CreateDebate


Muaguana's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Muaguana's arguments, looking across every debate.
3 points

"But what of the space around the tiny dense ball?"

The universe is space and time. All that is the universe was contained within the singularity (according to the theory). So there was no space surrounding the ball, because the ball WAS space. And remember that the big bang theory was postulated according to the evidence observed, thus all it explains is that the universe was at one time compressed in this manner - it does not explain directly what was "outside" the singularity.

Here's a short video detailing the rudiments of the big bang theory for quick reference: http://www.thoughttheater.com/2008/07/evidence_for_the_big_bang_theory_in_10_minutes.php

"How can you have time and space surrounding the tiny dense ball if the origin for time and space is within the tiny dense ball?"

No one ever claimed you could.

"Where can you find any room to explode?"

Contrary to its name, the big bang theory does not assume there was an explosion, merely an expansion of the universe. We don't know what is beyond the universe, but the universe is finite, therefore whatever void surrounded the universe was the "room" for it to expand in.

"Something has to pre-exist time and space to create it."

Not necessarily; this is a commonly-held assumption that is not supported by any scientific evidence whatsoever. The greatest mind-twister of this is that singularities defy conventional physics (remember there are singularities today, existing at the center of black holes), therefore any number of possibilities exist as to what caused the singularity to appear (or if it has always existed) and what caused it to expand. So whatever force caused it to expand is beyond our current comprehension - but science is ever evolving. And even if we do discover evidence of an unknown force propelling the expansion, or even the creation, calling it God and ceasing all attempts to discover the natural cause is illogical, because then we'd just be filling in the blanks with an equally unexplainable phenomenon, rather than working to find the true, natural solution. We may never find the answer, but we can at least be intellectually honest with ourselves in saying, "I don't know, let's find out."

Also, the big bang theory and god are not mutually exclusive; you can believe the big bang theory and also believe that a god created the singularity - deism is a logical enough stance to have. However, you would have to concede that you do not know the mechanism this "god" used to create the singularity, putting yourself in the same position as those who believe the big bang theory but don't know what made the singularity. It just seems more concise to not bring metaphysics into the equation.

"I simply ask you to think about time and space creation without getting caught in an infinite logical loop."

It's impossible to avoid the infinite when speaking about the origins of existence. Even with the idea of god creating the universe, you can't avoid implying eternity in some aspect or another.

Further reading on the subject:

http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/cosmos_bigbang.html

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/The%20Big%20Bang%20Theory.htm

Supporting Evidence: Big Bang Theory Rudiments/Evidence (www.big-bang-theory.com)
14 points

If you're talking about the earth, then neither. The big bang theory deals with the beginning of the universe, not specifically the formation of planets. The earth was formed by gravitational forces in a nebulous cloud of dust and gas that formed a star then coalesced into a number of planets around the sun. We can deduce the formation of the earth to the mechanics of natural forces, therefore god doesn't enter into the equation (if you keep to Occam's razor.)

Now, the question of the universe's beginning is a much more interesting one for this topic. The big bang theory is gaining more and more evidence to support it, but even it does not explain where the singularity originated from, only that the universe began as the singularity, and it expanded. Science is ever evolving, and we are gaining more knowledge about the workings of the universe every day. We may yet one day discover the origins of the singularity, or we may become extinct before we find out the truth. Either way, I don't see much of a reason to assume a "god" was involved, because that assumption is made to fill in a gap of knowledge, rather than finding hard evidence and then deducing the explanation from that (like science does).

The problem with the god explanation is that, in most contexts, god is something beyond physical existence, beyond comprehension, and beyond explanation. It cannot be comprehended where it exists, how it exists, what form it takes, etc. Therefore it's assumed that this being that was pulled from someone's nether regions created the universe because, well, I said so. That's not a very plausible explanation. We've witnessed the "god done did it" assumption be rendered moot time and time again when science discovers the way something works that was previously thought to be the work of a god. Do I know that there was not a god involved? Of course not; but saying "I don't know; let's find out" is a much more logical step than saying "I assume it's god, so let's move on."

