So nearly every government in the world (except for the USA, naturally, with corrupt Bush) has signed up to the Kyoto treaty because most scientists think we have no effect on global warming? Aren't you a little divorced from reality?
Actually, no. Go to Pushback.com. The vast majority of scientists think global warming fears are unfounded. You should be able to find a link to the Heidelberg Appeal. This was a petition that global warming fears were unfounded signed by several times the amound of scientists that signed the Kyoto Petition.
Why shift our whole infrastructure to a resource that will run out such as natural gas? There are a multitude of ways of extracting the hydrogen for our fuel cells, these scientists are working out a way for the medium-term to prop up production and not a be-all and end-all solution.
Natural gas will run out in about 30 years. But my point is that biogas is not a viable replacement. Nuclear power has a proven safety record in all countries except the USSR (Their crappy Chernobyl RBMK reactor was just asking for trouble).
Nuclear power can provide us with cheap hydrogen and electrical power. The waste fears are not as bad as Greenpeace has lead people to believe. Waste decays to the radioactivity levels of uranium ore in 500 years due to the simple fact that the most radioactive transuranic elements such as Cesium decay first. Uranium ore is not dangerously radioactive.
If there is bacteria on Mars, it is unlikely they would affect humans. When you think about it, many bacteria, and moreso viruses, are fairly host-specific. I don't think it would infect us.
Pathogenic bacteria is unlikely to evolve on a nutrient bare place such as Mars. This is because higher forms of life, such as multicellulars, probably never evolved on mars.
More than likely, if Mars still has life, it would be of the archaebacteria extemophile types that would be suited to Mar's exteme environment. These would not be pathogenic. Usualy, only Monera type bacteria are pathogenic.
The bacteria would not multiply on Mars. There would be no food source. But they could form endospores and lay dormant for millions of year. DYK that there are bacteria floating in space?
It'd be the closest thing possible to real invisibility! Of course, infrared wouldn't be fooled...
It wouldn't look very convincing. It's not a 3-d display. I refer you to my earlier post about Phased Array Optics for a better way to become invisible.
But then again, if you blend in with the background, people might see somthing, but your shimmering image could just be ignored with the "I need to lay off the crack" factor. So you may be able to sneak into the girl's locker room after all.
Actually, with Phased Array Optics (PAO), you could be completely invisible.
I'm fuzzy on how they actually will work, but basically a phased array optics display can create a three-dimensional display with nano-scale optics projecting light in different directions.
A phased array optic screen would look just like real life. The resolution would be equal to real life and it would look like 3-D.
If you had a phased-array optics suit, you could be just about invisible. The only visible things would be small cameras to gather information so you can be cloaked. These could be the size of Paramecium, so they would be pretty much invisible.
Theres a few problems with phased array optics: We need to have nanotechnology to build the optics. And to collate the optical information into a three dimensional display, a PAO screen would need more processing power than all the world's computers put together.
Given all of this, we might see phased array optics in 30-50 years.
rdelsambuco, tell me if i'm wrong, but I think NASA won't be getting SCRAMJETs anytime soon.
There is some research right now on using plasma to reduce drag on aircraft. Evidently the Russians are using it for their next generation of MIG's (they are using it mostly for stealth, since the plasma absorbs radar).
Anyway, they've done windtunnel tests with welder's torches, and they have found that it reduces drag by up to 30%.
Ramjets can only get up to about mach 5. What if you attached one of these plasma generators onto a ramjet? It might be able to get to Mach 7.
It seems like with such a setup you could use the ramjet to get up to Mach 7, and then use a kerosene rocket to get to orbital velocity.
I figured with a kerosene/LOX fueled rocket motor at 350 seconds, you should be able to reach orbital velocity with about an 8/1 fuel to payload ratio.
Both the University of Queensland in Australia and NASA are developing SCRAMJET engines, or Super Sonic Combustion Ramjet. These are capable of doing extreme hypersonic speeds, up to escape velocity.
