zapatos

Yes, I know that. Yes, I know that. No, I don't. Yes, I know that. In fact, we seem to be in complete agreement. The only issue I can see at all is that for some reason you seem to be projecting on to me the views of someone else. If you read only the words that I wrote in this thread you'll see what I mean. I am not implying anything other than what I wrote. I cannot understand why you think otherwise, or why you seem to be getting hostile about it.

While I'm sure it is true there are women who sexualize their public appearance and are opposed to men's response to it, in my experience these are usually two separate groups. The women I know who dress provocatively generally want to be seen in that light and enjoy the attention from men that it gets them. Women who are opposed to a strong response from men generally don't dress that way. Or only dress that way only when they are trying to draw the attention.

Thanks for the feedback. Ok. Although as mitigating circumstances I'd like to point out that I did not start the converstation about the effects of space exploration on global population, and I was not the only one discussing it. I just reread all of my posts and the only time I mentioned resources I said "For the moment I'm leaving out limiting factors such as natural resources, but I suspect the population would be much larger. I'm not trying to make accurate predictions of exact populations. I'm just saying that the population would tend to be higher if people did not emigrate." I purposely left out resources. I'm not sure what I said that made you conclude I was sharing resources. And for the second time in this thread I wish to point out that I did not use the term population control, and am not saying that emigration is a form of population control. As a recap of the point I was trying to make: Let's say planet X has a population of 20 reproducing couples at year 1, and a reproduction rate of r, and that after 100 years the population of the planet is going to be 200 based on that reproduction rate. If at year 1 you instead took half of those reproducing couples and moved them to planet Y, and the reproduction rate remained the same, then after 100 years the total population will still be 200, but that will be divided into 100 people on planet X and 100 people on planet Y. Therefore, the emigration of those 10 reproducing couples to planet Y, had an impact on the population of planet X. That's it. I did not address resource availability because I had no idea how to do so. I did not give specific numbers to the impact on the population on earth, I only said that over a long period of time, it could have a big impact on the future population of earth. I did not make predictions about birth rate as I had no idea how to do so. And I'm happy to drop the topic also.

Ah, come on. If you are going to give me a negative rep, at least tell me what you found so offensive. I may be wrong but it seems to me that the reason you are getting so frustrated with me is because I'm looking at what the population could look like in the very long term, and you are looking at population trends in a much closer time frame. EDIT: My apologies for assuming that you gave me the negative rep. As Mr Skeptic just pointed out to me, he gave me the negative rep and explained why below.

From Nick Longworth, onetime Ohio Republican Speaker of the House: "One particular famous retort is told about Longworth. One day, while lounging in a chair at the Capitol, another member of the House ran his hand over Longworth's bald pate and commented, "Nice and smooth. Feels just like my wife's bottom." Longworth felt his own head and returned an answer: "Yes, so it does."" From dragonstar57 today in the thread "can we assume children are all all stupid ? ". (Sorry - I don't know how to link to it.)

Add muscle mass via weight training. Increased muscle mass will increase your resting metabolism. In other words, if you have more muscle, you will burn more calories just sitting on the couch than you will if you have less muscle.

Maybe. And here is another opinion: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/africa-population-47010905 Ok, so let's say population is curbed by 50%. That puts the population of Africa at 3 billion instead of 6 billion. But of course I'm just making that up as I have no idea what impact the limiting factors would have. Can you site some study that would give us a clue to what the population of Africa would be if it were the only continent on earth? Well, since Africa has not yet reached a population of 6 billion but humans have reproduced at a rate bringing the total population to 6 billion, yes, I'd say it is a meaningful delay.

I swear it feels like I'm in the Twilight Zone. Your post seems to be directed at me as the first quote is from me, as follows: Which you then follow up with statements of your own as follows: Well, I don't think it was me because my first post in this thread was post #122. It seems like I'm being confused with wright496 for some reason. Actually what I would say is that the population of Bishop Rock did not increase by 400 more. They are relevant to what the population would have been on Bishop Rock had they not emigrated, but instead stayed on the rock and delivered their progeny there. Africa has a population of about 1 billion, or about 15% of the earth's population. Suppose Africa was the only continent on earth, which means that humans could not have emigrated elsewhere. Do you suppose the population of Africa would still be 1 billion or would it have changed? For the moment I'm leaving out limiting factors such as natural resources, but I suspect the population would be much larger. I'm not trying to make accurate predictions of exact populations. I'm just saying that the population would tend to be higher if people did not emigrate. And in the Africa example, if resources were not limited and no one emigrated to other continents, the population of Africa would now be about 6 billion. Right. I'm not saying that earth's population won't hit 100 billion (or whatever) at some point, I'm saying that it would hit it later. If the population rate does not change then we will hit 100 billion at some time in the future, regardless of whether those people are on earth, in space, or in both places. And if the population is divided between both places, then the population on earth is less that it would have been without emigration to space. In my example by half. I generally agree with what you say. There is some limit to the populatioin the earth can hold. But if part of the population is growing elsewhere, then it is not growing as fast on earth, and therefore the population on earth will be lower than it could have been, for an additional time period.

