It was only really "scandalous" in the Victorian era, when it was seen as a convenient way to discredit academic rivals.
I'd like to know where you're getting that from, or is it "just your opinion" again?
I seem to recall he was bisexual, yes.
I don't see why the discussion should not include bisexuality.
I somehow doubt that nasa.gov blast astronauts and sensitive electronic equipment into the solar maelstrom without any protection at all.
Anyhoo, there must be a reason they use what they use re: heat shielding. Perhaps there is more info on their web site.
These threads (seeing as nobody else has linked to them yet) may help:
http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3503
http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3527
http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2378
http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1406
Actually I ought to expand on that:
You can give a valid distance between points in the dimensional group 1-4, because we define the first, second and third dimensions as those which describe volume.
My assumption is that there is no reason why dimensional groups should have interdependency.
I suspect that JaKiri's "why do they have to be separated by distance" query could be fulfilled quite easily with a model that sees our own universe existing in dimensions 1-4 and another universe existing in dimensions 5-8 (or larger ranges, if need be).
The idea of "distance between location X in dimension 2 and location Y in dimension 7", you see, makes no sense - hence the original query.
Posts #32 and #38 disagree with you.
Regardless, you get told by an admin to get back on topic, then you get back on topic. Whining about who took the thread off-topic to begin with won't get you anywhere.
Given that "there" is likely to be very, very, very far away, and that detection technology is likely to advance considerably faster than interstellar travel, I disagree.
I asked you to point out EXACTLY where I said or implied that - this means you give me the post number or numbers.
Given that all I have been arguing with you is
I don't particularly envy you the task.
I have already said once that this thread has to get back on topic. I don't intend to allow matters to reach a stage where I have to say it again.
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.