1 point

I stand corrected then. But did they specify it as proved reserves, or proved and probable reserves? Or was it just an estimate?

3 points

Only problem with that argument is that 4.4 billion barrels are proved reserves in the Gulf of Mexico, the rest are in U.S. bedrock. And you know what's funny? We're already drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, so bringing up federal restrictions as holding back our use of the 21.4 billion barrels of proved oil reserves is a whopping non-sequiter. So far I haven't seen any articles on geological surveys of possible offshore oil deposits, and since McCain doesn't state any specifics, we have no reason to believe there are oil fields under lock and key by federal bans. At least, none that are included in the 21.4 billion barrel count. If someone can give some articles or surveys that detail what off-limits fields they're looking to drill, that would be much appreciated.

4 points

I recall that the Alaskan drilling project was supposed to take at least a decade to get the facilities producing at top efficiency, probably longer. But that was to develop the entire ANWR preserve, which would require immense infrastructure since the oil deposits are spread out so much. I found a website for Offshore Magazine, and it stated one semi-submersible rig that is to be built, the Seillean II, has an estimated construction time of 18 to 24 months. Apparently, there's a variety of different drilling rigs (fixed platforms, compliant towers, semi-submersible platforms, jack-up platforms, drillships, and tension-leg platforms, to name a few), so it all depends on which type companies are willing to build and how they are going to use them.

What's hilarious about this whole situation is that people in support of offshore drilling, such as analyst Collin Gerry, state something to the effect of, "High oil prices are enough to justify costly exploration projects in deep waters" (http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=7&issue;=20080528). Basically the solution they are proposing is to just find more oil. The thing is, oil is a finite resource, and whatever cause is directly affecting oil prices now, will do the same in the future. So why put effort into a temporary fix that will not lessen our dependence on oil, but merely postpone high prices, and has the added disadvantage of keeping greenhouse gas emissions at high levels? And the argument that we need to decrease our dependency on foreign oil is also moot because we can do the same by finding alternative energy sources. And it's not even clear how lucrative this prospect will be; plenty of other countries are on the scene already and there's no guarantee that we'll find enough oil to lessen even 10% of our dependence on foreign oil.

Wouldn't finding substitutes make more sense? Personally I think a better alternative would be building offshore wind farms. True, this would be a much more effective strategy for the UK, since we have little coastline relative to the size of the country, but while we're talking offshore energy sources, why not? Out at sea, the wind blows much harder than on land, due to the lack of terrain extremities that create drag, thus they can generate more electricity than those onshore (and the further out to sea you go, the higher wind speed there is) - they also have the added bonus of producing energy at a relatively consistent rate. They require a small batch of seabed to be built on, thus having a negligible effect on nearby aquatic wildlife (in fact, as proposed by the American Wind Energy Association, they could create safe havens for fish spawning grounds and sanctuary from intensive fishing activity, which has decreased the population of fish over the years).

The only real drawback is, at this time, that the cost of building wind turbines increases drastically the further out to sea they are built, both from water depth and the length of cable needed to transmit electricity from the turbines to utility power lines. Then again, this is still a relatively new concept that's being worked out. Some even speculate that future wind turbines could be built on floating platforms, allowing them to be much further out at sea than is currently financially feasible. But time will tell. For more information on offshore wind farms, see here: http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_offshore.html

Of course, wind farms aren't the sole solution to our energy problem, but it seems more rational to be investing in alternative forms of energy rather than putting time and money into a temporary fix. If we combine enough alternative methods together to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels for energy, we can use the oil we import to make plastics and the myriad of other products and foods that require it until we find a suitable alternative.

