We have plenty of other launch vehicles: Scout, Delta, Atlas, and Titan. Altas and Delta are capable of putting payloads into geosynch orbit (although Delta can only put something into a high eliptical orbit, so the payload must be able to take itself to true geosynch). All of our launch vehicles should be easily capable of reaching the Hubble.
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that there's any issue in reaching the Hubble. I'm saying that we don't currently have a craft capable of "nudging" the satellite out of orbit without turning it into so much scrap metal.
If NASA isn't willing to spend the $600m to refurb the Hubble (most of this cost is the shuttle launch itself), their -only- deorbit option is an unmanned launch.
As far as I'm aware, it's the Shuttle that's been servicing the Hubble. Given that the Hubble is incapable of changing its own orbit (who thought up that one?), wouldn't a stopover by the shuttle make sense? Even if they do use an unmanned vehicle, that's still vastly different than a vehicle capable of boosting the satellite out of orbit.
> I don't think it has thrusters at all. It has a series of > gyroscopes inside the hull, for pointing.
In that case, it would take a shuttle mission to decommission the Hubble as it would lack the necessary hardware for a de-orbit burn.
> I think that by 'nudge', he meant send an unmanned vehicle to push the scope.
That would most likely be a no-go. You'd need an extremely sophisticated craft in order to match velocities and orbit, then begin a powerful enough burn to overcome the Earth's pull. The only powerful enough rockets we have today, are ballistic missiles for satellite launches. NASA did once conceive of an automated "space tugboat" to move satellites in and out of higher orbits. Unfortunately, it wasn't as economical as ballistic rockets and no one wanted to repair old satellites. As a result, the tugboat was never built.
> Personally, I'm all for nudging hubble out away from the > plane of earth's orbit and just letting it float away and > keep observing until it totally dies.
I seriously doubt that Hubble has enough reaction mass to send it out of orbit. In fact, the Hubble most likely uses some form of OMS (Orbital Maneuvering System) thrusters to change orbit. These thrusters are very weak and are good for adjusting your rotation or changing the ellipse of your orbit. Changing the path of an orbit can potentially send a craft into a downward spiral that would (eventually) result in atmospheric contact.
> The vapor canopy theory of the global flood predicts a > sterile earth, and thus can be discarded on the basis of > the evidence.
Fair enough. I'm glad someone has been doing their homework around here.:-)
As always, there are problems with any theory. A quick Google for "Canopy Theory" will in fact bring up many debates back and forth that this theory is not a valid one. Many will explain that they think the "Hydroplate theory" is far more feasible. Others will argue that the two theories could be combined to explain the amount of water plus longer life spans. Some will reply that the longer life spans could be explained by stronger magnetic forces alone. And yet others will state that the "Hydroplate theory" violates a few laws of physics.
And what does this all come back to? My original statement that we don't really know yet where all the water came from, but theories do exist. These theories run into the same issues as any other scientific theory. (e.g. Where are the missing links? Why is the geologic column out of order in some areas? etc., etc., etc.) Geologists will debate on, and maybe one day we'll have a nearly irrefutable theory. Until then, we'll just have to keep watching the debates!:-)
> Because a shell of water around the earth would have > steam-broiled everything on the ark when it collapsed.
I'm not quite sure how you came to that conclusion. In order to "steam-broil" the ark, the water would have needed to maintain an extreme temperature *as it was falling*. Yet it couldn't fall if it was still up to temp.
That's a bit like saying that ice can't form on a lake because it would fall the bottom and crush all the fish. As one of the odd inconsistencies in our universe, ice floats despite being more dense than water. In the same way, water allows dense air pockets (bubbles) underwater. In fact, if water didn't have all kinds of weird properties, our universe couldn't support life.
> Somehow Red Hat manages to have a slick graphical > installer with more useful features than you can shake a > stick at.
And somehow RedHat has more money than Debian and fewer platforms (by far!) to support.
I don't understand why on one hand everyone proclaims that one of the greatest features of Linux is its diversity, and then on the other hand try to crucify a system for not being like all the others. Am I missing something?
> That's why it would be quite pleasant if we had the option to do both.
Three words: Duplication of Resources
Debian doesn't have the same commercal backing as RedHat (read: $$$). As a result, they lack the manpower to develop multiple installer solutions. I'm sure everyone on the Debian team would *like* to have multiple installers, but it just isn't reasonable.
