SkepticLance

To mooeypoo Thanks for accepting my challenge. The first, Fiji, incident was in broad daylight. The light was red, which is a significant clue. Think also of the fact that it was out over the sea. The second incident. Extra clue. NZ is hilly. At night you cannot see the hills, and may not know they are there. As has been mentioned, UFO's exist in that objects are seen in the air and may not be immediately identified. Once so identified, they are no longer UFO's. Venus is commonly mistaken, as are aircraft lights. I remember once, when I was living on Great Barrier Island, a military exercise was held with helicopters etc., in which locals were able to view it readily. Nevertheless an article appeared in a newspaper about UFO's in that place at that time, shown as bright lights over the sea. No doubt, to at least one observer, the lights were unidentified, and hence UFO's. However, do I believe in flying objects of advanced design buzzing around the Earth piloted by 'Little Green Men' or "bug Eyed Monster'? The answer is no.

I have twice seen UFO's myself. The first occasion was in Fiji, during day time. I was looking over the sea and saw a bright red light in the sky. It seemed to rise very slowly, and then began to descend, while moving slowly to the side. After it sank a distance, it slowly faded and disappeared. It was visible for a good 30 seconds. The second occasion was at night, here in New Zealand. I saw two bright white lights in the sky, moving quite rapidly till they descended and disappeared. The lights kept exactly the same distance from each other, but were too bright and too far apart to be aircraft lights. They also moved in a way unlike aircraft, including sharp turns, and diving downwards as aircraft do not. Both incidents were not space craft, and both had mundane explanations. Anyone care to guess?

Almost any mix of a powerful oxidiser plus an organic material will result in fire, and often bangs. These may be dangerous. I know of a guy who got thrown off a mezzanine floor and dropped one floor to a concrete base. Ended in hospital with broken bones and chemical burns. All from a strong oxidiser added to an organic solution. So I won't tell you what he did! Having said that, here is my favourite recipe for teenage mischief. Make a fuse by dipping cotton thread into Potassium nitrate solution, and letting it air dry. Do the same with a piece of non synthetic string. Make hydrogen gas. Caustic soda solution in a beer bottle, with a piece of aluminum foil added, will do it. Care with adding caustic to water, since it heats up a lot. You may want to immerse the receiving vessel in cold water to keep it cool. Not too cool, or the hydrogen emission will be too slow. Seal the neck of a balloon over the mouth of the beer bottle, with one end of the cotton fuse inside the balloon. The hydrogen will slowly fill it up, and expand the balloon. When big enough, tie off the balloon with your pre-prepared string, and secure the fuse . The fuse should touch the string before going into the balloon. You should be able to let it out to the end of the cotton fuse, and it rises. At night, light the end of the fuse and let the balloon go. Mischief!

I have read a lot of stuff about UFO's and the like. Almost inevitably, there is a better explanation than 'little green men'. It is really easy to come up with faked photographic evidence for all sorts of phenomena of this type. I have seen photos of UFO's that look really convincing that were made by throwing a dustpan lid into the air and shooting it against the sky. As far as Van Daniken is concerned, most of his 'logic' comes from assuming that our ancestors were idiots. They were not. They had the same percentage of high powered geniuses as we do. They had highly competent engineers. They had techniques for construction that were clever and effective. For example, Daniken claims that the statues of Easter Island could not have been moved into place by the 'primitive' natives of the time. Modern experimenters have shown that a bunch of men with ropes tied to the tops of those statues can move them anywhere you like, given enough time and patience. It is done by rocking and twisting them. If UFO's were real, why do we not have solid evidence? Why do we rely on wide eyed credulous people, and blurry photos? It is also interesting to note that stories like UFO's are hundreds, if not thousands of years old. However, the way they are described depends on the myths of the time. 200 years ago, it was all about witches. 2000 years ago, it was angels and demons. For example : there is a phenomenon of paralysis which happens often to people who are half asleep. Harmless and normal. However, in that state of half sleep, the mind is half dreaming and experiences strange things. 200 years ago, those were interpreted as witches attacking. Today it is alien abductions and aliens experimenting on us. There is no need to believe in aliens. Belief in the weirdness of the human mind is fully sufficient!