NASA has spent $500 million on it's program. It has only produced one failed attempt at SCRAMJET flight.
In contrast, spending only $500,000, the UoQ has already produced a successfull SCRAMJET flight.
NASA takes lots of money and doesn't get anything done. They funnel all their money into the worthless shuttle and space station programs. We don't need to spend money to send people into LEO. It's a cold or hot vacuum a few hundred miles out. Whoop-de-shit.
Before NASA worries about the space station, they should buckle down and actually get a spaceplane. Cancel the shuttle program. It's worthless.
When they have a low-cost spaceplane, they can breed all the rats in space they want, and plus a mission to Mars might become feasable.
Here, about 45 years after Sputnik, we still haven't gotten rid of our horribly expensive rockets.
Sorry, my mistake. I misunderstood the post. For some reason I was off in la-la-land thinking the post had somthing to do with fuel cells, for some reason. You are absolutely correct.
But we don't have atomic hydrogen on the earth. Mettalic hydrogen mining from deep within Jupiter's atmosphere is not very cost effective.:-)
Elemental hydrogen is stable under ultra-mega high pressure, like in Jupiter's atmospher. But it isn't stable here on earth. And that's all that really matters for it's use as rocket fuel. On earth, atomic hydrogen will be gone faster than you can say "Holy shit!! It's gonna blow!!"
Granular Lye Aluminum foil water PLASTIC gas can garden hose
1.Take the little gas spigot, and attach to garden hose with duct tape or somthing. Attach the other end of the garden hose onto a garbage bag. 2. Now, take about 1 sq. foot of foil. Make a thickish line of lye on the aluminum foil. Roll it up until it looks like a cigar. 3. Fill the can with 3/4 inch of water. 4. Now, as quickly as you can, cap the gas can. Much of the hydrogen is produced in the first few seconds. 5. Sit back and watch your bag fill up with hydrogen. The gas can will get very, very hot during the reaction. The reason for the hose is so the water vapor can condense.
Now, you can do all sorts of things with your hydrogen:
1. Blow it up. When you make hydrogen for exploding, include about 50% air in the bag, to provide enough oxygen for rapid combustion. This is not very dangerous. The hydrogen blows up too fast to burn you. The worst exploding hydrogen can do is singe your eyelashes. The main danger of this is getting hit by the burning plastic bag. Blowing it up is very fun. It even makes a shock wave. However, I suggest igniting it with a 10 foot long pipe with a match on the end.
2. Make a balloon. Just get the hydrogen as pure as can be. Then, tie up your bag when it is full. On a still day, just realease your balloon. Attach some colorful paper or somthing to it so you can see it on it's ascent. If you only fill the bag a third of the way full, your balloon should reach about 40,000 feet.
3. Breath it. It creates a high-pitched voice just like helium. Hydrogen is completely non-toxic. Just don't go near flames for a few minutes! (-: Also, don't stick your head in the head in the bag or anything. You could suffocate. Hydrogen is non-toxic, but without oxygen, you would die. You also wouldn't realize you needed to take a breath. When you hold your breath, the burning in your lungs is C02. Since you are inhaling pure hydrogen, which is not metabolized into CO2, you would have no idea that you needed to take a breath.
But hydrogen is dangerous stuff. I'd say a large amount of hydrogen is more dangerous than a large amount of reactor-grade uranium...
You are absolutely correct, sir. Uranium has very low radioactivity. That's why it's half-life is over a billion years. It has low enough radioactivity that they make fiesta-ware out of the ore. (The ore, interestingly enough, is more radioactive than the metal, due to the radium content) You only would have to worry about spent rods, which contain plutonium among other things.
If we could make atomic hydrogen and store it, or even better yet atomic helium, it would be pretty good.
When He bonds to form He2, it realeases lots of energy. Atomic Helium is metastable and will instantly recombine to form He2.
The energy produced by this reaction is about 5 times as energetic as the most energetic combustion reaction, H2+O2.
