CaptainPanic

! Moderator Note studiot, The link that was removed went to a part of the Bible (I think). Unfortunately, the member Thomas Kelly guessed linked to that site for every reference (we removed multiple links in multiple threads). He created multiple posts that were something along the lines: What do you think about: (some text from the Bible) Link to religious website We call that spam. He should consider himself lucky that he wasn't banned. If it had been a commercial link, he would have been banned on sight. On behalf of all the mods, we're sorry that the removal of a source obstructs the discussion, but this forum is not a place where you can advertise your own websites. It is explained also in our rules (rule 2.7 specifically).

Shall we get back on topic? I don't see how AIDS, or the ecological footprint of Western people has anything to do with terraforming other planets. I say that because I think it is obvious that there are no deposits of oil, and the whole fossil economy will not work on another planet. Therefore, sustainable is the only way to go on another planet. By the way, I'm not speaking as a moderator. We have a rule that you either participate, or you moderate. Not both.

The moons of Mars The moons of Mars are too small to have any influence on that planet at all. Forget about those moons. The reason is that Deimos is only 1.48×1015 kg, Phobos is 1.072×1016 kg, while our own moon is 7.3477 × 1022 kg. Note how our moon is well over a MILLION times as heavy. The influence of moons on the planet they orbit is because of gravity. The moons of Mars are so small, than you might as well pretend they're not there at all. Overpopulation All of you are totally ignoring the argument by D H (here). Overpopulation is an argument against terraforming other planets (because we'd be wasting resources on space exploration rather than problems at home).

Wobble I'm no expert on wobbling... How many degrees of wobble could we expect to see on Mars? And what would be the frequency between a minimum and a maximum? Life can deal with seasons, and entire ecosystems can migrate (on a longer time scale, like ice ages), so some changes in the climate are acceptable. You can still have a working ecosystem. How bad is this wobble of Mars? Water Most of the sources (links) that are mentioned above only deal with how we could heat up Mars. Their plans go like this: - Heat Mars a bit - Some solid CO2 will enter the atmosphere - Mars gets a severe case of global warming, which in turn releases more CO2 - Plant some microorganisms, then tundra, then other plants. It is the last stage that I do not believe. Those first microorganisms will die, because there will not be enough water yet. You cannot plant any plants until the atmosphere of Mars is completely warmed up. I'll explain: I cannot find how these people plan to start the water cycle of Mars. Contrary to Earth, Mars is effectively a freeze dryer. (Earth is more like a reflux distillation or something - but that's irrelevant). We have liquid water which flows. We have liquid water that evaporates at the equator. But the Martian water just accumulates where it is coldest, and where the vapor pressure of water is lowest. Even during our Earth ice ages, the water levels of the oceans dropped significantly. Mars has far less water available, and much colder temperatures. There will be no liquid water. And with all the liquid/solid water reservoirs located at the poles, the water content of the atmosphere will never exceed that of the vapor pressure at the poles. So, the effect will be like you feel on a cold and dry winter day, inside the house. Because the air contains so little water outside, and because the temperature inside is high enough, your lips crack and your skin feels dry. Mars would be like that. All the moisture would be sucked out of every living cell. And once gone, it cannot be recovered. I believe (but I am no expert) that in order to get the water cycle of Mars to work, water must melt at the poles, and flow towards warmer areas, where is should evaporate. If it doesn't, all the water will just accumulate at the poles, and the rest of the planet will be a desert, with an air moisture content so low that life is impossible. Therefore, I believe that a greenhouse (with an artificially maintained amount of water in its atmosphere/soil) is the only viable option for growing plants.

! Moderator Note Another mod tip aimed at everybody (but nobody in particular). We have an etiquette on this forum. For your information, I have copy pasted two items from the etiquette which seem relevant here. Not for the topic, but certainly for the style of the discussion. doG, I am not going to answer questions related to moderation. Please use the PM, or the report button if you wish to learn more about our moderation. If any mod tips in this post are related to your question, that is purely coincidental (but hopefully useful too).