If you want a graphical installer, stop being an armchair quarterback and go develop it.
Try "RTFA". They state that the installer needs to work for every type of screen output from a GeForceFX to a serial cable. Being that the serial cable is the lowest common denominator that they had to support, they designed the installer as a simple text mode interface.
Amen brother! FreeBSD still uses a text mode installer, and I have to say that I don't feel like I'm missing anything. Not sure about XP, but even Windows NT/2000 does the initial install from a Curses-like interface.
Hardware auto-detection is pretty much a requirement for any modern operating system. I remember having to set up all my hardware back in the day, and it's not an experience I'd like to repeat.
I must really be pissing a few people off. The moderation system is getting abused left and right to mod down these posts. The big question is, is it evolutionists who don't want to learn to get along with creationists, or is it creationists who don't want strong scientific debate?
I can't do anything about the former, but if it's the later, hear this mods: "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." -Galatians 5:14
Other men may choose to make me an enemy. But I choose to turn the other cheek and offer a hand in friendship.
And BTW, my original post was speaking to the point of the work being completed in a very short time, thus showing up a lot of other scientists. It was merely a comment on how amusing that is. But it seems that the mods have a vendetta to kill any and every post that doesn't fit the "SlashBorg" collective mind. Next thing you know, we'll see trolls getting modded up.
...it just all falls into place. It's funny how people can spend years and years worth of man hours on solving a problem, then one guy comes along with an intimate understanding and solves the problem in a few hours. It's especially fun when you *are* that person.:-)
One of my favorite examples of this is the System.out problem in Java. There's only one System.out stream, but you might be running multiple threads that should all have their own log. To date, I have seen people do everything from rewriting bytecode on the fly to replacing the System class. Then I run into a situation where I REALLY need this fixed, and I come upon the idea of using ThreadLocals. Very simply, I replaced the output stream with my own. My own stream uses a ThreadLocal for each thread (and its children) to get the proper output stream. All output written to my custom output stream is then redirected to the correct stream. Bam! Problem solved.
"I just love it when a plan comes together" -Colonel John "Hannibal" Smith
> Regardless of who was building what, the people of that > time still had nowhere near the concept of time, space, > physics that we do now.
My point is that you shouldn't be so sure about that. It wasn't until the 20th century that we caught up with the Romans and Greeks. Archimedes, for example, was far better at math than anyone prior to the 20th century. His revelations into geometry were the basis for modern geometry.
> However you *did* say that evolution is a random theory.
No, it's not a "random" theory. It's simply a theory that has evolved based on the original assumption that many animals are similar, therefore there must be a logical chain or "evolution" to the appearance of the species. That's a great theory, but until it can be proven, it's still a theory.
> However that interpretation is always constrained within > bounds of rational thought. Ideas like "God snapped > fingers and *POOF* these creatures appeared" and "a > catastrophic flood created all the Earth's sedimentary > rocks" are just ludicrous.
I'm not stating that "POOF, everything appeared". I'm simply stating that the scientific community is teaching a lot of theories as "fact" even though it hasn't been proven. This is BAD science! And as I stated before, the Earth may very well be older than 6000 years. My only statement is that I believe that MAN plus the modern life we see today, has only been around for 6000 years.
As for there being life before 6000 years ago, that is a possibility as well. Several Biblical scholars have been trying to puzzle together references to multiple worldwide floods. Their current conclusions state that there was a thriving Earth prior to our creation that was ruled by Lucifer. (The former Arch-Angel turned devil for those who know the Bible.) Thus we have "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Then you have the time frame which is irrelevant to us (as we didn't exist), the destruction of the Earth by flood, then "And the Earth was without form and void. And God moved upon the face of the waters." You know the rest.
> You see, that's the problem right there! Supporting an idea using unverifiable data.
You're confusing statements I make based on belief vs, statements I make on science. I *believe* that we humans today have only been around for 6000 years. That brings up the questions of, "Who were the Neandrathals? Were they apes, diseased humans, or some other form of life? Are they the Nephillim the Bible speaks of? Or perhaps they were our predecessor species that was wiped out in the previous theory." These are questions that are being theorized on. The creationist's theories are no less valid than the evolutionist's theories. Neither has been proven, so there's still a lot of room for HONEST debate.
> Substitute bible for internet in that statement, and it's the same.