Supporting Evidence: Story on Seillean II (www.offshore-mag.com)
1 point

I was speaking about spiritual prayer specifically, so your comment is a non-sequiter in this instance. Even more so because you posted it as a reply to my comment about Madeline Neumann. If you pray without trying to communicate with a mystical being, good for you; I'm not interested in contesting that.

2 points

"No brain, no sound, simple as that."

http://stason.org/TULARC/physics/acoustics-faq/2-1-What-is-sound.html

http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Physics/Acoustics/PropertiesSound/PropertiesSound.htm

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/Class/sound/u11l1c.html

Scientifically, sound is an instantaneous and periodic change in air pressure caused by vibrating particles in a medium. Sound exists whether or not a brain and sensory organs are there to detect and register it. Going back to the light example: since our brains cannot register infrared or ultraviolet light waves, does that mean those waves don't exist? Absolutely not; in fact that's an absurd position to take. So how is saying sound doesn't exist because there's nothing to detect it and store it as sensory information, any more sensible?

1 point

"Sound is a function of the ears though"

Wrong. Sound is a wave that is caused by the back and forth movements of the medium it is traveling in. The waves of sound signify changes in air pressure; the presence of sensory organs has NOTHING to do with the existence of sound. The human ear just responds to a spectrum of frequencies it can detect, much like our eyes are tuned to register a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Do you content that infrared waves don't exist because they can't be detected by our eyes? No, unless you modify the definition of "light" to "radiation that is only perceptible to human eyes". Same deal with sound. And even if you were to make a modification to the question and have it say, "does it make an AUDIBLE sound," you still wouldn't have a case because the frequency range would still be within that 20Hz - 20kHz range detectable by the human ear. Subjective perception or the lack thereof does not affect the answer one way or another. It's almost as absurd as saying if a nuclear bomb were to be detonated on Venus and we didn't see it, it technically (by your logic) would not have emitted any light.

"to the human, without hearing the tree fall, it does not make a sound, even though it does push energy out in the form of vibrations and pressure changes."

You're assuming ears or sensory equipment are necessary for sound to technically exist, which is wholly inaccurate. Scientifically, sound is an instantaneous change in air pressure caused by vibrating particles, whether or not something is present to sense it or not. If you want to argue philosophy, this is not a discussion to argue it in, because science refutes your argument from the get go.

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/Class/sound/u11l1c.html

Supporting Evidence: Sound levels (stason.org)
2 points

We may need to draw a distinction between abuse and discipline for this issue: abusive use of physical force is unwarranted and/or excessive, and not constructive in any capacity. Disciplinary use of force is using only so much as to show the child the consequence of its actions, not to necessarily "punish" them. I think spanking should be left as a last resort for disciplinary action, but I am by no means opposed to its use when necessary. Screaming, cursing, and threatening a child is more traumatizing than spanking it without exhibiting anger (if only my father did that instead of throwing me up against a wall and screaming in my face).

1 point

Not all of them will, however a decent sized portion will support McCain. According to a recent Gallup poll, 28% of Hillary supporters would vote Republican if it came down to McCain vs. Obama. Not surprising since Hillary is attacking Obama with everything she can possibly pull out of her rectum while her campaign spirals down into oblivion - it makes sense that some of the less free-thinking supporters would hang on to every word of hers and will convince themselves that John McCain is somehow a better choice than Obama. And a couple of political blogs are speculating that McCain will make a move to woo Clinton's female supporters over to his side (http://firedoglake.com/2008/05/26/does-obama-need-hillarys-supporters/).

What's completely ludicrous about this, is that McCain wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade (as proudly stated on his very own campaign website), and recently opposed a Senate bill seeking equal wages for women, stating that they don't need equality in the workplace, just "education and training" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/23/mccain-opposes-equal-pay-_n_98342.html). Yeah, great way to win over the ladies, bud.

