ydoaPs

Our politicians are children who are more interested in winning than helping people.

In both Star Trek and Stargate, life throughout the galaxy was seeded from life evolved on Earth.

His name on here is Rakdos and he doesn't post much. HERE is a list of administrators and moderators for the forums.

It would be so small it wouldn't be able to suck anything up even if it had the necessary gravitational pull. It would have so little mass, it wouldn't be able to suck anything. So, nothing would happen. You probably wouldn't even know it happened.

Not necessarily. Surely many space faring civilizations would have the technology to have a constant acceleration near that of the gravitational acceleration their species evolved with. Especially since even at 1g, relativistic speeds are reached well under a year. If said civilizations evolved in a gravity well, it's likely that they've become dependent upon gravity biologically. For example, our species has several issues with sustained zero g. For such a species to ween itself off of gravity, it would need actual evolution. Who said the target planet would be Earth size? What if the species evolved on a smaller planet like Mars or a moon like Luna and prefers lower gravity. And an elevator couldn't be rigged from orbit? Lower down habitats etc and have a shipyard anchoring the elevator in orbit. That also lessens your issue with the fuel requirements of a planetary launch. Also, you're ignoring the fact that the civilization may want to stay a while. And they'd require loads of course adjustments. Not to mention the near constant course correcting during the actual mining process. They're no more iffy than using up all your fuel pulling up to asteroids that may or may not have fuel components. Why assume a target of a life-bearing world? Also, modular design of the space craft combined with the elevator idea above is an easy fix to your contaminant idea.

Who said anything about going from a planet. Sure you could, but it wouldn't be necessary for a long time. Also, you get vastly more materials and fuel from planets than from asteroids. Launching once or twice vice slowing down, maintaining a course identical to the path of the asteroid, and then returning to cruising speed thousands of times. I'm pretty sure the planet way is much more benefit for much less cost. Feel free to do the calculations, though.

Planets are large sources of materials and habitats. The method you describe would use vastly more fuel than plotting a course to a new planet and colonizing there. You'd have to slow down and match speed and direction of the asteroids you would want to harvest and then you'd have to use more fuel to get back to speed and move onward to your next asteroid.

Quite so. See the Binding Energy Per Nucleon curve. Up until about Iron, the binding energy increases as the total number of nucleons increases. That means that fission would typically cause a release of energy.

What if they didn't use the signals. What if their form of life was so different, that they wouldn't even recognize us as life at all? Try reading Speaker for the Dead and the subsequent novels for a good example of something similar. Why assume they would even use EM signals? 5000 stars isn't even enough to assume there would be ANY life on one of them let alone intelligent life. Assuming intelligent life, why would they be anywhere near our level of technology? Why assume they would have similar technology? It wouldn't be that hard. I really didn't like Xenocide and Children of the Mind. Sneeze Nukes DO work in space. They don't require an oxidizer. And guns that work underwater should work in space.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/definat-pastors-irs/story?id=11726610&page=1 Several pastors across the USA are deliberately trying to lose their tax exempt status by recording sermons and sending them to the IRS. They are doing this so that they can then file lawsuits to challenge the constitutionality of the tax-exempt status restrictions. They say that it is unconstitutional because they have freedom of speech. I, however, think they severely misunderstand the situation. While they most certainly do have freedom of speech, they do NOT have the freedom of unconditional tax exempt status. If they fail to meet the conditions for the privilege of being tax exempt, they do not get that privilege. It is really that simple, IMO. No one is being censored and no one is being interfered with by the government, so I don't think either freedom of speech or separation of church and state are relevant at all. I'm pretty sure that any competent judge would agree with me. You must meet the prerequisites to get the benefits of any other government program; this program is no different. What do you guys and gals think?

fact

[18:49] <Capn_Refsmmat> I'd prefer he read into it what he won't read into it [18:50] <Capn_Refsmmat> it's more fun when people do what they don't do

Is there something you'd like to discuss? We typically frown upon simply linking to other sites.

Here's a good video on Prop 8 by one of my favourite YouTubers: VPSKojRWRV4

You know that android users have less sex, right? I guess that wasn't the droid you were looking for.

Your question assumes that God exists.

What does that have to do with God?

Soft shoes shuffle?

Yay, BEER!

Evidence, please.

I have no clue what you just said.

I do? Thanks for informing me.

Admitting you have a problem is the first step. Good luck with your scienceahol addiction. Welcome to the forums.

Not to mention the leap from "can't be explained" to "God did it!" is as unjustified as the leap from "can't be explained" to "Aliens did it!". Being unexplained just means it's not explained. By definition, being unexplained, means "God did it!" isn't an acceptable explanation.