The really amusing part is that most people miss the purpose of the Bible. It is not a science book or a "how to on everything". It is simply a recording of Jesus's lineage. That is its sole purpose. God threw a lot of extra clues in there to help us out in a scientific fashion, but he certainly didn't try to explain Quantum Physics to us.
> So I've been reading your replies in this thread
As the nice yellow "enemy" icon informs me. I happily made you a friend just for the hell of it.:-)
> You are basically saying that a book A) that was thrown > together by humans a couple thousand years ago B) in a > time when most still thought the world was flat was the > center of the universe is C) just as good as any theories > that modern man has come up with today? That is just > asinine!
How do you know that they believed the world was flat? The Bible certainly doesn't state it. The "flat" world model was an invention of the middle ages. Many things had to be rediscovered due to the impact that the fall of Rome had on science and philosophy. Before that, the Egyptians were building pyramids, the Greeks were figuring out how to use a lever on the earth, and the Romans were building aqueducts and computational devices.
Perhaps the original Atlas image was a large flat surface on his back, but I've always seen it as a globe. Interestingly A quick google search for "was atlas holding a globe or a flat earth?" comes up with this Biblical opinion.
> You say the big bang theory is completely random
Eh? I did? Where?
> I say these verifiable historical records are recorded > plain as day in the rocks surrounding all of us!
I agree. Do you know how to interpret them correctly? I'm glad you do, because there are a LOT of geologists fighting over that very point.
> And, don't even get me started on the age of the Earth.
I have not and will not state that the Earth is 6000 years old. However, if we interpret the Genesis account correctly, human beings are probably about that age.
> Basically what I'm saying is what ever happened to > rational thought based on factual data?
Good question. I'm game if you're ready to act rationally.
> Except that molar quanitity is what will be preserved
No argument there. But the realistic problems are transportation and amount of drinking water. We're assuming that oxygen can be cracked easily, so that leaves the problem of transporting hydrogen. For transportation to the moon, launch weight is what matters. The launch cost of hydrogen to water would a ratio of 1:9. The resulting molar quantity doesn't matter because we only care about how many resulting liters of drinking water are produced.
I'm taking exception with your ignorant tripe hinting that big bang is somehow less believable than "poof, a god just made it all". And don't give me some crap that I sorely misunderstood what you said, because that's not my problem - I'm merely responding to what you DID say.
Umm... huh? I DID say two lines asking why a shell of water around the Earth was any harder to believe as a theory than the current theory of multiverse collisions. Perhaps there was a miscommunication here?
> Also, the waystation idea is far from a proven winner > unless you've got materials flowing both directions.
Well, that's kind of the point. The moon couldn't survive without mining and industry beginning in earnest. With a small nuclear reactor plus basic industrial equipment, the moon could mine many of materials needed for various construction and use a mass driver to send materials down the gravity well.
> Huh? There's the small matter of velocity matching.
Velocity matching with what? Perhaps I'm missing something here, but the aim is for either earth or moon orbital insertion in all cases. The final velocity can be adjusted by slowing a craft and beginning a retro burn.
> more like 0%. The boiloff would get you in a matter of > days, nit months.
Eh? I don't know a whole lot about hydrogen transportation, but only a small amount can leak through a well designed container. Saying that it would be gone in days seems extreme. But let's say you're correct for a moment. In that case, the moon could send oxygen down, the water could be combined in lower orbit, and water could then be sent up. You wouldn't even need a tank for water as you could freeze it and mount the blocks on the engine structure.
> This stuff isn't rocket science. You are so far of it's just > plain stupid. Do you even know how many protons > oxygen has?
Oh, cut me some slack. I'm thinking H2O, but I'm thinking 2O instead of H2. If I'd written it down, I'd have realized my mistake immediately. And according to my periodic table, Oxygen has 8 protons and neutrons. No isotopes are listed (not surprising given its low atomic number). It's atomic weight is 15.9994. Yet that still doesn't tell me the realistic output of water to hydrogen. According to the atomic weight, I should get ~13 times the water for the amount of hydrogen I add. Yet a previous poster said it was 9 times. So, I simply make guesstimations and state them as such. Better to err on the conservative side.
> How and why? ISS is in the wrong orbit for efficient lunar > transfers, and is in no way designed as lunar waystation. > It can barely function asw a microgravity lab.