Supporting Evidence: Poll (www.gallup.com)
2 points

"and chose to discard it in favor of personal attacks and snobbery"

No, I requested Cienna to make an argument rather than name off a few things without elaborating as to their significance. If you read her response to me, she was the one who introduced snobbery to the discussion, via her sardonic use of "erm" and "er". I'm not denying she was right, because you have demonstrated she was, but she did not make any real arguments against me. She accused me of being a hypocrite and closed-minded to other perspectives when she didn't give enough specific information to demonstrate the validity of those perspectives in the first place, nor did she explain how the information I posted was completely irrelevant to the issue (as she claimed, but you showed). I didn't bring any "personal factors", either; her second response had several personal attacks against me. The closest thing I did to a personal attack prior to that was call her response piss-poor, since it lacked valid argumentation while conveying a supercilious tone.

"you still owe her an apology"

I don't see why. She was right, but she wasn't the one who made a case for her being right; all she did was claim I was wrong and ignorant (not denying either of those, mind you, since you have demonstrated that) without any explanation as to why. What did you want me to do? Just say "Well, my position must be completely unfounded just because she says so"? I have no problem with being wrong, I'd just like to know how and why I am wrong - I'm not looking to win anything, I'm looking to learn. If Cienna made actual arguments in response to my post, I would have acted in an entirely different fashion (notice how I was respectful towards you when you made competent counter-arguments? Or when Mumin finally provided evidence to validate his claims of being right on the Muhammad issue? I give respect where it is due). It's one thing to refuse to engage; it's another to assert a number of claims and ultimatums and refuse to provide justification for them (you know, proving their worth?).

"were you as concerned with quality of debate as you claim, I wouldn't have to remind you of it."

On the contrary, my concern for quality debate ceases motivation to apologize to someone who refused to debate the issue with me yet insisted on claiming I was misinformed and ignorant. I am of the opinion that one should put one's money where one's mouth is, and if one claims one is right and another person is wrong, one should at least try to make a decent case for that allegation.

5 points

If someone from Saudi Arabia comes to the U.S. and stones a woman to death for being raped, would we give him a free pass, since he is complying with Sharia law, the religious law of his home country? No. The same should apply to the U.S. soldier; he was in another country, he is bound by their laws, customs and traditions, not ours. It was culturally insensitive for him to make such a daring gesture, even if it was for good intentions. That kind of ignorance can lead to people getting killed, especially in very sensitive religious locales. At the least, our presence in Iraq will become even more resented, slapping our Sunni allies (who were key in reducing violence in the region) right in the face. Worst case scenario, the Shiites and Sunnis set aside their hatred for one another, unify as Muslims and start a religious conflict in the area with Christians - like we don't have enough hostility to deal with.

I think soldiers should undergo some rudimentary cultural anthropology instruction to make them aware of just how serious cultures can be in regards to their age-old customs and traditions, to learn the taboos of the areas they are stationed in so they don't [mess] everything up. They need to understand that some places do not allow the freedom of expression or beliefs that the U.S. does, and one wrong move, especially regarding religion, can cause immense problems for our continued presence there.

"That he was a Marine at the time does not enter into the equation, unless he was on duty at the time."

The article stated he distributed the coins while manning a checkpoint controlling access to the city - I doubt he was waiting there on his off time.

Not only did he disobey orders to not proselytize religion while on duty, but he added fuel to the growing fire of resentment Muslims in Iraq feel for our presence. Political motivations for fighting against us are enough; we don't need to bring religion in to make things worse.

4 points

While McClellan is indeed a backstabber, the repercussions of his actions will probably be for the better. Maybe with a man who worked alongside Bush pointing out the faults and disasters this administration brought, the 20% or so of the American public that still has faith in the incompetent president will finally realize the damage that has been done.

My main beef with this guy is that he continued to work with Bush for years, even commenting that the president's actions regarding Katrina would set the stage for his second term in office, and he didn't speak up until now? We needed this sort of criticism four years ago, not now when Bush is at the end of his second term. There have been plenty of whistle blowers, ones that spoke up in a timely manner. People whose words may not carry the same weight as McClellan's, but were on the scene when it really did matter.