Well, I said "I think that depends on how you look at it. It certainly seems likely that space exploration will not reduce the number of people on earth today, but it can have a big impact on the future population." In very general terms, let's say that hypothetically the human population reaches 100 billion, thousands of years in the future. If 50 billion of them are on living somewhere other than earth, then that means the population of earth is 50 billion, not 100 billion. That is the big impact on the future population of earth I was talking about. I was trying to make that point when I talked about the population of Africa and how it is less now than it would have been if humans had never left the continent. I agree that space exploration and moving people off the planet is not "population control" in the sense that it has been used.

In terms of our exchange, I don't know what you are talking about. Are you sure it is me you mean to be directing these comments to? If so, would you mind showing my exact quote followed by your response?

That's twice now you've attributed "population control" to me. You might want to go back and see who actually used those words. (Hint: It was you!) Seems to me that you are the one who is being obtuse.

I don't think fair has anything to do with it. Some people have more money, higher intelligence, better looks, cleaner air, a better view out their front door, nicer friends, etc., and all of the benefits that go along with those. All things are not equal for all people, and I don't think we have to try to even things out. I know I don't want to have to give some of my nicer friends to someone else because I have more of them than they do. Now if you want to take some of my money from me because we need highways, and poor people cannot contirbute, that is fine. But don't take it away from me because you are trying to be fair to others. That is too subjective. Not unless you are going to even out all the other inequalities too.

Love the sarcasm. But you are the one who introduced the long time frame when you said "SPACE EXPLORATION WILL NEVER HELP REDUCE GLOBAL POPULATION. NEVER." Next time if you provide me with the time frame I'm allowed to consider I'll limit my comments accordingly.

I think that depends on how you look at it. It certainly seems likely that space exploration will not reduce the number of people on earth today, but it can have a big impact on the future population. Any child born somewhere other than earth means the population of earth will not be increased by that birth. So while the population of Africa has gone up substantially since the first people left that continent, its population is much lower than it would have been if all the people born somewhere other than Africa had instead contributed to the population of Africa. Similarly, if thousands of years from now humans are being born somewhere other than earth, I think it would be fair to say that space exploration contributed to a reduced population on earth.

So I know just what you are talking about, can you please give an example of the energy that "Nature" made?

If gravity was applied equally on all sides, then what is the purpose of the vacuum? Wouldn't the object float even if there was no vacuum? So how is the elevator different from the Vomit Comet? In this aircraft the people are not on the floor or up against the ceiling.

No there isn't. Shouldn't that have been 'No there aren't'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food

Sure. Just not at the same time.

Kids with Down Syndrome are a lot like other kids. I'm glad you are focusing on the positive. Parents with children who have Down Syndrome wouldn't give them up for anything. http://kids.nationalgeographic.com/kids/stories/peopleplaces/downsyndrome/

How do you know that? It either had a beginning or it did not. What evidence do you have one way or the other?

Thank you for the answer. I guess I was looking at gravity and dark energy as acting independently; that is, mass from galaxies in a locally bound cluster were acting on each other to keep the galaxies bound, and dark energy was acting on space to cause the expansion of space. It now looks to me as if I should be thinking of it in terms of both the mass of galaxies and dark energy are acting on the geometry of space, and that in locally bound systems, the impact on the geometry of space from the mass in galaxies overwhelms the impact on the geometry of space from dark energy. Does that sound correct? As a side question, does mass and dark energy physically alter space? What I'm wondering is if changing the geometry of space is a physical change that can be measured, or if it is a mathematical concept. If it is a physical change, then does that mean that theoretically we could do a test on a volume of space and tell how much the geometry has changed due to expansion? Thanks.

This is a completely narrow minded way of looking at things and is in no way open-minded at all. Why only study the major religions of the world? Are you presupposing that all the minor religions are wrong? What if the one true religion is the one that only exists on a world elsewhere in the universe? How do I refute with evidence that God does not exist? Are you required to show with evidence that God does exist? And I have to make a list of pros and cons, listing what makes sense versus what does not? You seem to have a rather narrow view of how one must do one's analysis. And just to be fair, it would be nice if people weren't indoctrinated into their family's religion be default, and then told they have to do all of this analysis to develop other beliefs. How narrow minded is that?

I understand that expansion would not cause neighboring galaxies to become further apart, and that this is due to the gravity of nearby galaxies overcoming the force of expansion. But what is keeping space from expanding and flowing past the galaxies that are gravtationally bound? Imagine if you had two balls connected by a tether floating is a gas. The gas could expand and flow past the balls without the balls getting further apart. So in the case of cosmic expansion, would you say that the gravity of the bound galaxies keeps the space between them from expanding (that is, in some way acts upon space and stops the physical process of expansion), or that the space can still expand (that is, become less dense) without overcoming the gravitational bond between the galaxies?

If I understand correctly the explanations given, no one ever said that colliding particles are moving faster than c. If they appear to be closing faster than c, that just means the distance between them is decreasing faster than c. No thing is actually moving faster than c.