No one says the orbit can't be changed. The original intent of the space station was as a lunar waystation. Clinton helpfully killed that idea and now we have to make due. The only reason I suggest it, is because using a waystation is still cheaper than using a Saturn 5 to get hydrogen to the moon.
> Ion engines do have a high specific impulse, but also > have very low thrust and require lots of power. Even a > small spacecraft like SMART-1 is taking months to get to > lunar orbit on an ion engine, and you've got this little > bitty spacecraft with big solar arrays.
Think "atomic power". Thus the tanks could be strapped onto a big engine and thrusted toward to moon. There would be no real craft. Plus, atomic power means that it could be redirected back to the waystation and used again. Have enough of these en route, and you can keep up a constant stream of hydrogen.
> It's not at all clear that this is the way to go - to get > efficient H storage, you'd have to havea cryo container, > and that's going to mean some finite leakage rate, and > that means short trip times are essential.
No, cost is essential. If it costs less to deliver a larger load where only 80% of the original payload makes it, then we'll send hydrogen tanks that loose 20% of their hydrogen. Using a high speed chemical rocket is tremendously expensive.
> Yeah...darn those rational people who believe in something that's actually been prove
How is it rational to believe something has been proven when it hasn't? Evolution is still a theory. And a theory with a lot of holes. Until someone reproduces it in a lab AND explains the missing geological record AND shows why the DNA is so different between "related" species AND explains why Vestige organs/DNA is missing AND fills in the thousands of other holes, evolution will continue to be nothing but a working theory. And you know what the best part about the evolutionary theory is? There are so many to choose from! Survival of the fittest, spontaneous mutation, long term adaption, etc. And we just keep chucking these theories out looking for one that will find why we can't find the necessary proof for the previous ones!
> Let's believe in something that was written down in some > book a couple millenia ago instead a logical and factual > model of life.
It's just as good as a random theory about evolution. At least that book contains verifiable history records.
Truth be told, you can believe what you want to believe. I am not stopping you or saying that you should convert to my belief. Passing theories off as proven fact tho, is completely out of whack. You know what frustrates me the most? If you do a search on the net for "Is evolution a theory or fact" you get the Christian side which attempts to poke holes in evolution and you get the Atheist side which attempts to use other theories (such as the Geologic column) to state that evolution is a theory based on facts. What you don't get, is a scientific discussion on the theory in general and what parts make sense, what parts are known, and what parts require other theories to be proven.
I submit that the entire Evolution vs. Creation is bad science and that NO progress will be made on determining the origins of life until people overcome their emotional attachments.
> Typically clueless and insecure in your little fantasy > world. If you really understood the big bang theory you'd > realize that it's much more palatable to the idea of a > supreme creator than the "eternal space and time" idea.
And yet, you haven't explained to me WHY the Earth couldn't hold a shell of water. Hint: The atmosphere contains oxygen, and the Sun is throwing hydrogen at us. That's where all the water came from in the first place.
Remember, it's only a THEORY. One which is still being tested. That's what science does. If you have a problem with THEORIES than why do you even attempt to mention science?
> Explain to me then why I shouldn't believe in the gnomes > idea instead of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, or > whatever else is out there?
Did I say you should? No, you assumed that I was saying that, and you then took it upon yourself to make insulting and inflammatory statements.
Whether a flood happened or not is still a matter being decided. Much of science believes it was an Ice Age instead. Well, that's their theory to test. But if a flood happened, it in no way forces you to believe that God made it happen. In fact, I'm willing to bet that a chain of natural events could be found. Considering that I believe God created the Universe, there's no reason I should not believe that he wouldn't make it function according to the rules he laid down for it.
Oh, and just because I want to fsck with your head for a minute, who says that "God" is not an extra-dimensional being that is responsible for the multiverses colliding? We don't know what the laws of physics might look like in another multiverse! Not to mention that we still don't have a clue what caused the "bang" in the first place. The multiverse theory helps in that it at least gives a trigger for the initial bang.
But you know what? This is all intellectual. No one is forcing you to believe that God exists. I'm merely stating that the Bible may be more historically accurate than many believe.
Slashdot Mirror
We have plenty of other launch vehicles: Scout, Delta, Atlas, and Titan. Altas and Delta are capable of putting payloads into geosynch orbit (although Delta can only put something into a high eliptical orbit, so the payload must be able to take itself to true geosynch). All of our launch vehicles should be easily capable of reaching the Hubble.
