CBC

Periodic bouts of starvation have also been proven to slow aging in rats.

Actually Frontline did a show on this a few years ago and they found that PBA #'s were four times higher than what women's rights groups were claiming. I think the number was around 1200 in the U.S. Half of which were not carried out for medical reasons. I have no idea what current statistics are though.

It was the community that chastised and ridiculed Shoemaker for the idea that meteorites strike earth. Many astonomers agreed with him but were unable to speak up due to peer pressure and non-progressive thinking. We are there now, but what causes it to be an uphill struggle. If it was pure science rather than ego we would have been there long ago. I did not reference Newton by the way so making it appear as if I did and chastising me for it warrants a second review, by you, of my first comment thread. Darwin was influenced to the extent of exluding the word man from his "On the Origin of Species", but did not alter his data from including man.

We in America today live in an oligarchy. Democracy died when the impotance of money replaced the desires of constituents. The idea that a son can be president after his father in a "democracy" of 250 million people is an insult. Democracy is always in danger, the fore fathers of this nation understood this. When we lose it, we will understand it as well.

I did not state that science can be free of politics. I said that a true scientist does not allow politics to dictate results of his/her data. Sometimes at a cost. There is a large difference between receiving a budget allocation motivated by political influence, and a scientist skewing their data to please their patron.

I believe a unified earth would be the best advancement for space exploration. Unfortunetly it is the least likely of developements.

I've known people who conduct research for money, some for prestige in the scientific community and beyond. Only a few for the sake of relieving suffrage. Most "get tired of it" due to the politics they encounter. It is hard to maintain enthusiasm when your budget is cut, because your results are not what others want to hear. Does every one of the criteria I mentioned need to be met to make a scientist, no. But I do believe that a person that tries to adhere to higher ethical principals deserves the title. In the past "Scientist" was a much honored term. The title does not inspire what it did just thirty years ago. Within recent history I have seen cases of falsified data, probes lost due to rushed programming, shuttles with crew lost due to incompetence, drugs released to the public with side effects more harmful than the disease, etc.......Where does it end? It ends with a scientist that adheres to the principals I previously covered. The degree should not be the sole identifier of a scientist. Nor the position they hold.

String and shelves do not elicit the interest nor the budgets that large hulking machines (that use massive amounts of energy) do.

Working on a B.S in geology and biology. I was in the infantry, worked as a lab tech for a Pharmaceutical company, and 5 years in Industrial Waste Water as an Asst. Mgr. What qualifies Scientist? Only an insatiable desire to seek for the truth using proven methods, refusing bias or political influence, and dedication to the furthering of knowledge for the betterment of mankind. Though they may not undertand that is what you are doing. As Galileo, you must be willing to suffer for the sake of truth.

Actually I saw the result on Discovery. They were able to float a frog, an apple, and some other objects that would fit inside the 4inch diameter of the aperture. The device was was the size of the building and required the power of a small town/city to operate.

Anti-Grav and Anti-Mass are synonamous. Anti-mass experiments have been performed by creating an intense magnetic field around an object freeing it of the effects of gravity (this was done terrestrialy). Though I really don't believe "anti" is the proper term for the absence of, but should instead be reserved for things that come into conflict or stand in opposition.

1) Even if the plasma stream was directed towards an object with a greater mass? I understand that the initial energy cost would be massive, but could the resulting energy travelling the length of the field be harnessed to continue to fuel the field? I understand this would only be an "in system" propulsion device due to the necesity of solar interaction.

There are three questions I would like to pose, remembering that I am no expert: 1) Why is it not possible to create an artificial magnetsphere around a spacecraft and then focus the resulting charged ion plasma stream as a form of propulsion? 2) What effect will the changing Earth's magnetsphere have on near collision objects trajectories, like Toutatis, which have their own chaotic pole fluctuations? 3) Is it wise to allow the comet sample from Wild 2 (probe:Stardust) to land in the Utah desert in 2006 , when it could be possible for some form of life to have originated in the highly irradiated spaceways? Why not put the spacestation to a purpose for which it is ideally suited? Please feel free to offer answers/ideas to some or all of my questions.