Phi for All

No, they'd rather no one corrected the misinformation they've been repeating, so they call it flaming.

I think it's clear there is no "proof". If you could even come up with scientifically valid supportive evidence for the existence of any god, that would be more than anyone else has ever accomplished.

If we're talking about a MacGyver-type cobble-up, multiple layers of radiant barrier might help under some kind of dive suit. If you wrap multiple layers of the reflective material, you just need a layering of non-conductive material between each layer so the metal layers don't touch each other. This would help you retain body heat better, and maybe you could figure out some kind of electric long underwear underneath it all.

You can separate any sentences you want to reply to by either using quote sentence /unquote tags (with [ ] brackets around quote and /unquote), or you can highlight the sentence and then click the "Insert quotation" button on the Reply to Post menu bar (third button from the right). You know how it is when someone's wrong on the internet. I was a TBH fan as a kid but not for Buddy. Partly for Irene Ryan who played Granny Clampett (OMG she was hilarious), mostly for Ellie May (any scene with her down by the "cement pond" was a hit with teenage boys).

The original guy ended up playing Jed Clampett, the patriarch of The Beverly Hillbillies, one of the most successful and highly rated TV sitcoms of all time.

Really? I heard he became a millionaire and moved to Beverly Hills.

The beginning of an investigation, not a methodology. Not the beginning of a methodology, the beginning of an investigation. An investigation is what we're beginning, as opposed to a methodology like you're misreading it to be. We can start an investigation at an arbitrary place as long as the methodology we use is sound. Using sound methodology throughout, where we begin an investigation can be chosen arbitrarily. False dilemma. You're assuming the direction is wrong simply because it was chosen arbitrarily. This really isn't throwing darts like you seem to think. If you're proposing an hypothesis, chances are you won't have a lot of choices where to start your investigation (indeed, you may have only one place to start). If there are multiple good places to start, why do you object to the starting place being chosen arbitrarily? I think you either have an overly rigid concept of the scientific method, or you misunderstand the idea of choosing from multiple, equally sufficient starting points by whim or personal preference. I think this point has been belabored into senselessness. The starting point to any scientific investigation should be in context to the investigation itself, and will most likely vary depending on the phenomena involved.

I agree. If platinum mined on Earth sells for $1500 an ounce, any platinum mined from an asteroid and brought back down to Earth is going to cost a great deal more. Unless it somehow has extra properties that Earth platinum doesn't have, why pay extra for it? And if you're not going to charge more for it, why bother to go offworld for it? The only profitable scenario I see for bringing it back to Earth will be a short-term one. I can see people paying more for jewelry or art made from "alien metals", but only until increased supply diluted the exotic nature of the purchase.

Again, can you provide some links to the studies you're referring to? I don't know of any psychology that puts reproduction above gratification. While evolution inevitably favors those who pass their genes along to the next generation, most individuals just have sex because it feels good. That seems completely valid to me, psychologically. Seriously? Most studies I've seen involving humans don't mention the drive to procreate as the main reason to have sex. Even in an evolutionary sense, sexual drives fulfill many other functions where the rewards are much more short-term. It's not as simple as just failing to put the desire there. Think of it like any physical system. It's easier to divert a force away from a certain area than it is to dam it up completely, or just fail to provide a force. This is especially true with something as strong as sexual desire. If you have a river that's going through an area you wish to protect, it's easier and cheaper to redirect the flow of water around the area than to remove the lake that feeds the river. And damming the river creates its own problems (not a perfect analogy, but then none are). I fail to see what you're arguing about here. You seem to suggest that homosexual humans are not valid members of the species because they can't procreate in the exact same way heterosexuals do. Yet you acknowledge that it's perfectly possible and acceptable for homosexuals to use other advantages humans have in terms of intelligence, cooperation, superior communications and tool use to work around the limitations of homosexual reproduction. It seems like you're making the parameters too rigid in order to point out a problem that really doesn't exist. As a minor side note, I object to your use of the term "Darwinian psychology". Evolutionary theory has advanced a great deal in the last 150+ years. Calling it "Darwinian" anything seems like an attempt to chain it to a time when it wasn't as deeply understood. You don't see relativity being referred to as "Einsteinian physics" or big bang as "Lemaitrian cosmology", so why insist evolution be associated only with its earliest understanding?