This issue isn't as cut-and-dry as it may seem, but due to the circumstances regarding his criticism (primarily the timeliness of it) he's more of a sellout than a patriot. Though it's relieving that at least one neo-con is speaking out against Bush for once (even if he is doing it for the money).

2 points

Fenix, thank you for setting me straight; I concede the point. I never claimed I had insight, never claimed I had above-average intelligence or all the answers. All I wanted was for Cienna to refute my position. That's all; I had no illusions that it was perfect, I had no illusions that I was the most informed individual on this forum. I was putting forth my ideas for criticism like everyone else, and you have demolished them, just as it should be done.

"It is people like you, sir, who should be taken out back and whipped into bloody unconsciousness for contributing to hysteria and misinformation"

Interesting hostility on your part. Education furthers intellectual understanding more than torture, and you have educated me on this subject. If you really think I should be "whipped into bloody unconsciousness" for good measure, you might have some issues to be worked out.

Personal attacks aside, thank you again for correcting me on the subject, fenix.

1 point

I appreciate it; stirring the pot helps keep things interesting and furthers (and/or creates) discussion. Your input is always welcome.

4 points

I've taken a look at your link, a plug for a book by Graham Hancock. The first thing I saw set the tone for how legitimate this whole thing is: "According to their calendar, the Maya believed that their world would end on Dec 21, 2012." No, they did not.

What will happen on December 21, 2012 is a spectacular and rare event; the winter solstice where our sun will cross the point of the Galactic Equator - something that hasn't happened in 25,800 years. The Mayans were mathematically and cosmologically brilliant people. They did not believe 2012 was the end of all time, or the end of the world, merely the end of the Great Cycle (which, as all cycles do, start over once they end).

The Mayans calculated this conjunction, noticing the changes the earth's wobble created in the position of the stars. Using what is called the Long Count, they decided December 21, 2012 as the end of their Great Cycle and worked backward to see when the calendar would begin: August 11, 3114 BCE. The brilliance of this, however, was that the 5,125.36-day Great Cycle is actually one fifth of the Great Great Cycle, known scientifically as the Platonic Year; the length of the procession of equinoxes. The Mayans measured time in circles within circles within circles - there is no end, merely a new beginning. So strike one for that site.

Strike two: Hancock is a journalist. Now, I'm not saying journalists can't make a good argument (as David Strahan did in The Last Oil Shock), however this individual claims the "serious academics, who went through university adhering to strict scientific principals" are mistaken when they say there's not enough evidence to support the claims being made. If this man thinks he is more knowledgeable than university professors with years of experience in these fields, enough so to claim that "sane, regular people" should listen to him and not the professors, then his "theory" should be put under all the more scrutiny.

Strike three: No evidence is provided for the assumptions that he mentions; unfortunate, because we can't do a lot of arguing on those, which dictate the validity of his entire theory. However, there were a few that I'd like to address. The allegation that ancient cultures communicated with one another is completely unfounded; only circumstantial evidence such as pyramid building (which differ in appearance from culture to culture) or flood myths (which is almost as absurd as the argument that reptilian gods in multiple cultures support the Nibiru reptilian theory). Evolution does occur in small stages; it is a very slow, gradual process. There are times when the number of mutations is much higher than normally, such as with the cambrian explosion, however it works slowly for the most part. And I think we're all well aware of how dangerous our galactic neighborhood is - gamma ray bursts, asteroids, solar flares... we're well aware of the danger.

And about the dragons and unicorns... I would just LOVE to see evidence of that. I saw a picture of a one-horned goat once, but that's about it.