I cannot back up the following... this post I'm about to write is speculation. I think that some physical disabilities (like extreme short sightedness) might socially isolate kids. So, while the other kids are playing football outside for a few hours every day, the other kid has all those hours, every day again, to himself. That's a lot of study time, in which you can develop all kinds of skills by merely playing. The result of that is almost never anything extreme. I would guess that a significant part of the people I work with were socially relatively isolated as a kid... they were bullied and typically sucked at sports at a young age. That type of kid is really overrepresented in scientific circles. And that leads me to think that most of you might be on the wrong track. It's not a disability that makes the brain compensate and develop some new prowess. I think that the social isolation - however limited or extreme - gives the brain that one thing it needs to develop new skills: lots of time. But I am no expert. I have only one example: me. And I am no genius. I'm an engineer.

! Moderator Note doG, Athena, you both totally failed to change your position in this discussion. You both also still use a style that, to me as an outsider, sounds like you're trying to insult each other. doG, you said you weren't here to fight... and then 1 post later, you use a style which I think is insulting, and which shows that you have no interest to investigate the points Athena is making. Athena, the same goes for you. The second part of your last post has a strong undertone of insult. I propose you both just stop this thread. I don't wish to close this. But if you two cannot behave, you might as well stop it altogether. You're still completely stuck in your trenches. If your primary goal in this discussion is to win it, then I propose we close this thread. Are you here to win, or to discuss and learn?

There are lots of people who think it's crazy. But unfortunately, there are lots who think it makes sense too. We've moved our public opinion towards thinking that each and every death must be prevented at all costs. It's the idea of "safety first" gone over the top. In addition, the actual threat of terror has been greatly exaggerated. If the price of a human life is overestimated, and the chance of something going wrong is overestimated, then in a risk analysis, the current course of action makes sense. Also, it's obviously a brilliant lobbying that weapons manufacturers are able to sell airplanes that cost a billion each... or that they've convinced so many governments that they need a jet fighter that can take off and land vertically.

Oh, yes, that's science alright The water will evaporate, and that costs energy (which you provide in the form of heat). So, when you evaporate water, you're cooling down. That water will function exactly like sweat does in cooling you down. Sweat also evaporates, and thereby cools you down. If you are not completely dry after a shower, you basically leave some "artificial" sweat (water) on you. And incidentally, it smells better than regular sweat too. Normal water and sweat will work equally well in cooling you down. It's my opinion (this bit is not really science, or at least I am not so sure) that if you shower too cold, your body will heat itself up. Your heartbeat will go up, and you are not so calm anymore. So, if you go to sleep in that state, you generate so much heat that you will feel warm quite soon again, despite the cold shower. I'm no biology expert, but I believe I heard that men have a higher metabolism (we burn more fuel, create more heat) than women. But hopefully someone with more knowledge about that will reply here too.

Lots of questions! I'll try to answer a few. Getting to sleep, slowing your metabolism Personally, I try to calm myself down before sleeping, so that I fall asleep quickly. Once I am asleep, my metabolism drops and I am not so warm anymore. There is quite a large difference in your heat production between when you're sleeping and when you're awake. So, the "condition" you're looking for is actually just sleep. Do you have trouble falling asleep, or do you also sleep too light (and keep waking up)? In my opinion, these are two different things. Anyway, my preferred method is nothing fancy... I just read a book, preferably a boring one (I keep the entertaining ones for when I don't need to sleep). Books make me far more sleepy and calm than any computer game, movie or tv show can ever do. Materials in the bedroom I guess that the most heat transfer is by convection/diffusion, not radiation, so special materials will do very little. Adapting to heat Not quite related: I once saw a documentary about some Western Europeans who visited a desert salt mine (I think the documentary was called "The hottest place on earth" - I'm sure Google can find it for you). In that documentary, the Westerners worked in this salt mine, in really hot weather, and overheated in a matter of minutes. Then, they stayed in the area for a while, and tried again after getting used to it, a bit later. And they fared much better the second time. Their bodies had adapted to the heat in a matter of weeks. But I am not sure you want to adapt yourself in such a way... the people in the documentary had a doctor who told them when enough was enough. You probably don't have medical supervision. So, don't overheat yourself!