The main use for it would be rockets. Most hydrogen rockets get a specific impulse of around 450 seconds. Metastable helium or hydrogen would get about 2500 seconds. However, we don't know how to make anywhere enough for a rocket, or store it.
In the nearer term, ozone could boost rocket isp's. Ozone is metastable. It is not as energetic as atomic H or He, however. Using ozone in place of O2 in rocket engines can boost ISP by over a hundred seconds.
Rockets powered by metastable H or He will probably never happen. There are easier methods with which you can get increased fuel effieciency.
For boosters, scramjet/rocket powered spaceplanes would provide excellent fuel effieciency.
For in space, the ultra-efficient VASIMR plasma rocket would provide an ISP of 30,000, about ten times as great as metastable elements.
Metastable propulsion now is pretty much just theory. However, these 2 propulsion systems I just mentioned are under development right now. They have test engines for both the SCRAMJET and the VASIMR.
You could burn some of the hydrogen to run the process. This process would only be useful if it generates substantially more H2 than it takes to run the process. That's a big "if", though.
That would work, except for a the little problem of thermodynamics.
The way I understand it, this process just reforms biogas into hydrogen. Biogas is mostly methane (CH4; ie natural gas). When you burn methane, the only pollution is one molecule of CO2.
Now, reforming methane produces the exact same amount of pollution as burning it. You break it up into 2 molecules hydrogen, and two oxygen atoms bond to the Carbon. You got two molecules of hydrogen and one of CO2, which is the exact same amount of pollution as when you burn it.
Reformation is:
CH4 + 02 --> H2 H2 CO2
Reformed methane pollutes more than burned methane. This is because reforming it and then putting it into a fuel cell is much less efficient than just burning it. I think we are looking for a high-tech solution when one is not needed.
I also don't think biogas production is such a good idea. (I am all for producing methane from places that would otherwise vent it off, however, like sewage plants and cattle yards.)
If you have comercial biogas plants, like ones proposed that use seaweed, they would pollute much more than natural gas, as well as taking up more land than natural gas wells. Biogas has a lot of sulfides and such in it. I might also remind you that CH4 is ten times as bad a greenhouse gas as C02. So any gas that escaped from these plants would contribute to global warming(if global warming is caused by us. Most scientists think it isn't). So It's better just to stick with cheap, clean natural gas, or better yet, nuclear power.
I think that more than 60% of americans say they believe in god
Right on, Mr. A.C. Myself included. I'm an agnostic. But, especially because of the fact that I am in an ultra-religious high school, I say that I believe in a vague higher power. Of course, that is pretty heathen to most of them and they think I am hell-bound. I have no problem with Christians unless they try to force their beliefs on others.
True faith is hard to do. I have a problem believing in somthing that I have never seen or heard. In addition to never being sensed by me, God grossly violates the laws of physics, which doesn't help my faith in him.
Now, religion does not fall into the bounds of science. The existence of god cannot be proven or disproven unless he/she/it comes down and lets us know. So, anyway, I don't think the bible is worth a fig. It has good moral lessons in it, but people have to remember it was written 4,000 years ago by people who believed that the earth was flat and that lightning was shot down by God.
God's fine, but, as they say in the Simpsons, "Religion must be kept 500 yards away from Science, at all times." Never should creationism or anthing be taught in school.
The only thing I don't like is that when hard-line christians believe in Creationism and the Floods and all of that. T
here is this one chick in a couple of my classes that believes in the flood because "The bible says so. And everything in the bible is true."
I said "How come"
Reply: "Because it says so in the bible."
That is a ridiculous piece of circular logic that too many people believe.
I'm not going to get into the whole debate here. It's futile for evolutionists to spend time converting creationists, and vice-versa. I just want to point out why I don't believe in evolutionism.
Oxygen (the gas we use when we breathe) is actually a posionous gas that life on earth has evolved to reley on. If oxygen is breathed at very low pressure it can kill you.