! Moderator Note montekristo, we simply don't let new members advertise their blogs or other websites through the use of discussion threads. It was clearly stated in the rules you agreed to when you joined. You are allowed to put a link to your site in your signature if you like. Please feel free to post your ideas here, and if they're speculative in nature or disagree with accepted science, please start your threads in the Speculations section. We encourage discussion and prefer that it stays here. Thanks for understanding and welcome to SFN.

I don't think the danger involved in bringing them out of orbit is worth any kind of prolonged project. The more you do it the more chances for disaster, especially when there will be plenty of need for precious metals in offworld applications.

! Moderator Note The personal attacks need to stop NOW, please. Attack the ideas, NOT the person who has them.

I don't share your concern. There are plenty of projected plans for asteroid mining that would bring the resources to offworld destinations. From the Planetary Resources website: AFAICT, bringing almost anything back to Earth would make it so expensive it would be worthless, even if it was a truck-sized chunk of platinum.

! Moderator Note Nobrainer, proselytizing is against our "no preaching" rule. Making assertive statements with no supportive evidence to back them up is also against our rules. Bringing religion into a speculative science thread is, you guessed it, against our rules. You agreed to follow these rules when you joined. Please review them here before any further posting. If you have any objections to this note, please report this post or PM a staff member about it. Do NOT further derail this thread by voicing objections here.

! Moderator Note Moved to Homework Help.

What's the valid explanation for heterosexual existence? If it's procreation, modern science does make it possible for homosexuals to have children. I've seen bloggers and religious leaders make that conjecture, but not a scientist. Do you have a link to any studies? Your logic sounds expensive in a biological context. It would cost more in evolutionary terms to stifle sexual desire than it would to redirect or broaden it. In a strict evolutionary, pass-your-genes-along kind of way, homosexual reproduction is limited. But the drive to raise children with a partner of your choosing is no less strong among same gender couples.

An arbitrary beginning to a scientific investigation and a sound basis for that investigation are NOT mutually exclusive. Please note that nobody suggested the entire methodology is arbitrarily handled, just that the beginning can be arbitrarily chosen. To use words that hopefully won't be misunderstood, it simply doesn't matter in most cases where you start your investigation, as long as the methodology used throughout is sound. And to be clear, arbitration is NOT related to arbitrariness, it's related to arbiter: one who settles a dispute.

Take your elephant to the edge of a 15' cliff, along with a mouse instead of an amoeba. They both scare each other and fall off the cliff. The mouse not only survives the fall but scampers off practically immediately. The elephant is broken and crippled, if not dead outright, because he is larger. And that's a more realistic natural occurrence than being beaten by a hammer.

Science thrives best when it can be shared among peers. You can study many resources alone, but you should always have a way to communicate and share with others studying the same things.

! Moderator Note Concept outside of mainstream science, thread moved to Speculations. Please take some time to read the special rules for that section.

Is this writing assignment for a science class or a writing/language arts class?

Define vision, please.

Are you purposely misunderstanding what's being written? That's the second time you've rewritten what someone else wrote. Bignose wrote, "Again, to me the starting point [of a scientific investigation] is rather arbitrary". HE DIDN'T SAY PREDICTION IS ARBITRARY. Perhaps your signature should read, "ask the question, get the answer, and then tailor your response to that answer by strawmanning it, and then claim you're correct because you refuted the wrong answer."

Oh well then, you had me completely fooled. I thought you took them seriously enough to join a science forum to ask for some advice. Do you mean "melt" or was that a parapraxis?

Having lived most of my life here in Colorado, it looks anything BUT alien to me. We have a great range of different terrain here, and I could probably drive to a place that looks similar in about an hour and a half . But you're right, the complete lack of vegetation is eerie, and anyplace I could find near home would have SOME scrub grasses in an area of that size. I'm struck almost speechless thinking that, ten years ago, I wouldn't have thought I'd soon be sitting at my computer zooming in on some rocks that were not only from Mars, but that were still on Mars. It just blows my mind and I feel very grateful that the society I live in felt this was important enough to invest in. Thanks to everyone who had anything to do with supporting this endeavor.