towjyt

Since there is a difference between the rate at which time passes on Earth and the rate at which time passes on the Sun due to the time dialation factor, has anyone calculated how much time passes on the sun, while a year passes on Earth? I have read articles where it was stated that eventually the Sun would reach a stage where it would expand to a size larger than Earth's orbit, then after a while it would shrink down to dwarf size. Now these calculations involved an estimate of time, but it is unclear to me whether they are talking Sun time, or Earth time.

That seems to be the case. Another one that you don't see so much anymore is getting into a gun fight in a saloon and using a table top for cover. Those old 44/40s and 45 Long Colt slugs would have pierced that table top like it was newspaper.

Do you believe in the existence of wormholes in space that can be used as shortcuts to other galaxies or to other regions in our own galaxie?

The potato is the first thing that I thought of too and for the same reason.

So, the leaves absorb co2 from the atmosphere and use sunlight as an energy source? Sort of a combination of lungs and solar cell?

I have a Maple tree that drops it's seeds early in the spring, just as the leaves are starting to form. The other day, I got to wondering, why leaves? If the evolution of the Maple tree provided everything that the Maple tree needs to propagate it's species, why leaves? The seeds are already gone. My wife said that perhaps the leaves provide shade which preserves moisture for the seeds take root, but I see no advantage in a young Maple tree sprouting in the very shade of it's parent--things will get pretty crowded that way. Certainly the shade does provide a damp spot, but I think that the leaves use up more moisture that they preserve. So, my question is, what evolutionary advantage do leaves provide for the Maple tree?

Yes, but do you suppose that that is possible? What it comes down to is whether or not light speed can be exceeded. Do you think that humankind will ever reach that technological plateau?

It would be awfully difficult not to think that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Finding it, or it finding us, is another story. The universe is so very vast that it would require super light speed velocities to explore even a tiny fraction pr. millinium and uncle Al says that nothing can exceed light speed.

Plus, I suppose, the moon being overhead would cause the weight to be less for the same reason that the moon causes the tides.

Among mine are the fact that all aliens species are basically humanoid in appearance and can cross breed with humans and the fact that humans can arrive at a planet that we have never been on before and beam down, breath the air and seem to be immune to whatever bugs and diseases that have evolved there.

If nothing else, the inertia dampeners should keep you from being affected by a hit from another ship, rock, or whatever.

And I frankly have better things to do that argue with an irrational person.

As I understand it, these embryos are owned by their progentiors. Do you think that they should be allowed to decide whether or not they are implanted, distroyed, or used for another purpose?

I understand that Bill Gates contributes hundreds of millions to charity each year. Why not ask him for the money? Why not ask George Soros? Or Michael Moore? Or all of those Hollywood actors who devoted so much of their time and treasure to defeat George Bush in the election? If this research was done with private money, it would be perfectly legal, so since there is so much money floating around to support political candidates, why not simply make a contributation to this research instead of giving it to the RNC or the DNC? That is precisely what I intend to do, and when the political party that I supported last time calls, I am going to tell them where their contribution went. If even 1/2 of us took action instead of whining about President Bush, we could solve the money problem without the government being involved.

Would you support legislation that protected not only unborn children in the womb, but embryos in deep freeze storage in a furtility clinic?

Actually I am in favor of allowing government funds to be spent on stem cell research in this case. Admittedly, I don't know enough about the research to make an informed judgement about the potential for finding a cure for--let us say _______ (you fill in the blank) disease, but the fact is that we won't know unless we try and I think we owe it to people who are stricken with horrible diseases, some of them children, to do what we can to find a cure. The tipping point in this particular piece of legislation is that it deals with embryos that are going to be distroyed anyway. Also, the owners of these embryos must specifically donate them to the cause. Considering those factors, I think it would be unethical not to proceed with the research. And I think that President Bush should sign the bill. But I don't think he will.

Congress is poised to pass legislation to allow government money to be spent of stem cell research with embryos provided from furtility clinics. These embryos would have to be expressly donated by their owners (parents) and would otherwise be distroyed as medical waste. The religious right is opposed to this and President Bush has said that he would veto such a bill. Is the potential for medical breakthroughs in diseases and birth defects great enough to override the concerns of the religious people in this country who oppose it? Or do we already have enough stem cell lines to work with.

True, the media is a business. I think it is important to keep that in mind whenever you read something in a newspaper, or see a report on TV that doesn't seem to quite line up with the facts.

I think Western men are attracted to large breasts because in Western cultures women keep them covered up. A woman's large breasts are calling attention to her sexuality, whether on purpose or not. When a woman exposes her breasts to a man it is a signal that she may be willing to engage in sexual intercourse with him. Men in general are responsive to invitations for sex. Large breasts start the thought process toward a sexual encounter.

You might be right about that. There would be less friction pr.volumn in the larger pipe. I don't think it would make very much difference tho.