DanTrentfield

That's for LP, we're talking gaseous propane. But you're right, LP is expensive as heck.

True, True. Judge sanctioned backdoor access is scary, but a team of elite, government sanctioned, hackers looking to chew through every bit of your information is scarier. I side with Ajb.

They're both hydrocarbons, they're both nasty, which is more sustainable, economical, environmentally friendly, and efficient? Lets look at some chemistry below Propane's chemical structure is C3H8, it has less carbon than gasoline whom's chemical structure is 2C8H18 and therefore produces less Co2 with a 5o2 reaction. Propane gas isn't very powerful when it comes to combustion, although it produces more heat than gasoline, it isn't as explosive under pressure and you need more of it to have an explosive reaction Propane is wayyyyy cheaper than gasoline, as the average price of gasoline is $1.80/gal, versus the average price of propane is $0.02/gal. (Gaseous form) Propane can be stored more efficiently than gasoline as it can be compressed into LP at around 28-140psi. Propane engines consume around 5-7 times more fuel than gasoline engines. Propane can be found as a by-product of refining natural gas. Propane engines' performance is significantly lower than gasoline engines' performance. Overall tally Propane 4 Gasoline 3, Statistics: Propane produces 15/16th's of the Co2 that gasoline produces, Propane is ~900% cheaper with consumption factored in, Propane is a renewable resource as it is a by product of refining natural gas, Although your engine will be more expensive, it's cheaper in the long run, and although you lose performance, you save $1,872 a year if you fill up your 20 gallon tank weekly.

Well one of two things could be happening, the carbon 14 signature is reset every time the rock melts because the carbon 14 disperses among the liquid rock, Also neutron bombardment from uranium decay could possibly have an impact, but you'd also have other trace elements that tell the tale of this neutron contamination.

That does go up. Probability of collision, does not because collision probability depends on trajectories not pilot error. Also you totally worded that wrong, You can have a computer guidance system do all the maneuvering for you and get through an asteroid field without a scratch.

Dude, that's called deep web insertion, get a Tor browser and some hacking skillz and it's easier than pi.

But the Probability is what we're talking about, if you hit a grain of sand moving at 0.63c you're suddenly a scattering wreck of debris fuel and oxygen, which is why you don't accelerate to 0.63c right away, you get past the Mars-Jupiter asteroid belt, and then you begin accelerating, slingshot around a planet to save yourself some delta-v and fly through the Oort cloud quickly, as it's widely dispersed. Probability, not what if.

Excuse me, I organized my statements (With dubious reasoning of course as it was late at night, but they still stand) using a neutral standpoint as the scientific method dictates, and clearly stated my own neutrality as once again dictated by the scientific method, I am neither for nor against because it is: 1 a mute point 2 a non-realistically debatable topic as there is not enough proof on either side to form a concluding statement for either side

But if you're flying a bigillity dollar fancy pants fusion spaceship you'd plot your trajectories carefully wouldn't you...... Driving isn't the same as traveling through space, If you were driving through the middle of Montana at 150 mph with no cars in sight, nothing but bushes, and a straight road you wouldn't crash now would you? That's more like flying through space, the probability you'll hit something is very low, But you still have to watch out because there are more asteroids in the solar system than there are people on four earths.

You're right, I should stop posting late at night..... at least I said my moneys on neither....

The probability of a collision at 0.63c would be the same as it is at 0.001c, as velocity is a mute point when it comes to collision probability, what you really have to worry about is how many things there are you can hit, Unless of course you're flying the death star, your speed will have no affect on your collision probability. (And even then a nearby asteroid's trajectory would begin to resemble a line next you rather than a suborbital ballistic trajectory. ) (Insert Han Solo Joke: "Never tell me the odds") Also the "Interstellar travel will never happen" thing is completely bogus, (Being the major movie buff I am, I'm doing a Jurassic park quote) "Life will find a way", and it forgets to factor in the magical thing that is innovation, It may happen today, it may happen in the year 3067, but innovation happens, and innovation changes everything, And have we thought of everything? No because the universe is infinite.

This is a very big thing to disprove, and yet a bigger thing to prove, I'll give what facts we know that support/attack both theories using the most neutral stance possible as the scientific method dictates: 1: Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, so matter and energy had to come from somewhere (For a God) 2: God would be impossible to detect prove or disprove as evidence cannot be collected from a neutral standpoint of intelligent design/creation (Against a God) 3: All math, physics, and chemistry provide no evidence of intelligent design besides the fact that they simply exist which just isn't good enough (Against a God) 4: Quantum mechanics, and quantum physics generally rule against the existence of a God (These being excepted from 3 because they provide especially strong bias against a God) 5: If there have been so many religions over thousands of years, why should any of them be real if all or most are said to be fake? (Against a God) Unless there is more out there which I'm missing (Which there probably is, I just decided to make this a paragraph instead of a paper) the tally is God 1; No God 4. My money on neither because I can go on existing without either so this is a mute point for me.

Wow (Going out of my usual prowls) so we have two different coins here, one being the Hot versus Cold emotion coin as stated by lemur, and the other being the positive versus negative emotion coin as stated by Hypercube..... The question is are they the same side of a bigger coin or opposite sides of that bigger coin (Meaning without coin-speak can we find a middle ground that makes sense?)

Does anyone else find it amazing that a single, ten gram bullet fired at a target on a shooting range delivers approximately 605.52 joules of energy to it's target? Do you find it amazing that a single gram of matter can convert into 299792458 joules of energy (given 100% conversion)? If you think so, or have more amazing Physics-Facts please do share below!

Yes, and that is sadly where the realm of equation-less "Theories" begin... in the infamous kingdom of speculation with the evil king that is know as pseudoscience, and his bride, the evil queen known as conspiracy.

That's a big question, at least where it comes from; and one that we've been trying to answer for centuries. Mind is not over matter, as mind is composed of matter, and finally chemicals do not make decisions and are not within matter because matter exists at the atomic level. Electrical energy is in the same range of forces as magnetism and behaves similarly to magnetism and can even be affected and to some degree controlled by magnetism and other forces of the same spectrum, Electrical energy moves from one point to another via particles with a positive electrical charge (most commonly electrons) in a process called electrical conduction (See this link for more https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity). And finally matter cannot have something spiritual within it. Does that answer your question?