Now to the cataclysmic events he speaks of: Evidence has been provided for a solar polar shift to occur in 2012, not an earth pole shift. The sun's magnetic poles shifted in February of 2001, signaling the arrival of a solar maximum, and a second one is due in 2012. Pole shifts have occurred on earth, of course; they are a natural process of the planet. The intervals between shifts are varied, from tens of thousands of years to millions. The last polar shift occurred 780,000 years ago, and the reversal took place over thousands of years. So no cataclysmic shifting going on here; just a gradual process of the earth.

Hancock claims that mass extinctions and rapid evolution occur at the same time as cataclysms. Yes... at the same time as events such as a huge freakin' asteroid slamming into the earth, radical temperature changes, massive volcanic activity, or a sudden change in weather and climate. They do not, as far as we know, occur during equinoxes or solar magnetic reversals.

Cosmic rays cause mutation, says Hancock. Indeed; good thing that we have that thing called an atmosphere and magnetic field to shield us from the sun's more potent radiation and solar wind. If he's talking about gamma ray bursts, then that wouldn't cause mutations, it would just kill us all. This is a great quote, though: "Although scientists are unsure about where all the cosmic rays come from, the source might be the same as what powers the pole shifts." It's really unfortunate he doesn't cite some specific examples, because right now all I can do is laugh. The pole shifts on earth are caused by (get ready for it)... the earth! At least, that's the consensus so far. It's been found that external causes of magnetic field reversals are not likely, due to a lack of correlation between massive impacts and pole reversals, and so far we have not spotted any massive planet with an elliptical orbit swooping into the inner solar system out of nowhere to mess with the earth.

"The ancients were aware of the dangers of cosmic rays and cataclysms..."

They knew about cosmic rays? Really? Every culture has their doomsday stories, but I wasn't aware ancient cultures knew about radiation and "cosmic rays".

"I also believe that pyramids may have been designed as cosmic ray shelters."

I think we've all seen a cutaway diagram of a pyramid where the burial chamber and passageways are shown. I doubt 200 people (I'm being real generous here) could possibly fit into one of those to escape a "cosmic ray" blast. Speaking of which, who uses the term "cosmic ray" anyway? Someone who doesn't know what he's talking about? Perhaps.

I think it's safe to assume this individual's book will be a dud, if anything. It's hard for me to argue against it because there's no evidence or examples put forth, but this is just my initial impression of the material. I don't think the Bast theory is of any concern. I'm not assuming you believe it, Loudacris, I'm just giving an argument for the sake of the debate.

5 points

Honestly I don't think anything will happen in 2012. The whole fuss about the Mayan calendar ending is irrelevant; it's a circle. It doesn't end. When it reaches the end of one cycle it starts a new one. No doomsday or "age of enlightenment" or anything. In fact, the only reason December 21, 2012 is given any reverence by the Mayans is because it will be the the end of the first cycle on their calendar, which would be a noteworthy date. Though I do wonder if the Romans celebrated the completion of the first cycle of the Julian calendar when it was implemented.

As far as the whole Anunnaki, Nibiru, reptilian man-devouring alien stuff goes... I'd love to hear someone make a case for that theory. I tried debating with some people on Youtube about the subject, though most of them accused me of being a reptilian agent, trying to get humanity's guard down so the aliens could invade or whatever. Here's just a quick argument to get started, though:

The only possible candidate for a "planet X", otherwise known as Nibiru, would be a brown dwarf. Brown dwarfs are failed stars, gas giants like Jupiter that have much more mass and have much greater surface temperature. There's no way life can develop there, and if planetoids do orbit the brown dwarf, it is highly doubtful any one of those would possess the same atmosphere, temperature range, and gravity as earth (not to mention the same solar radiation exposure). Any one of those factors, if radically different would keep the reptilians from being able to survive on earth.