Update (this thread is 6 months old, but there is a new development worth mentioning) The study I linked to in the opening post has been repeated on a larger scale. Whereas the earlier study (of late 2011) only took a sample from the people of New Jersey, the latest study collected data from all the USA. The conclusion has not changed: and

! Moderator Note To everybody, and especially doG and Athena: This is a discussion forum. That means that you should attempt to understand the position of the other. What you are doing in this thread is called “fighting”. You have all dug yourselves in, and that makes any discussion impossible. Get out of your trenches, shake hands, try to understand each other, be flexible with definitions (but make sure you all use the same one), and be more polite. That is an order. And once again, this goes for everybody. Someone asked you to explain this statement further. The one given in the 5th paragraph of your opening post is apparently not good enough. Please do that when asked, or tell people that you can't, and agree to disagree, or stop the discussion altogether. You cannot order people around. Be more polite, or shut it. Take a good look at Greg H.'s post (post #5), which tries to say the same thing, but is a lot more polite and constructive. doG asked you the same question twice, albeit in a very blunt way. Please answer the question. Answering a question with a question is a way to avoid the answer... and that gets us nowhere. We are not here to win the discussion for you. There is a report button if you think a thread needs our attention. I'm disappointed that you are discussing in this way. It is obvious that you disagree on a number of definitions which are vitally important for this discussion. Yet, you choose to start fighting, rather than figuring out what your definitions are first. In other words: you do not know what you're talking about, but you still choose to talk. And surprise, surprise, it doesn't work. If you have any problems with my assessment of this thread, please take it up with me and other mods throught the report button.

Exactly. Your opening post kinda suggested you were stuck in such a "ideological confinement", and that you regarded your truth as the only truth (even though you referred to the Wall Street Journal as your source, indicating it was not your own opinion). I see I was mistaken in my interpretation of your opening post. The bit I quoted from you also explains why I think we cannot answer the question you asked in the opening post. Without a clear doctrine, without a reference point of who are the good guys, and who are the bad guys, we cannot even define who are the terrorists. I would be surprised if someone at the CIA would have a list of Al Qaida suspects. They may have a couple hundred... but nowhere near enough to validate the scale of operations of the last decade. Why is that? Because there is no global Al Qaida network. Al Qaida operates in the poorest countries on this planet. They lack all necessary resources to have any cooperation outside even their own region. So, will Al Qaida fail? I cannot answer that, because there never was such a thing. [edit: added a few more sentences]

Nice calculation, Ophiolite! 7 stars per year and 5 planets per star means 35 planets per year (or about one every 10 days!). That's a nice and tangible number. I love this kind of back-of-the-envelope calculations. Could it be that there are also planets forming away from a forming star? Could it be that interstellar gas/dust gathers to form a planet that does not have a star? Maybe I should ask: is there such a thing as interstellar material? And is that abundant enough to create a planet?

I do not understand your post. Regarding Iran Iran is a democracy... in the 1st part of your post, you seem to claim that a democracy is like some ultimate goal, and a solution. Yet, in the second part, you suggest the US might start fighting against an existing democracy (Iran). And Iran seems to be a functioning democracy too: For example, Ahmadinejad (that guy who wants to destroy Israel) lost the last elections. Certainly, it's not a perfect democracy. In the background, their religious leader pulls the strings, and there is a limited choice. But then again, the USA is no perfect democracy either: third party candidates do not stand a chance, and there is always the same limited choice too. So, Iran is already a democracy. What more do you want? And as far as I know, there is no proven link between Iran's government and Al Qaida. Certainly, Iran might see Al Qaida as a possible ally (the enemy of one's enemy is one's friend). But I guess they wouldn't call them terrorists, just like the Taliban guys were called Mujahideen in Rambo III. In those days, the "terrorists" were fighting the Soviets, so they were called "freedom fighters". They were the same people you are fighting now in Afghanistan (only one generation later). But once again, I haven't seen any convincing proof that Iran is related to Al Qaida at all. On a sidenote, I don't think Ahmadinejad is more fundamentalist than Santorum. The one wants to destroy Israel, the other wants to destroy Iran. Both are fundamentalist religious people. You Americans might want to clean up your own fundamentalist backyard first before starting another war overseas. Sorry if that's flaming... I tried to keep it as objective as possible. It might come as a shock to see a US presidential candidate compared to what some Americans might consider their #1 enemy. Regarding terrorism in general Your thread title suggests you were fighting Al Qaida, but instead, the US has been fighting the Taliban and the Iraqi regular army first. Both were not Al Qaida. Only later in the wars you encountered some terrorism, but that was only after the local governments were removed by the US. In fact, in two wars that cost the lives of possibly over a million people, you have only imprisoned a couple hundred real terrorists in Guantanamo. In fact, I have always wondered if Al Qaida really exists in the way that it has been described in some media. I mean, how can a bunch of guys with AK47s in a mountainous region of Afghanistan keep contact with another group in Yemen? They cannot coordinate anything between the different terrorist cells worldwide, and so far we have not seen a single coordinated attack. There is no Big Boss, like in James Bond movies. Bin Laden was living in a ordinary house. There was no secret lair. There were no advanced communication devices. At best, there was just the ordinary phone and internet network, both of which are monitored by the USA/NATO. And that was the King of Terrorists. I think that the threat of terror has been (deliberately) overestimated and exaggerated to be able to wage some wars.