To look at the science of this, we need to ignore the fiction. After all, in fiction, you can 'invent' any technology you like. It might be interesting to rephrase the question. Imagine you are part of a future society with interstellar travel. Since we are being scientifically realistic, that travel is at sub-light speeds, and takes thousands of years to go any great distance. Imagine also, that a technology that exists is cryosuspension. You are put to sleep, and your body is frozen according to the advanced medical techniques so that you are not killed by the freezing process. This is theoretically possible, since there are a number of species of animals on Earth that have adaptations permitting them to be frozen solid, and come 'back to life' when thawed. You have a problem. Your starship has malfunctioned, and you have travelled enormously further than programmed. You wake from cryosuspension half way across the galaxy. You decide to send your starship back to Earth, putting yourself back into cryosuspension for the multi-thousand year journey. First, you have to determine where you are, and a course back home. The question now becomes - how will you identify your position, and navigate home? What 'landmarks' will you use?

BlackPower You avatar, she ape. Me ape. Me like she. Me pound chest and yell at moon. Owwooo.

BlackPower There are many very clear lines of evidence that show humans are apes. 1. The fossil record. Enough intermediate fossils in the human family tree have been found to show our relationship to apes. 2. Morphology. The human form and the ape form have an enormous amount in common. That is no coincidence. 3. Comparitive genetics. The human and the chimp genomes have been worked out. We share about 98% of our genes. That is a close relationship, showing we belong to the same family. 4. Embryology. Human and ape fetuses undergo almost exactly the same set of developmental changes, until late in the process of growth.

Those who oppose evolution often think evolutionists claim descent from modern apes. Of course, we are descended from rather more ancient apes, which are common ancestors. Indeed, humans are still apes, even if religious arrogance refuses to accept it.

To imp I have said before, and I will probably be forced to say again - a statement that food or anything in our environment contains something nasty is totally meaningless. For it to obtain meaning, you have to state : 1. How toxic is the nasty material? 2. How much of that nasty material is present. In other words, quantify. To simply state the fact that Strontium 90 is present in milk is absolutely and totally without meaning or significance. Radioactive materials are a part of our natural environment, and have been for billions of years. We, along with all other living things, have adaptations to cope. A 'small' increase in the presence of these radioactive materials in our bodies, in our food, water etc is something that has no health implications whatever. It is only when the increase is sufficient to have adverse effects on health that it is worth dealing with. Otherwise, the information is just paranoid. If you want to bring up Sr90 or 2,4 D as topics, that is fine. Just make sure you quantify to give your assertions meaning. Just to provide an example. Greenpeace have had an anti-dioxin campaign for a long time. One of the things they state is that human mother's milk contains dioxin. They are correct. It contains 0.1 parts per trillion. An absolute bloody miracle of science that we can measure something so utterly trivial. The worst member of the dioxin family needs a person to ingest 20 parts per billion based on human body weight to have a 50% chance of killing him or her. To drink enough human milk to obtain that amount requires you to drink 200,000 times your body weight. Wow! Unless you quantify your statements and show significance, then I for one will treat your observations with the disdain I treat Greenpeace statements about dioxin in mother's milk.

trucker The 'intelligent design community' has attempted to debunk, but failed miserably, simply because they are not scientists and what they push is not science. Their ideas are from a particular interpretation of a specific religious text - not from science. There are no 'intelligent design' biologists who are not also strongly religious.

I have to back up nebula on one point. He is wrong on a number of points, and talking about pus in milk, and talking about pasteurisation as if it is the same as cooking is definitely wrong. However, iNow was not correct to respond as he did. This is a place where a gentle correction is much better. To say : "your departure from this thread has more to do with the fact that you are a little kid who has said something which he cannot back up" in my opinion is uncalled for and amounts to insult. Let's remain polite and use a more gentle correction when people post items that are not scientifically correct.

nebula I suggest you do a bit of reading and research. Milk does not have white blood cells. The term 'white blood cell' is specific, and refers to specific types of cell found in blood. It is not part of milk.