Yeah. There are many bacteria still alive today that are killed by oxygen. These are called anaerobic bacteria. These include such useful bacteria as e. coli (can't digest without it!), and sewage-eating bacteria. As well as not-so-usefull bacteria like tetanus and the bacteria that causes Botulism. Pretty much any pathogenic bacteria that does not infect the respritory system is anaerobic.
Archaebacteria are the extremophiles you hear about all the time. They live in hot springs, volcanic areas, anywhere extreme. Some can even form protective endospores when conditions are unfavorable and drift dormant for millions of years in space! Archaebacteria are thought to be the most primitive and first form of life on earth.
A lot of people think bacteria are always bad. E. Coli is vital for digesting food. Of course, it you get shit on your hands containing E Coli and then contaminate your food with it, you could get violently ill. Cheese and wine are owed to bacteria. Sewage and oil spills are broken up by bacteria. Stapholococci bacteria prevent your skin from being infected, oddly enough. Most of the world's oxygen is from photosynthetic bacteria in the oceans, as well.
..was also canceled cause Fox put them on in a bad timeslot and didnt promote them. And im not alone when i say that it was/is the best show EVER.
Family Guy is awesome. Like a less politically correct Simpsons. Personally, I think it was even funnier than the Simpsons. It pissed me off that they canceled it. When they give a show a bad timeslot and no promotion, why the hell to they expect it to do well? The Family Guy could have been another Simpsons.
Slashdot Mirror
So nearly every government in the world (except for the USA, naturally, with corrupt Bush) has signed up to the Kyoto treaty because most scientists think we have no effect on global warming? Aren't you a little divorced from reality?
Actually, no. Go to Pushback.com. The vast majority of scientists think global warming fears are unfounded. You should be able to find a link to the Heidelberg Appeal. This was a petition that global warming fears were unfounded signed by several times the amound of scientists that signed the Kyoto Petition.
Why shift our whole infrastructure to a resource that will run out such as natural gas? There are a multitude of ways of extracting the hydrogen for our fuel cells, these scientists are working out a way for the medium-term to prop up production and not a be-all and end-all solution.
Natural gas will run out in about 30 years. But my point is that biogas is not a viable replacement. Nuclear power has a proven safety record in all countries except the USSR (Their crappy Chernobyl RBMK reactor was just asking for trouble).
Nuclear power can provide us with cheap hydrogen and electrical power. The waste fears are not as bad as Greenpeace has lead people to believe. Waste decays to the radioactivity levels of uranium ore in 500 years due to the simple fact that the most radioactive transuranic elements such as Cesium decay first. Uranium ore is not dangerously radioactive.
The self-storage option begins to look attractive!
:-)
Since when has the self-storage option looked attractive?
If there is bacteria on Mars, it is unlikely they would affect humans. When you think about it, many bacteria, and moreso viruses, are fairly host-specific. I don't think it would infect us.
Pathogenic bacteria is unlikely to evolve on a nutrient bare place such as Mars. This is because higher forms of life, such as multicellulars, probably never evolved on mars.
More than likely, if Mars still has life, it would be of the archaebacteria extemophile types that would be suited to Mar's exteme environment. These would not be pathogenic. Usualy, only Monera type bacteria are pathogenic.
The bacteria would not multiply on Mars. There would be no food source. But they could form endospores and lay dormant for millions of year. DYK that there are bacteria floating in space?
It'd be the closest thing possible to real invisibility! Of course, infrared wouldn't be fooled...
It wouldn't look very convincing. It's not a 3-d display. I refer you to my earlier post about Phased Array Optics for a better way to become invisible.
But then again, if you blend in with the background, people might see somthing, but your shimmering image could just be ignored with the "I need to lay off the crack" factor. So you may be able to sneak into the girl's locker room after all.
Actually, with Phased Array Optics (PAO), you could be completely invisible.
I'm fuzzy on how they actually will work, but basically a phased array optics display can create a three-dimensional display with nano-scale optics projecting light in different directions.
