New Mars Forums

im looking for something like discover in astronomical form, if you follow me...of course if i got anything exciting, id post info about good articles.

astronomy is ok, but i was wondering if there was anything less popularized...

alt, just had to say it

then whats the big deal over southwestern nuclear waste?

right, the mat.  but the only difference is that things always fall towards the larger object, they never orbit it for an extended period of time, even when rolled slowly and from a distance.  why doesnt this happen in space?  the pull of the other celestial objects?

thats what i gathered shaun, chemical fusion.  oh well, its still a useful source of power and water.  i have wondered if you could have two reactors, in a chain, one fusing H2O and then one splitting it, sending it back to the first one to run the chain again.  it seems to me like an endless power chain, with very low maintenance.  of course, thered be some loss of the chemicals, but hydrogen and oxygen fuel are easy to get to keep the reaction going. 

and some of the water could be taken out to use for other purposes.

i read an article about fuel cells that described them not only as automobile-capable, but possibly, in the time following their application in cars, as small home power plants.  they use hydrogen and oxygen, perform simple fusion (thats what the article says), and come out with water.  this provides moderate power, and a very useful, un-polluting "waste."  this could be pretty valuable...if nothing else, its water to use to shower, or split out again to re-run the reaction for more power.

exactly-and what about the universe itself?  what are its "boundaries" (assuming its not round) made of?  even if it is round, what is it contained in?  whats at the core?  so many questions.  where did the material that was contained in the big bang come from?  what if the universe is only like a galaxy, and we exist in the same "dimension" as many other universes (well, they wouldnt be universes, but mega-galaxies?)?

republicans are a double edged sword.  they are more likely to support the technologies that would end up helping the space program, but they tend to be the religious types that cut off space travel, and progress in other areas that would be just as useful (im sorry to say it, but republicans couldnt care less about our environment, progression of power past the turn of the 19th century, or colonization of mars). 

i have a family member in the defense industry, who says that the money for mars colonization has to come from the government-private industry doesnt have the capital.  but i think he's right to an extent.  the success of private industry in space exploration relies on their ability to cooperate and truly strive for the collective goal, and not for personal goals that detract from the end result.  i think the resources are there, and it has to be the private sector that shows us the way to outer space. W has shown that his only concern with space is convoluted missle defense systems, which have been a perfect example of the "next 5 years" technology for the past 40 years as a lot of other techs that are more viable, but havent gotten the funding for political reasons, like fusion.

i agree, but war is necessary in certain situations. 

hey, im a teen, i have strong views though.  im told i am too strong in my beliefs, but im actually flexible.  when i see an idea i like, i am strong in my support for it.  of course, i have to plan for college too.  i think im gonna go for an astrophysics major, maybe bio/chem as a minor(s).  princeton!

in fairness, i dont think he realized cindy was a woman.  and gentlemanly is a somewhat universal phrase.

but i agree, if youre going to judge a president, judge him as a whole.  its a republican precedent.  sleeping with an intern, and spending over 100 million taxpayers' dollars to prove it, has far less to do with a presidents politics than oil.  republicans like to downplay their own candidates' faults, while pointing the finger at every democratic boo-boo.

im not really aligned with either or.  my views on different issues fall in different alignments, and since independent is now a political party with its own set of politics, i cant even call myself that heheh.

theories are called that because they can be proven wrong.  theories are often the basis for later theories that prove the original wrong-meaning that progress often shatters old dogma.  was it fukuyama who said that science was done right before another fundamental force was found?

Well, for number 1, doesnt gravity do exactly that?  It's a force with no mass, yet it exerts a pull on mass.  its hard to understand quite how it works-only that it does.

i have a "hangup" with the wormhole theories.  if they existed, as sagan said, as black holes, how could we use them to travel through?  as soon as you passed through the center, even assuming you could do this, you would be sucked right back to the center by gravity.  thus, there is no way of exploiting the wormhole to shorten travel, in my understanding.