The fossil record gives amazing evidence of evolutionary change. Between dinosaurs and birds, for example, scientists have found no less than nine intermediate forms, found from various rock strata, which have been dated to times that fit nicely the evolutionary picture. Archaeopteryx was definitely a dinosaur - but with feathers and wings. Microraptor was another, but with more bird features. Confuciusornis was definitely a bird, but with teeth and dinosaur like features. And so on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_evolution A similar series of fossils have been found between fish and amphibians, showing a clear picture of evolution. It takes very little research to come up with enough fossil evidence to put the question beyond doubt.

The problem is that gold is so damn weak. You wouldn't like to cheat and let us use 18 carat gold, would you? 24 carat can be beated into fabric as thin as you might ever want it. However, it would be weaker than wet tissue paper. The stilt idea is funny. 24 carat gold stilts about 1000 metres plus in height would bend and twist like pretzels. They would not even support their own weight. Collapse is instant. Mind you, they would be worth mega millions! A giant 24 carat gold sponge might have possibilities, with its cellular structure. Might hold up long enough to let us fall on it and get a soft landing. However, you can have the privilege of trying. I will operate the movie camera and sell the footage. A better and surer way of making money!

YT and Swansont are doubtless correct. However, the first guy could still be wrong. We have to test the second hypothesis with more predictions and more experiments to be sure.

knupfer will not be convinced by science, since it is blind faith in religious texts that means everything to this guy. I have been down this road before with other people. A certain creationist of my acquaintance claims tha the world is less than 10,000 years old. I showed this woman evidence from tree rings showing annual rings going back 50,000 years. I showed her evidence from alpine lakes, showing annual sedimentation layers going back much further. I showed her glacial annual deposition layers going back several million years. Nothing so much as scratched the surface of her certainty. Knupfer will be the same. Mere evidence will not do it, so we should simply ignore him.

To agentchange You are correct in saying that a 30,000 km long elevator would simply fall. Stationary orbit is about 36,000 km above the equator, and (without a counterweight) the elevator would need to be about 78,000 km long for centrifugal action to hold it taut. You are also quite correct to mention the problem of space junk. That is one reason why the elevator has to be a ribbon rather than a cable. It has to be wide enough to take a whole lot of 'bullets' making holes in it without the whole thing breaking. The normal design is a ribbon that is very wide at the central, geostationary orbit point, and tapers down to a much narrower ribbon at the Earth's surface, and at the outer limit. I like the idea of a very long ribbon with no counterweight, since (assuming a magnetic levitation propulsion) that permits a space vehicle to accelerate the whole length of the 78,000 km and be released into space at high speed. This means that a space vehicle can be 'flicked' to Mars or the moon using only electricity for power. I would imagine very high velocities could be attained in this way.

Alcohol is broken down in the human liver. It is a several stage process. Each stage requires specific enzymes, which are produced by the corresponding gene. The first stage of breakdown leads to production of aldehydes. These are definitely not nice, and if remaining after we wake up, following an alcoholic binge, lead to serious nasty feelings called a hangover. We avoid said hangover when the second stage processes clean up the aldehydes. This requires different enzymes, and different genes. Certain people lack the genes making the enzymes for stage two. This means that the 'clean up' is slow. These guys get a hangover every time they drink alcohol, even with a good night's sleep in between. This lack of the important stage two alcohol clean up genes is common among certain Asians, apparently. Such people rarely drink a lot (I wonder why?) and almost never turn into alcoholics. I have seen a reference to this variation referred to as a superior genetic make up due to the apparent resistance to alcoholism.

To Mr Skeptic I have never actually seen that as a problem. I always envisaged cables (possibly superconducting) carrying electricity up and down the ribbon. As far as the original source of power goes, it could be anything from a nuclear fusion plant (remember that this technology is still well in the future) to giant solar panels placed on the stationary orbit portion of the elevator. For that matter, you could have solar panels sticking out of the elevator at almost all altitudes. To me the big problems are 1. Developing the technology 2. Getting the funding to put up the elevator in the first place.