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that there's any issue in reaching the Hubble. I'm saying that we don't currently have a craft capable of "nudging" the satellite out of orbit without turning it into so much scrap metal.
If NASA isn't willing to spend the $600m to refurb the Hubble (most of this cost is the shuttle launch itself), their -only- deorbit option is an unmanned launch.
As far as I'm aware, it's the Shuttle that's been servicing the Hubble. Given that the Hubble is incapable of changing its own orbit (who thought up that one?), wouldn't a stopover by the shuttle make sense? Even if they do use an unmanned vehicle, that's still vastly different than a vehicle capable of boosting the satellite out of orbit.
> I don't think it has thrusters at all. It has a series of
> gyroscopes inside the hull, for pointing.
In that case, it would take a shuttle mission to decommission the Hubble as it would lack the necessary hardware for a de-orbit burn.
> I think that by 'nudge', he meant send an unmanned vehicle to push the scope.
That would most likely be a no-go. You'd need an extremely sophisticated craft in order to match velocities and orbit, then begin a powerful enough burn to overcome the Earth's pull. The only powerful enough rockets we have today, are ballistic missiles for satellite launches. NASA did once conceive of an automated "space tugboat" to move satellites in and out of higher orbits. Unfortunately, it wasn't as economical as ballistic rockets and no one wanted to repair old satellites. As a result, the tugboat was never built.
> Do you think Taco Bell might set up another target for it to hit.
And maybe this time they can even put it inside the target area!
> Personally, I'm all for nudging hubble out away from the
> plane of earth's orbit and just letting it float away and
> keep observing until it totally dies.
I seriously doubt that Hubble has enough reaction mass to send it out of orbit. In fact, the Hubble most likely uses some form of OMS (Orbital Maneuvering System) thrusters to change orbit. These thrusters are very weak and are good for adjusting your rotation or changing the ellipse of your orbit. Changing the path of an orbit can potentially send a craft into a downward spiral that would (eventually) result in atmospheric contact.
> The vapor canopy theory of the global flood predicts a
:-)
:-)
> sterile earth, and thus can be discarded on the basis of
> the evidence.
Fair enough. I'm glad someone has been doing their homework around here.
As always, there are problems with any theory. A quick Google for "Canopy Theory" will in fact bring up many debates back and forth that this theory is not a valid one. Many will explain that they think the "Hydroplate theory" is far more feasible. Others will argue that the two theories could be combined to explain the amount of water plus longer life spans. Some will reply that the longer life spans could be explained by stronger magnetic forces alone. And yet others will state that the "Hydroplate theory" violates a few laws of physics.
And what does this all come back to? My original statement that we don't really know yet where all the water came from, but theories do exist. These theories run into the same issues as any other scientific theory. (e.g. Where are the missing links? Why is the geologic column out of order in some areas? etc., etc., etc.) Geologists will debate on, and maybe one day we'll have a nearly irrefutable theory. Until then, we'll just have to keep watching the debates!
> And for some reason you think that supports your model...
Are you trying to make a point, or are you just trolling? You need to be more specific than vague insinuations.
> Because a shell of water around the earth would have
> steam-broiled everything on the ark when it collapsed.
I'm not quite sure how you came to that conclusion. In order to "steam-broil" the ark, the water would have needed to maintain an extreme temperature *as it was falling*. Yet it couldn't fall if it was still up to temp.
That's a bit like saying that ice can't form on a lake because it would fall the bottom and crush all the fish. As one of the odd inconsistencies in our universe, ice floats despite being more dense than water. In the same way, water allows dense air pockets (bubbles) underwater. In fact, if water didn't have all kinds of weird properties, our universe couldn't support life.
> Somehow Red Hat manages to have a slick graphical
> installer with more useful features than you can shake a
> stick at.
And somehow RedHat has more money than Debian and fewer platforms (by far!) to support.
I don't understand why on one hand everyone proclaims that one of the greatest features of Linux is its diversity, and then on the other hand try to crucify a system for not being like all the others. Am I missing something?
> That's why it would be quite pleasant if we had the option to do both.
Three words: Duplication of Resources
Debian doesn't have the same commercal backing as RedHat (read: $$$). As a result, they lack the manpower to develop multiple installer solutions. I'm sure everyone on the Debian team would *like* to have multiple installers, but it just isn't reasonable.
