Sayonara

That they aren't holes, and anyone who thinks they're the entrance to a universe where space is white and the stars are black deserves to be fed into one. I'm sure Radical Edward or MrL will be able to tell you more.

The forums went up just over a year ago, so we have a birthday coming up Your rank changes depending on how many posts you make (not a good reason to spam, as spam generally gets deleted). If you're a moderator you get to set your own rank

If you're talking about the Orion Project, the idea was it was more cost-effective than rockets capable of launching and carrying equal mass (which was a theoretical saving anyway, since such rockets did not exist and still don't).

I don't think that his theory is on the site at all in its entirety. Obviously this is because it's pure academic dynamite and will make whoever publicises it best very rich, famous and powerful. It certainly isn't because it's a pile of meaningless drivel which "only he understands" since the rest of us are mindless, brain-dead, simpletons who have been hypnotised by the evil of education.

We could in theory, we have the technology and the biological know-how to do so. But it's not a great plan overall. People should learn from cheap B-movies and not do stupid things like sticking their face near a pulsating alien pod, or going into a containment lab to see why the specimen canister is broken. It's a shame the Japanese probe probably won't make it to Mars, because it was designed to acquire some very interesting info on the planet itself

http://www.glish.com/css/ is good for CSS by example, http://www.phpbuilder.com looks daunting but it's the best resource I've used for PHP and SQL.

I think you may mean Europa.

matter - the significance of finding even the simplest lifeform on Mars would be astoundingly huge. It would tell us: About the ecology of hostile environments About the history of life in this system About the origins of life on extra terrestrial bodies That there is potential for life off Earth in a wider range of habitats than was previously thought About the relationship - if any - between ecosystems in this system That's not information to be sniffed at, and it's well worth the expense. It's a better use of money than squandering trillions trying to find life outside the solar system when proof of concept might be on our own doorstep. Mars is hostile now, but as our sun ages and expands we may find its climate more suited to our species if the Earth heats up. Of course, we'll still need a way to keep the atmosphere on but by that time it should be well within our means to achieve such a feat. I'm not sure you can say that we would never live beneath the surface because we "aren't meant to". It's invalid reasoning. The entire species is not required to evolve into a subterranean organism in order for a population to voluntarily survive in caverns or chambers under another planet's crust.

Maybe he got hugged too much, resulting in his brain being starved of oxygen.

Learn CSS (easy), SQl (easy) and PHP (always more to learn) to go with your HTML and you'll be unstoppable. Unstoppable.

I was talking about Radical Edward.

That was my first thought, but there's no direct evidence. Frankly I doubt it will come back. It didn't put much effort in.

Self preservation is a complex behaviour. What you are talking about are simple reflexive actions that make living organisms different to non-living matter about as much as does their ability to breathe. You have also failed to take into account the fact that a vast portion of life forms do not express any sort of self preserving behaviour. I'm not saying you are wrong. What I'm saying is that if your theory overall is based on postulates, then you need to demonstrate that those postulates are correct. There is no 'law of self preservation', and having just finished a 5 year degree in biology which focused heavily on ecology, evolution and population dynamics, I think I'm in a good position to make such a claim. I don't need to 'check out the biology' - I already know it. Your other thread was closed because it was simply a list of foundless statements that spawned arguments. If you are going to make claims, back them up. If you'd like the opportunity to do so I will reopen the "My Predictions" thread.

Either show mathematical proof, provide repeatable experimental data, or keep it in the religion and philosophy forum. Option 3 is my favourite.

When discussing a hypothetical event for which all discussion participants have a common frame of reference, it's easier to talk as if the event occurred rather than constantly referring to it as a possibility. I strongly suggest against beginning a creationist tirade in the physics forums.

"I'm convinced"

HUZZAH :banana: banana do the dance of joy! Does this mean I won't be against the wall when the revolution comes?

What we're trying to explain to you is that we don't need to bother zipping around the universe - we can use this thing called "chemistry" to demonstrate that no such element exists.

Oh, this should be good

What's anti-science is that you are relying on what you term 'obvious', without providing consistent data from repeatable experimentation. What's a contradiction is that you don't 'reach an agreement' with reality, you merely accept it - no matter how long it might take, it's inevitable.

:banana: clearly has hands, hands for typing. Oh yes.

This is not pseudoscience, it's just bad science. Game Over.

Instinctual and innate behaviours don't need to be grouped under a grandiose "law". If they did, I'm fairly certain I'd have heard of it by now. Are you certain this isn't just a way of saying "I'm giving a new name to something that's already been demonstrated in order to bring some credibility to my untested hypothesis"?

Do we have a policy on this sort of thing?

I could be a Scottish banana non-hologram