may fade and stars may wane; we won't forget And your light shines bright - yes so much brighter shine on We will remember - Until the skies will fall we won't forget We will remember We all shall follow doom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lord Of Wednesday Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 to me, science and the natural birth and death of things is a religion.This is what I was replying to. Quite straightforward, and I've found that, regardless of one's own opinion, it is unwise to argue with the religious via an internet connection.Very well, oh and I can agree with the latter by experience. Quote Divinator of Dreams.This Is Proud Stigma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenLuke Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 (edited) Remember, there are three things you never discuss over the internet: Religion, Politics, and the Great Pumpkin.And now back to your previously scheduled !!SCIENCE!! discussion: Edited August 15, 2012 by BenLuke-116 Quote BZPRPG Profiles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havelock Vetinari Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 (edited) The Mar's rover is completely awesome.Now because I can't resist...nature can go leap off a cliff. If it were up to me, I wouldn't let some blind process guide the advancement of my species. We can take hold of our own fate, through the power of technology and the application of science. We can, through the use of technology change ourselves and the universe. To suggest we should stop doing this is to suggest that we allow humanity to die. Stagnation is death. That is an indisputable fact. If a species stops expanding, stops breeding, it will die. The same holds true for us. Without technology, without, eventually, terraforming (due to the small chance of a planet inhabitable to us existing within anything nearing a reasonable distance)...we will die. The Earth cannot hold us forever, and even if were all to become Luddites (improper term, considering General Ludd wasn't really against technology-but I digress) and allow our technology wither and die, we would still die if, say, a giant rock hit the planet. To survive in the long term, we must reach space and change it. Bend it to our will.Personally, I would see any number of planets strip mined, terraformed, or blown up before I let humanity die./rantover. Edited August 15, 2012 by Basilisk Quote I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You are wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.