CPL.Luke

how practical is that really though, even with a space elevator the cost of laucnhing 1 pound of water into space is $10, how many pounds of water would be needed to produce a measureable effect on the martian climate. ALso if there is hydrogen and oxygen on mars, couldn't we make our own water there?

why not just blow nukes where the co2 is and melt it? if there is any methane hydrate on mars the nuclear method could be used to release that into the atmosphere as well.

yourdad, what size nuke? a ten kiloton, or a hundred megaton bomb?

yip just heat the ground and grow some algea

no, look up the photovoltaic effect Edit: The higher the frequency of the light, the more energy the exiting electrons will have. The greater the intensity of the light, the more electorns will be scattered. your detector might not be looking at the higher energy electrons.

just bury the nukes underground, the heat will be trapped on the planet

heat and lots of it, it would speed up the heating process, allowing you to insert various other life forms on the planet to produce the oxygen and other such chemicals

why not just blow a few hundred nuclear warheads to heat up the planet fallout can only last a few years at most

I know that it takes about 10,000 years for a population of people with black skin to become a population of people with white skin (provided they are far enough north) and visa versa. so there must be some amount of time less than 100,000 years for humans to become multiple species.

if the europeans hadn't moved all over the world and started a regular genetic trade between different regions all over the world, how long would it have taken for homo sapiens to split into 2 or more species?

yourdad the presence of tech in these tribes is meaningless to the discussion, humans can make tools to survive. done. we weren't magicly put here unadapted to live in our natural enviroment

otters use tools. homo erectus used tools. I can make a spear pretty easily with things I find in the woods. (a good one) I could very easily make a club most people could make a fire. if not you could probably get away with eating raw meat (unless I am unfamiliar with something) yourdad you are forgetting about the dozens of tribal cultures that survive every day without technology.

well I can't see time being dilated more in one direction than anouther. So I would say that it just dilates relative to you. however if the object moved at a angle to you, then you would have to solve out for its velocity relative to you at all times.

from a marketing meeting at the discovery channel executive "so 9/11 is coming up, how do we make money" I know its a cynical viewpoint and that the show tells an important story and is no doubt interesting, but I still don't like what must be going through the mind of some of these executives.

I suppose no one would want to publish special relativity then as it broke the aether. let alone GR that overturned newtonian gravity. and everyone would have flat out denied the validity of the double-slit experiment that showed wave particle duality or even before that de-broglie waves would have been laughed at.

buzsaw if someone could prove beyond a doubt that evolution was wrong or that any part of creationism was right every scientific journal in the world would want to publish them.

it looks like he's creating websites taht advocate thedisrespect of soldiers returning from iraq, among other things.

What do you think a statement is?

why would I enquire such a thing?

that does not support your case, that proves your the only person on the internet who makes mention of the "eliptical constant" furthermore with this in mind you may want to consider the fact that very few people will google for eliptical constant. and finnaly you should consider that I can get google to look at one of my posts as well just quote a significant portion of text from one of my posts and you'll find that google will bring up a post of mine. this proves nothing. finally respond to the criticism that was given to you

will you make a direct statement ever?

proof of one, you didn't comment on any of his points refuting your theory...

variable speed of light theory. It was proposed as an alternative to inflation and postulates that the speed of light was far faster than it is now several billion years ago. there was an article published in sciam about it a few years back.

anybody know enough of VSL theory in order to say if it solves any problems or not?

there's a new thread button at the upper left hand corner of the interface... you have to create your own thread...