If you want a graphical installer, stop being an armchair quarterback and go develop it.
> *prepares for the "get redhat" flames*
Try "RTFA". They state that the installer needs to work for every type of screen output from a GeForceFX to a serial cable. Being that the serial cable is the lowest common denominator that they had to support, they designed the installer as a simple text mode interface.
Amen brother! FreeBSD still uses a text mode installer, and I have to say that I don't feel like I'm missing anything. Not sure about XP, but even Windows NT/2000 does the initial install from a Curses-like interface.
Hardware auto-detection is pretty much a requirement for any modern operating system. I remember having to set up all my hardware back in the day, and it's not an experience I'd like to repeat.
I must really be pissing a few people off. The moderation system is getting abused left and right to mod down these posts. The big question is, is it evolutionists who don't want to learn to get along with creationists, or is it creationists who don't want strong scientific debate?
I can't do anything about the former, but if it's the later, hear this mods: "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." -Galatians 5:14
Other men may choose to make me an enemy. But I choose to turn the other cheek and offer a hand in friendship.
And BTW, my original post was speaking to the point of the work being completed in a very short time, thus showing up a lot of other scientists. It was merely a comment on how amusing that is. But it seems that the mods have a vendetta to kill any and every post that doesn't fit the "SlashBorg" collective mind. Next thing you know, we'll see trolls getting modded up.
What is up with Mods these days? Apparently EVERY FRIGGIN THING is offtopic! Anyone else notice that?
...it just all falls into place. It's funny how people can spend years and years worth of man hours on solving a problem, then one guy comes along with an intimate understanding and solves the problem in a few hours. It's especially fun when you *are* that person. :-)
One of my favorite examples of this is the System.out problem in Java. There's only one System.out stream, but you might be running multiple threads that should all have their own log. To date, I have seen people do everything from rewriting bytecode on the fly to replacing the System class. Then I run into a situation where I REALLY need this fixed, and I come upon the idea of using ThreadLocals. Very simply, I replaced the output stream with my own. My own stream uses a ThreadLocal for each thread (and its children) to get the proper output stream. All output written to my custom output stream is then redirected to the correct stream. Bam! Problem solved.
"I just love it when a plan comes together" -Colonel John "Hannibal" Smith
> Regardless of who was building what, the people of that
> time still had nowhere near the concept of time, space,
> physics that we do now.
My point is that you shouldn't be so sure about that. It wasn't until the 20th century that we caught up with the Romans and Greeks. Archimedes, for example, was far better at math than anyone prior to the 20th century. His revelations into geometry were the basis for modern geometry.
> However you *did* say that evolution is a random theory.
No, it's not a "random" theory. It's simply a theory that has evolved based on the original assumption that many animals are similar, therefore there must be a logical chain or "evolution" to the appearance of the species. That's a great theory, but until it can be proven, it's still a theory.
> However that interpretation is always constrained within
> bounds of rational thought. Ideas like "God snapped
> fingers and *POOF* these creatures appeared" and "a
> catastrophic flood created all the Earth's sedimentary
> rocks" are just ludicrous.
I'm not stating that "POOF, everything appeared". I'm simply stating that the scientific community is teaching a lot of theories as "fact" even though it hasn't been proven. This is BAD science! And as I stated before, the Earth may very well be older than 6000 years. My only statement is that I believe that MAN plus the modern life we see today, has only been around for 6000 years.
As for there being life before 6000 years ago, that is a possibility as well. Several Biblical scholars have been trying to puzzle together references to multiple worldwide floods. Their current conclusions state that there was a thriving Earth prior to our creation that was ruled by Lucifer. (The former Arch-Angel turned devil for those who know the Bible.) Thus we have "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Then you have the time frame which is irrelevant to us (as we didn't exist), the destruction of the Earth by flood, then "And the Earth was without form and void. And God moved upon the face of the waters." You know the rest.
> You see, that's the problem right there! Supporting an idea using unverifiable data.
You're confusing statements I make based on belief vs, statements I make on science. I *believe* that we humans today have only been around for 6000 years. That brings up the questions of, "Who were the Neandrathals? Were they apes, diseased humans, or some other form of life? Are they the Nephillim the Bible speaks of? Or perhaps they were our predecessor species that was wiped out in the previous theory." These are questions that are being theorized on. The creationist's theories are no less valid than the evolutionist's theories. Neither has been proven, so there's still a lot of room for HONEST debate.
