pwagen

It's not been done yet, but it's one of the ideas available for exploring the solar system if I'm not mistaken. Basically send a probe to some other star. When it's there, it gathers the material for building itself, and then sends then copies off to new stars. While this might be a little sci-fi, it's as far as I know a legit vision of future machines. This doesn't violate any laws of physics, but it's still somewhat into the future. For further reading (including some examples): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_machine

I think I understand how space itself is expanding (and not the galaxies simply moving further apart etc). But even acknowledging space is expanding "equally everywhere", wouldn't that still suggest everything was condensed in a single point, thus can be said to expand from there? Or is that just arguing semantics? For example, looking at the image on this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia....ansion_of_space namely this: http://upload.wikime..._(Galaxies).png Going back in time, those dots would be on top of each other, right? So can that position be said to be the place space is expanding from? Or would relativity kick in, so each point would see every other point moving away, right from the get-go, and each dot will always look like the origination of the universe no matter how you look at it? Sorry for the silly questions, but my head won't easily wrap around these things.

Wouldn't this require the space to expand from something though. I thought that was the whole foundation of the Big Bang theory?

I can imagine that if you find a way to access the clipboard history, you can take data from there and output to the screen when you press a certain key combination, which you define yourself. I can be wrong, but Dev C++ doesn't seem to have been updated in quite a few years. If you're sticking to Windows programming and are not too worried about portability at this time, I would strongly suggest getting Visual C++ Express. That way, you can also make use of the clipboard functions here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms648709(VS.85).aspx Visual C++ Express is a slimmed down version of Visual Studio. But for all intents and purposes, it should work for you. http://www.microsoft.com/express/Downloads/#2010-Visual-CPP

To my knowledge, an infinite universe doesn't go very well with an infinite one. Because if it's expanding, it's expanding from something. That means that it originates somewhere, and that means it's not infinite. I read some old 60s book on astronomy that suggested an "ever creating" universe, which is basically creating matter out of nothing at some point, and then expanding like we think our universe does at the moment. So I guess that would be a valid universe by your example, but there's not a lot to suggest ours is one of those.

My bad. I was trying to point out the fallacy of first cause present in creation (which is part of the topic). But I'll save that for when I get 30 posts. To rephrase; I don't see the loop in the scientific theories, since there seems to be a starting point and a straight line going up to present time.

Well, science has a pretty good grasp both on how the first particles were formed, as well as how the planets formed, as well as how they relate to each other. It all began around 13.7 billion years ago and hasn't repeated itself yet. Speaking of loops, who created God?

Theoretically I'd say yes. I don't know what kind of research is being performed in the field at the moment, but at any rate, we're very very far from being able to make wormholes for practical use, if it's even possible in practice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole

I really shouldn't even try, but judging from the pictures on the Wikipedia article I linked, I would say they're anaerobic. If my guess is accurate, a facultative anaerobic culture would be scattered in the whole tube. http://en.wikipedia....ative_anaerobic But then again, I could be colossally wrong! Edit: After reading a little in the article, I'm quite sure they're anaerobic. Air would hurt them, so they gather at the bottom of the tube to avoid it.

I don't know how the portal gun in the game works. But at least in theory, wormholes would be an option. Though they wouldn't require you to stick them to a wall, most likely. And to make one, you would probably need more energy than what is contained in a gun that size.

While I'm quite new (only a few days old here), here's my 2 cents. Compared to a lot of other forums I've been on, this one seems quite heavily moderated. Not in the bad way either, but there seems to be a general sense of control. I have no idea when you did this "software transition", but if it's taken as long as it seems, then coupled with the "heavy" moderation, there probably shouldn't be a need for it. Also worth remembering is that the people who come here probably do so to learn something, not express their unchaste vocabulary. And the few who do shouldn't be enough of a problem to warrant a filter (if it's a lot of work getting it in place). That's, at least, my opinions after being here for a day or two.

What you need to do to share that file with the world, is uploading it to a host. There are several free web hosts out there, and a simple Google search should yield more than a few. When you upload it to their servers, you usually get an adress like "www.freehost.com/yourUserName" (that link won't work though). That means that your file would be at "www.freehost.com/yourUserName/file.html". Having the file on your computer isn't enough, because your computer is pretty much closed off to the outside world. No offense, but it does sound like you could use some more reading up on how this works in general. Have a look here to get you started. http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4599939_web-hosting-work.html http://www.w3schools.com/hosting/host_intro.asp

I think the problem is you're assuming Saturn is a dot in the sky. Unlike far-away stars, the planets actually have a visible area due to being somewhat close. We can't see it with our naked eyes, but it's still there. So what you're doing with the telescope is not building a planet using nothing but a dot. You're simply enlarging an already existing area in the sky. Another thing that can cause a problem is that you imagine us travelling there through the telescope. This would require a very old view of how light works, to be true. A long, long time ago (and I guess some people believe this is the case today), people thought that light was "beams" emitted from our eyes. When it hit an object, we see it through that beam. This, naturally, is wrong. Light is emitted (or reflected) from objects, and then hit our eyes. Rather than us embarking on a journey there, through the telescope, imaging the telescope a tool for capturing the light that was reflected off Saturn. Hope that makes sense!