A phased array optic screen would look just like real life. The resolution would be equal to real life and it would look like 3-D.
If you had a phased-array optics suit, you could be just about invisible. The only visible things would be small cameras to gather information so you can be cloaked. These could be the size of Paramecium, so they would be pretty much invisible.
Theres a few problems with phased array optics: We need to have nanotechnology to build the optics. And to collate the optical information into a three dimensional display, a PAO screen would need more processing power than all the world's computers put together.
Given all of this, we might see phased array optics in 30-50 years.
A moon station would cost many times what a space station does
At least they would have worthwhile things to study on a moon base.
rdelsambuco, tell me if i'm wrong, but I think NASA won't be getting SCRAMJETs anytime soon.
There is some research right now on using plasma to reduce drag on aircraft. Evidently the Russians are using it for their next generation of MIG's (they are using it mostly for stealth, since the plasma absorbs radar).
Anyway, they've done windtunnel tests with welder's torches, and they have found that it reduces drag by up to 30%.
Ramjets can only get up to about mach 5. What if you attached one of these plasma generators onto a ramjet? It might be able to get to Mach 7.
It seems like with such a setup you could use the ramjet to get up to Mach 7, and then use a kerosene rocket to get to orbital velocity.
I figured with a kerosene/LOX fueled rocket motor at 350 seconds, you should be able to reach orbital velocity with about an 8/1 fuel to payload ratio.
NASA needs to trim some of it's bureacratic fat.
Case in point:
Both the University of Queensland in Australia and NASA are developing SCRAMJET engines, or Super Sonic Combustion Ramjet. These are capable of doing extreme hypersonic speeds, up to escape velocity.
NASA has spent $500 million on it's program. It has only produced one failed attempt at SCRAMJET flight.
In contrast, spending only $500,000, the UoQ has already produced a successfull SCRAMJET flight.
NASA takes lots of money and doesn't get anything done. They funnel all their money into the worthless shuttle and space station programs. We don't need to spend money to send people into LEO. It's a cold or hot vacuum a few hundred miles out. Whoop-de-shit.
Before NASA worries about the space station, they should buckle down and actually get a spaceplane. Cancel the shuttle program. It's worthless.
When they have a low-cost spaceplane, they can breed all the rats in space they want, and plus a mission to Mars might become feasable.
Here, about 45 years after Sputnik, we still haven't gotten rid of our horribly expensive rockets.
Sorry, my mistake. I misunderstood the post. For some reason I was off in la-la-land thinking the post had somthing to do with fuel cells, for some reason. You are absolutely correct.
But we don't have atomic hydrogen on the earth. Mettalic hydrogen mining from deep within Jupiter's atmosphere is not very cost effective. :-)
Elemental hydrogen is stable under ultra-mega high pressure, like in Jupiter's atmospher. But it isn't stable here on earth. And that's all that really matters for it's use as rocket fuel. On earth, atomic hydrogen will be gone faster than you can say "Holy shit!! It's gonna blow!!"
I just dump it on the ground somewhere. It's not environmentally friendly, but what the hell else are you supposed to do?
So now do I bill the sewer utility for my sewage, or what?
BTW, might I add that the byproduct of the lye-foil reaction is more corrosive than battery acid? It will burn you if you come into contact with it.
Also, you can put multiple fuel cigars into the gas can.
You can make hydrogen at home. It's sort of safe.
Ingredients:
Granular Lye
Aluminum foil
water
PLASTIC gas can
garden hose
1.Take the little gas spigot, and attach to garden hose with duct tape or somthing. Attach the other end of the garden hose onto a garbage bag.
2. Now, take about 1 sq. foot of foil. Make a thickish line of lye on the aluminum foil. Roll it up until it looks like a cigar.
3. Fill the can with 3/4 inch of water.
4. Now, as quickly as you can, cap the gas can. Much of the hydrogen is produced in the first few seconds.
5. Sit back and watch your bag fill up with hydrogen. The gas can will get very, very hot during the reaction. The reason for the hose is so the water vapor can condense.