> Substitute bible for internet in that statement, and it's the same.
The really amusing part is that most people miss the purpose of the Bible. It is not a science book or a "how to on everything". It is simply a recording of Jesus's lineage. That is its sole purpose. God threw a lot of extra clues in there to help us out in a scientific fashion, but he certainly didn't try to explain Quantum Physics to us.
> So I've been reading your replies in this thread
:-)
As the nice yellow "enemy" icon informs me. I happily made you a friend just for the hell of it.
> You are basically saying that a book A) that was thrown
> together by humans a couple thousand years ago B) in a
> time when most still thought the world was flat was the
> center of the universe is C) just as good as any theories
> that modern man has come up with today? That is just
> asinine!
How do you know that they believed the world was flat? The Bible certainly doesn't state it. The "flat" world model was an invention of the middle ages. Many things had to be rediscovered due to the impact that the fall of Rome had on science and philosophy. Before that, the Egyptians were building pyramids, the Greeks were figuring out how to use a lever on the earth, and the Romans were building aqueducts and computational devices.
Perhaps the original Atlas image was a large flat surface on his back, but I've always seen it as a globe. Interestingly A quick google search for "was atlas holding a globe or a flat earth?" comes up with this Biblical opinion.
> You say the big bang theory is completely random
Eh? I did? Where?
> I say these verifiable historical records are recorded
> plain as day in the rocks surrounding all of us!
I agree. Do you know how to interpret them correctly? I'm glad you do, because there are a LOT of geologists fighting over that very point.
> And, don't even get me started on the age of the Earth.
I have not and will not state that the Earth is 6000 years old. However, if we interpret the Genesis account correctly, human beings are probably about that age.
> Basically what I'm saying is what ever happened to
> rational thought based on factual data?
Good question. I'm game if you're ready to act rationally.
> Except that molar quanitity is what will be preserved
No argument there. But the realistic problems are transportation and amount of drinking water. We're assuming that oxygen can be cracked easily, so that leaves the problem of transporting hydrogen. For transportation to the moon, launch weight is what matters. The launch cost of hydrogen to water would a ratio of 1:9. The resulting molar quantity doesn't matter because we only care about how many resulting liters of drinking water are produced.
I'm taking exception with your ignorant tripe hinting that big bang is somehow less believable than "poof, a god just made it all". And don't give me some crap that I sorely misunderstood what you said, because that's not my problem - I'm merely responding to what you DID say.
Umm... huh? I DID say two lines asking why a shell of water around the Earth was any harder to believe as a theory than the current theory of multiverse collisions. Perhaps there was a miscommunication here?
> Also, the waystation idea is far from a proven winner
> unless you've got materials flowing both directions.
Well, that's kind of the point. The moon couldn't survive without mining and industry beginning in earnest. With a small nuclear reactor plus basic industrial equipment, the moon could mine many of materials needed for various construction and use a mass driver to send materials down the gravity well.
> Huh? There's the small matter of velocity matching.
Velocity matching with what? Perhaps I'm missing something here, but the aim is for either earth or moon orbital insertion in all cases. The final velocity can be adjusted by slowing a craft and beginning a retro burn.
> more like 0%. The boiloff would get you in a matter of
> days, nit months.
Eh? I don't know a whole lot about hydrogen transportation, but only a small amount can leak through a well designed container. Saying that it would be gone in days seems extreme. But let's say you're correct for a moment. In that case, the moon could send oxygen down, the water could be combined in lower orbit, and water could then be sent up. You wouldn't even need a tank for water as you could freeze it and mount the blocks on the engine structure.
> This stuff isn't rocket science. You are so far of it's just
> plain stupid. Do you even know how many protons
> oxygen has?
Oh, cut me some slack. I'm thinking H2O, but I'm thinking 2O instead of H2. If I'd written it down, I'd have realized my mistake immediately. And according to my periodic table, Oxygen has 8 protons and neutrons. No isotopes are listed (not surprising given its low atomic number). It's atomic weight is 15.9994. Yet that still doesn't tell me the realistic output of water to hydrogen. According to the atomic weight, I should get ~13 times the water for the amount of hydrogen I add. Yet a previous poster said it was 9 times. So, I simply make guesstimations and state them as such. Better to err on the conservative side.