The evidence woul be anecdotal, would it not? The accelerator is a good idea, since it gives us the possibility to repeat the experiment in a controlled environment. Even then, we can only be reasonably certain the chalk moved. In some cases, this is enough. We're reasonably certain that if we drop an apple, it will fall to the ground. In some cases, we need to be absolutely certain. I can be wrong, but theoretical physics comes to mind. Or math exams.

Even though I'm not overly familiar with H3, I'll take a shot. The reason we're not going there is because, at present time, the costs are simply too high to motivate it. While there might be an abundance of H3 there, the cost of transporting everything needed there (tools, machines, a base perhaps), mining it, and then getting it back down here isn't worth it.

While I understand why they should be capitalized, what's the reason for underlining/italics?

Indeed. That's what happens when you quote from memory. I'm pretty sure Dawkins didn't mean to imply that biology was a simple subject.

I used ID instead of (I guess) artificial selection, not as the "theory" that creationists try to push into schools. I was afraid I.D. would come into the discussion sooner or later, so it was quite stupid of me to use it in that sense, thus bringing it in myself, and for that I apologize.

Going back to your original statement, "But all of these can be thought of as part of natural selection due to the inheritance of the traits from parent to offspring", I just had a discussion on MSN leading to that very conclusion. After that discussion, it seems not even the example of the peafowls can stray away from natural selection. To quote him, "the genes that produce the big tails in males are the same ones that make females like big tails". So even though it may seem the decision is artificial, it's actually a process evolved via natural selection. So basically, I can't really see how there would ever be a way around natural selection. I also realize it was a good idea I didn't become a biologist. Dawkins once said, I believe it was in a discussion with Neil de Grasse Tyson, something in the lines of "I think I'm more ignorant about your subject (astronomy) than you are about mine, simply because there is more to be ignorant about" (not exact quote, mind you). At the time, I thought he was right, but I'm starting to see biology is quite a complex subject in itself! And I'm growing more and more impressed with the people who actually understand the core of this. Edit: Found the discussion. Slightly misquoted him, but I hope the point didn't get lost

Like others have said, it's probably not a very practical idea. However, if you want to do a few things at the same time, I'm guessing a multi core processor would be a good idea, so each process gets their own core to work on. But even then, you probably wouldn't need more than a quad core (4 cores), because really, how many programs are you planning to run simultaneously? But then again, I'm not 100% sure how multi-cores work, in reality. As for your "click and it happens", get an SSD drive, as have already been mentioned. They are quite expensive per storage space you get, compared to normal ones. But a lot faster. To see just how fast, have a look at this demo: While you probably shouldn't expect that kind of insane performance without a ridiculously overpowered system, you should get an idea of the difference. The people I've talked to that don't have such a drive say it's not worth it. However, the people I've talked to that have one says it is, so I'm guessing one should take their word for it.

According to this link, that processor seems to be a 64 bit one. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103776

I see what you did there! Anyway, that's really fascinating. Makes me wonder how that got started. A colourful tail is a sign of a healthy individual, thus mating with that one would increase the chance of plenty of offspring? Does that mean we're back to natural selection again? Thanks for all the helpful replies guys, really cleared everything up for me

Can this be how, say, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peafowl developed their tails? It doesn't seem a large and colourful behind would be a good idea from a survival standpoint (easier to spot by predators, clumsy, makes you not as agile etc), so can it be argued that this came about by artificial (sexual) selection? The females preferring males with bright tails, making that trait prevalent despite being somewhat evolutionary detrimental? Edit: Hopefully fixed link

To my uneducated self, those sound to be just about the same thing. Will definitely have to read up on the terminology.

Yeah, I guess intelligent design in this case would be the same as artificial selection in this case? But thanks guys, I'm about to abandon my idea of thinking up an alternative to natural selection (and moving on to winning the nobel prize and take over the world). Just don't see it happening, because any way you look at it, it seems we always come back to it. Just no way around it, and I'm quite content with that. So cheers peeps!