Sayonara

Doesn't quite a lot of experimental evidence disagree with you?

Absence is not opposition though is it? The opposite of light would be "anti-light" were it not for the inconvenient fact that anti-light doesn't exist, except in the sense that light is its own antiparticle, as Severian said. Yes it's a semantic argument but there is something to be said for using words correctly, and while Hypercube's search for anti-light will be fruitless he is quite correct that the TV programme wrongly ascribed the status of anti-light to "darkness". The only thing to take away from this thread of any value is that Discovery Channel shows are not as scientific as they could be, which shouldn't come as any great shock. Yes. Light has no conventional opposite, and darkness is simply an absence of light.

That rather depends on which particular terrorists you are talking about, doesn't it?

Technology! We need it for the banning.

This thread is better than TV.

What?

http://www.sayonara.info/blog/2007/04/google_directions_ve.php

Yes, that's one of the more interesting and subtle problems for a terraforming project. I don't think I mentioned it in this thread, but in another recent Mars thread I suggest using a "brewing station" which shoots jets of microbes into the atmosphere. It doesn't totally avoid the problem but it does increase the time and space across which the microbes can act.

I think you might have misunderstood... We know it is not flat because we know it is a spheroid. Minor point I know.

If you are responding to our members' questions by directing them to a blog which has absolutely no content that relates to their problems, then yes - you are clearly spamming. VBulletin allows you to add a homepage address to your profile, which is entirely adequate. We are not a free advertising service.

You know that link goes to a 404? Perhaps you should stop spamming our forum with it.

The use of micro-organisms was mooted as a possible route for Mars, not Venus. Well, it was by me at least.

There are several threads on the twins paradox. Please use the search tool.

I have trimmed this thread so that it once again resembles a discussion of politics and international affairs. Can I remind everyone that the "report this post" feature is for posts which break the site rules, not for posts or links to articles that you disagree with.

Do you think we helped?

Obviously I am not referring to you. The MO at work here seems to be "if it's not broken, break it." And if it isn't now, that's where it is heading.

What I want to know is, is the spelling mistake in the signature image ironic because it is intentional, or because it is not?

That's for blue-cristal to define really, in conjunction with exactly what order of complexity the organisms are which are being proposed as founders. I understand that it happens, and my post was not intended to suggest this is not the case. I did specify "higher organisms", and I do not consider drosophila to be particularly well suited to that category. Others may disagree I suppose, so this is clarification for those who do: the order of complexity which I am considering in the likelihood of a founder event is equal to or greater than the order of complexity for the groups we have been discussing throughout the thread (birds etc). Meh, it was late, brain functions, leave me alone, etc. Let me dig out my typewriter. By golly, Nature won't know what hit them!

Not if you discard some of the rules.

One certainly hopes that an engineered, task-oriented organism that can be rapidly batch-produced and applied where needed would be more potent. If it isn't, then someone is getting the sack.

...by a doctor.

Sorry I have forgotten what the "this" in the question was.

Velocity is defined as the rate of change of displacement, so by definition you can only have a non-zero velocity. The phrase "zero velocity" simply means that the item being observed has no velocity attributed to it, not that it has a velocity with the value zero. In other words, "zero velocity" is a semantic construct, not a physical one. You don't have to be 100% right about everything in order to avoid randomly throwing out perfectly adequate bits of physics without replacing them. If you have compelling reason to get rid of energy as a defunct concept, then explain it. Don't try to be mysterious or do the slow reveal - they work well in suspense movies and strip clubs but they are highly aggravating on science forums.

Backwards justification. No. Velocity is a vector quantity - it has a directional component. You know, if you have to break and discard the current framework to make whatever ideas you have workable, then you also need to replace all of its functions.

Gravitational potential energy.