Now, you can do all sorts of things with your hydrogen:
1. Blow it up. When you make hydrogen for exploding, include about 50% air in the bag, to provide enough oxygen for rapid combustion. This is not very dangerous. The hydrogen blows up too fast to burn you. The worst exploding hydrogen can do is singe your eyelashes. The main danger of this is getting hit by the burning plastic bag. Blowing it up is very fun. It even makes a shock wave. However, I suggest igniting it with a 10 foot long pipe with a match on the end.
2. Make a balloon. Just get the hydrogen as pure as can be. Then, tie up your bag when it is full. On a still day, just realease your balloon. Attach some colorful paper or somthing to it so you can see it on it's ascent. If you only fill the bag a third of the way full, your balloon should reach about 40,000 feet.
3. Breath it. It creates a high-pitched voice just like helium. Hydrogen is completely non-toxic. Just don't go near flames for a few minutes! (-: Also, don't stick your head in the head in the bag or anything. You could suffocate. Hydrogen is non-toxic, but without oxygen, you would die. You also wouldn't realize you needed to take a breath. When you hold your breath, the burning in your lungs is C02. Since you are inhaling pure hydrogen, which is not metabolized into CO2, you would have no idea that you needed to take a breath.
They used "H" just to generally refer to the element hydrogen. Many elements pretty mostly only exist in molecular form, such as oxygen and helium.
Do you always refer to oxygen as O2 and Helium as H2, just to be completely accurate?
But hydrogen is dangerous stuff. I'd say a large amount of hydrogen is more dangerous than a large amount of reactor-grade uranium...
You are absolutely correct, sir. Uranium has very low radioactivity. That's why it's half-life is over a billion years. It has low enough radioactivity that they make fiesta-ware out of the ore. (The ore, interestingly enough, is more radioactive than the metal, due to the radium content) You only would have to worry about spent rods, which contain plutonium among other things.
If we could make atomic hydrogen and store it, or even better yet atomic helium, it would be pretty good.
When He bonds to form He2, it realeases lots of energy. Atomic Helium is metastable and will instantly recombine to form He2.
The energy produced by this reaction is about 5 times as energetic as the most energetic combustion reaction, H2+O2.
The main use for it would be rockets. Most hydrogen rockets get a specific impulse of around 450 seconds. Metastable helium or hydrogen would get about 2500 seconds. However, we don't know how to make anywhere enough for a rocket, or store it.
In the nearer term, ozone could boost rocket isp's. Ozone is metastable. It is not as energetic as atomic H or He, however. Using ozone in place of O2 in rocket engines can boost ISP by over a hundred seconds.
Rockets powered by metastable H or He will probably never happen. There are easier methods with which you can get increased fuel effieciency.
For boosters, scramjet/rocket powered spaceplanes would provide excellent fuel effieciency.
For in space, the ultra-efficient VASIMR plasma rocket would provide an ISP of 30,000, about ten times as great as metastable elements.
Metastable propulsion now is pretty much just theory. However, these 2 propulsion systems I just mentioned are under development right now. They have test engines for both the SCRAMJET and the VASIMR.
You could burn some of the hydrogen to run the process. This process would only be useful if it generates substantially more H2 than it takes to run the process. That's a big "if", though.
That would work, except for a the little problem of thermodynamics.
Thanks for the info.
:-)
Damn. Those dorms are expensive. Maybe it's Yakima Valley Community College for me!
This is not the best idea
The way I understand it, this process just reforms biogas into hydrogen. Biogas is mostly methane (CH4; ie natural gas). When you burn methane, the only pollution is one molecule of CO2.
Now, reforming methane produces the exact same amount of pollution as burning it. You break it up into 2 molecules hydrogen, and two oxygen atoms bond to the Carbon. You got two molecules of hydrogen and one of CO2, which is the exact same amount of pollution as when you burn it.