> How and why? ISS is in the wrong orbit for efficient lunar
> transfers, and is in no way designed as lunar waystation.
> It can barely function asw a microgravity lab.
No one says the orbit can't be changed. The original intent of the space station was as a lunar waystation. Clinton helpfully killed that idea and now we have to make due. The only reason I suggest it, is because using a waystation is still cheaper than using a Saturn 5 to get hydrogen to the moon.
> Ion engines do have a high specific impulse, but also
> have very low thrust and require lots of power. Even a
> small spacecraft like SMART-1 is taking months to get to
> lunar orbit on an ion engine, and you've got this little
> bitty spacecraft with big solar arrays.
Think "atomic power". Thus the tanks could be strapped onto a big engine and thrusted toward to moon. There would be no real craft. Plus, atomic power means that it could be redirected back to the waystation and used again. Have enough of these en route, and you can keep up a constant stream of hydrogen.
> It's not at all clear that this is the way to go - to get
> efficient H storage, you'd have to havea cryo container,
> and that's going to mean some finite leakage rate, and
> that means short trip times are essential.
No, cost is essential. If it costs less to deliver a larger load where only 80% of the original payload makes it, then we'll send hydrogen tanks that loose 20% of their hydrogen. Using a high speed chemical rocket is tremendously expensive.
> Yeah...darn those rational people who believe in something that's actually been prove
How is it rational to believe something has been proven when it hasn't? Evolution is still a theory. And a theory with a lot of holes. Until someone reproduces it in a lab AND explains the missing geological record AND shows why the DNA is so different between "related" species AND explains why Vestige organs/DNA is missing AND fills in the thousands of other holes, evolution will continue to be nothing but a working theory. And you know what the best part about the evolutionary theory is? There are so many to choose from! Survival of the fittest, spontaneous mutation, long term adaption, etc. And we just keep chucking these theories out looking for one that will find why we can't find the necessary proof for the previous ones!
> Let's believe in something that was written down in some
> book a couple millenia ago instead a logical and factual
> model of life.
It's just as good as a random theory about evolution. At least that book contains verifiable history records.
Truth be told, you can believe what you want to believe. I am not stopping you or saying that you should convert to my belief. Passing theories off as proven fact tho, is completely out of whack. You know what frustrates me the most? If you do a search on the net for "Is evolution a theory or fact" you get the Christian side which attempts to poke holes in evolution and you get the Atheist side which attempts to use other theories (such as the Geologic column) to state that evolution is a theory based on facts. What you don't get, is a scientific discussion on the theory in general and what parts make sense, what parts are known, and what parts require other theories to be proven.
I submit that the entire Evolution vs. Creation is bad science and that NO progress will be made on determining the origins of life until people overcome their emotional attachments.
> Typically clueless and insecure in your little fantasy
> world. If you really understood the big bang theory you'd
> realize that it's much more palatable to the idea of a
> supreme creator than the "eternal space and time" idea.
And yet, you haven't explained to me WHY the Earth couldn't hold a shell of water. Hint: The atmosphere contains oxygen, and the Sun is throwing hydrogen at us. That's where all the water came from in the first place.
Remember, it's only a THEORY. One which is still being tested. That's what science does. If you have a problem with THEORIES than why do you even attempt to mention science?
> Explain to me then why I shouldn't believe in the gnomes
> idea instead of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, or
> whatever else is out there?
Did I say you should? No, you assumed that I was saying that, and you then took it upon yourself to make insulting and inflammatory statements.
Whether a flood happened or not is still a matter being decided. Much of science believes it was an Ice Age instead. Well, that's their theory to test. But if a flood happened, it in no way forces you to believe that God made it happen. In fact, I'm willing to bet that a chain of natural events could be found. Considering that I believe God created the Universe, there's no reason I should not believe that he wouldn't make it function according to the rules he laid down for it.
Oh, and just because I want to fsck with your head for a minute, who says that "God" is not an extra-dimensional being that is responsible for the multiverses colliding? We don't know what the laws of physics might look like in another multiverse! Not to mention that we still don't have a clue what caused the "bang" in the first place. The multiverse theory helps in that it at least gives a trigger for the initial bang.
But you know what? This is all intellectual. No one is forcing you to believe that God exists. I'm merely stating that the Bible may be more historically accurate than many believe.