It's, physics, biology, engineering or chemistry (it doesn't matter). Space colonization will not be a single-person project. It will be a team effort, and the team will consist of biologists, physicists, chemists, (bio)chemical engineers, electrical engineers, life science engineers, etc., etc. And if we ever start to colonize space in a more serious way, then I assure you that many universities will develop a master program, or even a complete faculty, related to this topic. But as of now, there is not a particular study with a major in space colonization. [edit]I made some comments about the previous topic title, which was confusing. But because imatfaal kindly changed the topic title, I have edited those out again.

The something that shoots out the end is still contained in some container. If you make that container stronger with tape, the bang will become louder. Such a container does not have to be air tight. If the gases that are created in the explosion cannot escape quick enough, the pressure will build up. At some point, the pressure will rip open the container (that actually all happens in a fraction of a second). But in the case of your air bomb, it seems that the pressure can build up even more (there is enough powder to make more gas)... so if you make the container stronger, more gas will be formed before the container breaks, and that bang will be louder. The original container it was in is already mostly closed

The stock market is already controlled by computers. Wikipedia has an article on algorithmic trading. It's a small leap to include some neural networks and self-learning algorithms. I haven't found any info, but I would not be surprised if this is already the case.

Everybody is free to post anything they want. There is no policy to shut up anyone here. The stuff we all learned in school is not 100% right. In fact, the more you learn about physics, the more you will realize just how little we know. However, you should accept that any new theory will be tested. And in science, we test things by attacking it... We will try to punch a hole in it, and if we fail to punch a hole in a new theory, then it might be something.

Well, Google does not give information, so you have 4 choices: 1. Email / phonecall to the manufacturer (the company that makes the glue). Just ask them. 2. Measure it yourself. 3. In case of a lack of information, just assume it is 1000 kg/m3. <-- not very scientific, but quite practical 4. Tell us the type of glue... and we try again.

Charles, Did you compare journal articles of cultural anthropology (behavioral studies of people) to those of animals? And are words different? Or do you compare journal articles about animals to popular language in the pub?

Europe does not have a single stand, and neither does the USA. In Europe, there are countries where 95% of the population believe in a god, and countries where as little as 16% believe in a god. And everything in between. I cannot find statistics for the USA, but I wouldn't be surprised if the range is just as broad. Since the religion is probably influenced by education, and all kinds of social issues, they should be seen nationally. And to be honest, I cannot be bothered to do that for the EU. Too many countries. What about the USA? Does the federal government have any influence on that at all? Could it even be that there is a single trend which is valid for the whole USA???

Dear Gordon Watson, I have removed your link to the other Science Forum, because I think it's only going to be confusing. However, I would like to point out that most answers to questions (basically our FAQ) can be found either in: 1. Our rules 2. Our etiquette 3. The BBcode (which is the same as Cap'n Refsmmat mentioned in his post).

You do that in order to avoid making a prediction for the back-end-production which is not possible because there is simply too little plant material. A balance avoids that problem. We have no direct measurements. We're talking about predictions and models here. The rest I already explained above.

ewmon, The OP talks about a budget of 5000$. You're talking about mining operations, and competing with industry... even if big industry wouldn't be popular, you still cannot compete with them with such a tiny budget. There are 2 problems here: (1) you cannot compete, but even if you could then (2) the initial investment is too high. Anyway, the Bhopal tragedy was in India, not Pakistan.