Reformation is:
CH4 + 02 --> H2 H2 CO2
Reformed methane pollutes more than burned methane. This is because reforming it and then putting it into a fuel cell is much less efficient than just burning it. I think we are looking for a high-tech solution when one is not needed.
I also don't think biogas production is such a good idea. (I am all for producing methane from places that would otherwise vent it off, however, like sewage plants and cattle yards.)
If you have comercial biogas plants, like ones proposed that use seaweed, they would pollute much more than natural gas, as well as taking up more land than natural gas wells. Biogas has a lot of sulfides and such in it. I might also remind you that CH4 is ten times as bad a greenhouse gas as C02. So any gas that escaped from these plants would contribute to global warming(if global warming is caused by us. Most scientists think it isn't). So It's better just to stick with cheap, clean natural gas, or better yet, nuclear power.
I think that more than 60% of americans say they believe in god
Right on, Mr. A.C. Myself included. I'm an agnostic. But, especially because of the fact that I am in an ultra-religious high school, I say that I believe in a vague higher power. Of course, that is pretty heathen to most of them and they think I am hell-bound. I have no problem with Christians unless they try to force their beliefs on others.
True faith is hard to do. I have a problem believing in somthing that I have never seen or heard. In addition to never being sensed by me, God grossly violates the laws of physics, which doesn't help my faith in him.
Now, religion does not fall into the bounds of science. The existence of god cannot be proven or disproven unless he/she/it comes down and lets us know. So, anyway, I don't think the bible is worth a fig. It has good moral lessons in it, but people have to remember it was written 4,000 years ago by people who believed that the earth was flat and that lightning was shot down by God.
God's fine, but, as they say in the Simpsons, "Religion must be kept 500 yards away from Science, at all times." Never should creationism or anthing be taught in school.
The only thing I don't like is that when hard-line christians believe in Creationism and the Floods and all of that. T
here is this one chick in a couple of my classes that believes in the flood because "The bible says so. And everything in the bible is true."
I said "How come"
Reply: "Because it says so in the bible."
That is a ridiculous piece of circular logic that too many people believe.
I'm not going to get into the whole debate here. It's futile for evolutionists to spend time converting creationists, and vice-versa. I just want to point out why I don't believe in evolutionism.
Good post. I just wanted to add one thing. (-:
Oxygen (the gas we use when we breathe) is actually a posionous gas that life on earth has evolved to reley on. If oxygen is breathed at very low pressure it can kill you.
Yeah. There are many bacteria still alive today that are killed by oxygen. These are called anaerobic bacteria. These include such useful bacteria as e. coli (can't digest without it!), and sewage-eating bacteria. As well as not-so-usefull bacteria like tetanus and the bacteria that causes Botulism. Pretty much any pathogenic bacteria that does not infect the respritory system is anaerobic.
Archaebacteria are the extremophiles you hear about all the time. They live in hot springs, volcanic areas, anywhere extreme. Some can even form protective endospores when conditions are unfavorable and drift dormant for millions of years in space! Archaebacteria are thought to be the most primitive and first form of life on earth.
A lot of people think bacteria are always bad. E. Coli is vital for digesting food. Of course, it you get shit on your hands containing E Coli and then contaminate your food with it, you could get violently ill. Cheese and wine are owed to bacteria. Sewage and oil spills are broken up by bacteria. Stapholococci bacteria prevent your skin from being infected, oddly enough. Most of the world's oxygen is from photosynthetic bacteria in the oceans, as well.
I liked this quote from the last ep:
Homer: (sobbing) OOOHH!! I'm a rageholic. I can't live without ragehol!!
..was also canceled cause Fox put them on in a bad timeslot and didnt promote them. And im not alone when i say that it was/is the best show EVER.
Family Guy is awesome. Like a less politically correct Simpsons. Personally, I think it was even funnier than the Simpsons. It pissed me off that they canceled it. When they give a show a bad timeslot and no promotion, why the hell to they expect it to do well? The Family Guy could have been another Simpsons.