Interesting question. 24 carat or 'pure' gold is extremely soft and malleable. Anything like a traditional parachute made from this material would rip and shred, and carry you screaming to your death. I would imagine that extremely careful engineering might allow a parachute 'wing' to be designed, with computer designed cantilevered supports, that might be strong enough. If such was possible, it would be tempting to take up the offer. But you would have to have an awful lot of confidence in the design team!!!! However, the answer to your question is that I would jump from a plane with the golden parachute, if it was folded up and tied to my body, while I carried a proper parachute on my back.

Alcoholism is a multi-factor ailment. A recent study found that the probability of becoming alcoholic increases if the first alcoholic drinks are consumed at an early age. Those who do not start drinking beer or wine till later have a lower risk. However, there is still a genetic factor. There is no gene for alcoholism, but there is definitely a genetic propensity to addictions of all kinds. Studies have found a correlation between widely different addictions such as alcohol and gambling. If you have the genetic propensity to addiction, you are a sucker for all kinds.

It would appear that nebulalord has not read all the objectively and empirically obtained data on current warming, and has been influenced into some erroneous conclusions. This does not mean he is stupid - just misled. The extinction event is currently under way. Sadly, it does not affect certain humans who really need their genes weeded from the population. Instead, they go on to become politicians.

Re : Extinction of Man. If we look at life on Earth 500 million years ago, we can say that each and every species is now extinct. However, there are more species on Earth today than existed then, and they are all descendents of the originals of 500 megayears. Humanity will disappear, of course. However, there is no reason to believe that we will leave no descendents. If, as many people believe, our species learns to achieve star travel, and colonises the 100 billion star systems of the Milky Way, then we will become almost immune to extinction. No event could possible wipe out all human populations. Given time, each population will give rise to differing descendent groups. Ultimately, these will no longer be human, and our species could be said to be extinct. Our descendents, though, will thrive throughout the galaxy.

nebulalord It disturbs me when someone prefaces his statements with "I believe" as though it were some kind of blind religious faith. This is the science forum, and most of us respect objective and empirical evidence as a source of belief. Much better for you to show that a belief you have is backed up by data. For example, you 'believe' that exercise is not good for weight loss. In fact, in this you are correct, since there is a lot of experimental data showing that moderate exercise stimulates the appetite, and the overall result is more fitness and greater health, but no net weight loss. More extreme exercise, however, causes weight loss (such as a marathon runner's schedule), and these guys have a real problem simply eating enough to maintain weight. On the other hand, there is no scientific evidence to support your belief that gentle exercise is better for weight loss. In this forum, I think most of us prefer good evidence, rather than an 'I believe' statement.

Just reading up on this subject. Wiki has some good articles. Quick recap. The space elevator is speculated to be a way forward in space travel. A ribbon shaped cable is hung from stationary orbit, and extends down to Earth. At the same time, another cable runs out into space for balance by supplying centrifugal action to hold the whole system taut. Special carriages ride up the cable into space, using electricity for power. This will cut the cost of launch into orbit massively. A space elevator out from Earth would start at the equator, and be 36,000 kms long to stationary orbit. The second part would go another 36,000 km further out, unless a substantial weight was on the end, providing the 'swinging stone on a string' effect. To get people up an elevator requires either massive radiation screening, or a very fast transit method - possibly magnetic levitation. A space elevator from the moon can be organised also, but has to go to the La Grange points rather than stationary orbit. This means an elevator almost twice as long as the Earth one, but has two advantages. 1. It does not have to go from the equator - from the moon's pole is possible, where there is more likely to be water for a moon dwelling, and permanent sunshine for solar power. 2. Due to lower gravity, it can be much lighter in mass, and less strong. A space elevator to Mars can be only 40% of the length of the Earth one due to lower gravity, and much less massy. I can see the possibility one day of all three elevators being set up, and a constant stream of traffic from Earth to the moon and back, using an ion drive 'ferry'. Earth to Mars and back is more difficult. However, it is theoretically possible to put a very large space vehicle into an orbit that swings from Earth orbit to Mars orbit and back, passing close to both planets. A smaller space craft would have accelerate to intercept at each end of the journey. The advantage would be a very large space habitat (space hotel?) for most of the trip (six months) with all the benefits of comfort, sanity etc., and only a small craft needed to accelerate to speed, with savings in fuel and reaction mass. How would this technology affect the future of humanity?