Sayonara

Well, things that it doesn't describe aren't required to behave in any particular way by that law (bearing in mind that a "law" is a specific description for something we observe to be consistently true). So if a law pertains to inertial reference frames, it doesn't necessarily follow that it should have anything to say about any other kind of reference frames. Just like it has nothing to say about filofaxes, ice cream, or bungee jumps.

Not in the sense you mean, no.

It would be more effective in early stage transformation to use billions upon billions of single-celled organisms to alter the atmosphere, rather than plants. They have simpler requirements, they are easier to transport, manipulate and disperse, they can be grown quickly and in vast quantities in processes that lend themselves to automation, they will not tie up as much of their oxygen product in respiration per unit biomass deployed, and they will contribute to a soil layer more readily when they die.

You misunderstand. I am not proposing that we grow food underground then send it to Mars. I am asking why we need to send people and resources to Mars just to live under the ground? They can do that here. I think we are going off track here. In the OP, question123 is talking about a terraforming project on a planetary scale, to convert Mars into an Earth-like world. He is not discussing colonisation - that is a different process. There's no requirement for research bases or early stage colonists whatsoever. In fact, putting boots on the ground early on would be insane, since we have ideas like "slam comets into the planet" and "nuke the ice crust" flying about the place. Planetary engineering on this scale is best done from a distance, IOW. Ignoring that small point though, I think you're optimistic about families starting early in a 'pioneers' colonisation model. The first people on Mars in any given colonisation attempt will eventually be rotated off-world by whatever organisation sends them. There will be no early-stage adaptations that can be passed on genetically and we have no idea what complications the low gravity will cause in pregnancy. This is somewhat moot anyway, since the kind of people being sent to a dead rock on missions to start off 500-year processes are not likely to be the settling down types, and those that are will hardly be taking their families with them. This is going the way of the discussion in the other Mars thread, where practical discussion about Mars turned into romanticised nonsense that harked back to the colonisation of the Americas. The logistical problems are entirely different. Let's get back to the issue of all the different ways we can bombard the hell out of Mars until it is more appealing.

... Why can't we just do that on Earth? It would sure be cheaper. And easier. And safer. And much more convenient.

That's not your spaceship you thieving gypo. It's Malcolm Reynolds' spaceship, and he probably wants it back.

There's actually a thread developing right now that may shed some light on the question of reference frames: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27341

Ah right, I did wonder what you were talking about! No, obviously I was not saying it was rare for higher animals to evolve. I was saying it was rare among the higher animals for a few individuals to spontaneously generate a stable population in a new environment (in the way that pioneer plant species do, at least). Sorry to undermine the argument, but I don't think this question is a terribly good rebuttal. Firstly, a bird does not have to build a burrow to be able to shelter in it. This can be observed in action with modern species, my favourite of which is the Burrowing Owl: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrowing_Owl Those guys are hilarious. Secondly, there are extant burrowing birds. Afaik most of these are seabirds (not sure why that is, but meh). Petrels, prions, and shearwaters are examples.

If that is the print run date, the paper could still be valid.

It's more like walking into a library and asking the librarian for a book relating to the subject that you have in mind. IOW, "pick a number between 1 and 10,000".

I think people are just confused because you are looking like a crackpot, but not quacking like a crackpot.

Looks like a test paper to me, in any case.

That's not the topic of this thread.

It's an implicit requirement. Either everyone is sterilised, or the system cannot work. An individual can change their faith, or disobey it. It's much harder to secede from a government-imposed programme that might well start at birth.

Trying to write posts in all-caps doesn't make the idea more physically valid.

I realise you didn't mean accident in the literal sense... let me put it another way: an event such as the KT catastrophe would put such mind-bogglingly massive stresses on the biosphere as to make even the minor predicted effects of selection and so forth pretty much a certainty. Of course we can't 'know' the true fate of a species in every single instance, but in a scenario like this we can be confident that the models we have for understanding what is happening within the system are going to hold up well. Another consideration is that what you might call "the sheerest accident" might go by another name in ecologist or population biologist circles... in fact, if it can cause an extinction, then it almost certainly will do. This is more likely than possible. The fact that so many species did survive indicates there must have been some terrestrial refuges, or some species which were simply not fatally affected by the changes to the environment, or more likely a combination of the two factors. That is not really true though, is it? Speculation would be "the birds survived because [insert something that has no biological basis]". What we are doing is applying models of interactions to the problem, which are known to hold true for terran ecology. The reliability comes largely from the economics that underlies the thinking.

You can't overtake light. It travels at c in all reference frames.

That's not really an argument for colonising Mars, is it? Seeing as Earth will have to inject resources into Mars to keep it running, never mind start it off.

The only "gulf" here is the fact that Flynn neglects to mention (or at least in the OP) what body he thinks would administrate this process, which is a fairly minor detail. Was that deliberate?

I'm confused. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with my analysis?

Errr... it's Einstein actually. For the moment.

Stating "this system could be misused" is not a slippery slope. If anything, it is a truism.

You say you disagree with my statement, then go on to argue something completely unrelated. I was replying to blue_cristal's comment about primary colonisation by individuals, which is not in the slightest bit the same thing as migration. If he is actually talking about migration (he didn't say, despite having responded to this thread since I questioned that point), then he needs to provide some means of showing how migratory relief is applicable in the context of the global catastrophe that this thread relates to.

This is a very interesting scenario you have found Lance, and I wish I could devote more time to it today. One thing that does occur immediately is that this programme of sterilisation by default is just too darned inviting for misuse or even abuse. Who holds the keys to the fertility cabinet? Flynn makes the astute point that all babies would be wanted, but he omits the issue of 'wanted by whom?' What happens when a would-be mother puts in her B1-A form and it comes back with "DENIED" stamped on it? I don't think any democratic state would implement this kind of system, but it is of course still an interesting academic model. I would be interested to know if Flynn provided any grounds for not considering it eugenics, because it does seem quite eugenicky.

We are having problems finding good data on precisely what kinds and levels of radiation are a problem on the surface. It's a bit of a stumbling block for this thread!