Also, Zecharia Stichen said the Sumerians recorded the earth "standing still" when Nibiru came about. This would obliterate all life on the planet, since we are currently moving about 1000 miles per hour. Suddenly stopping the rotation would not halt the atmosphere's movement, causing wind speeds so fast they would sweep everything not anchored to bedrock - trees, topsoil, buildings, animals - into the atmosphere. The accounts of the Sumerians are woefully inaccurate, because if such a planet did pass by close enough to gravitationally affect the earth, all terrestrial life would be wiped out. Switching the magnetic poles, as also proposed by the reptilian theorists, would cause massive earthquakes and volcano eruptions worldwide due to the movement of the core (this includes the 7 supervolanoes, guaranteeing total annihilation for surface organisms).

And if Nibiru has an orbit of 3600 years, no life would be possible beyond bacteria and perhaps some very simple oceanic life, because mass extinctions of that caliber at such short regular intervals would make it impossible for life to evolve on land as much as it has.

But, anyway, what does everyone else think about 2012? Doomsday, a time of enlightenment, nothing special?

4 points

I hate to be a nay-sayer, but it is highly doubtful that we will ever "colonize" mars. Setting up scientific research stations is a possibility, however resources are the biggest setback we face insofar as setting up a whole colony on another planet. Oil is, of course, declining worldwide, and we'll be hard pressed to find another kind of fuel that can generate as much energy and as cheaply as rocket fuel to propel shuttles past escape velocity.

With the monumental amount of money needed to transport a sufficient number of personnel and machines to Mars to even begin construction (even with the gradual habitat structure drops proposed, it would still take decades to build up a real colony), I doubt any one nation will be able to bear the full cost; designing, building and launching satellites cost enough money as it is. Perhaps the EU will be able to fund such a project, but the US? Doubtful, especially with the budget crisis we face today.

Let's put this in perspective: The cost of building the launchers and the Apollo spacecraft alone came to a total of roughly 67.5 billion dollars. Granted, this was in a timespan between about 1959 to the mid 70's, so if we were to be generous and use 1968 as a point of reference for inflation change, this cost would come out to be $419,070,607,461.38 today. And the missions themselves cost billions of dollars more - see the attached link for more expenditure figures.

Now, that cost is nothing compared to what we've spent in Iraq, however this was a figure for the journey to the moon. Mars is 35 million miles from earth - at its closest point, no less. It would take 6 months to arrive there with our current technology, as opposed to the four days it took for the Apollo shuttle to reach the moon. Obviously this brings in the issue of muscle and bone atrophy; even if humans find some way to enter a "stasis" like the Sci-Fi flicks, their muscles would still break down while suspended in zero gravity. Thus, the astronauts would need to stay awake and exercise to prevent muscle atrophy, as well as a number of other health issues that accompany extended exposure to zero gravity. This means they would need food and water (since they recycle their urine for oxygen, rather than for drinking water) for the whole 6 month journey, as well as supplies for when they arrive on the planet. This mandates a larger shuttle for storage space, which necessitates larger, more powerful rockets to carry them out of earth's gravitational pull.

Bone atrophy is even worse than muscle atrophy, because exercise does not reverse the calcium and bone cell loss caused by zero gravity. Some may propose that a rotating space craft may induce artificial gravity to prevent this, however such technology is highly controversial and there isn't much consensus on how the hell that would work in the first place. And, of course, this will require even more costly R&D;.

An interesting video on Youtube is a History Channel documentary called The Universe on colonizing space, and it outlines a number of valid complications in the plan to colonize Mars (Search "The Universe: Colonizing Space" - it's a 5 part video series. Very fascinating).

Solar winds also pose a problem that will require specialized equipment to survive; intense waves of radiation can wipe out a crew if they're not prepared; satellites that detect a solar wind would have to be posted in space to relay the information to the crew, and a special bunker would have to be built within the shuttle so they could escape the deadly radiation. This would also be an issue on Mars, since it has a very, very weak magnetic field to stop the solar wind. A bunker would have to be constructed there as well. In fact, the colonies might have to be built underground to shield the people from cosmic rays and violent sandstorms; living on the surface with prolonged exposure to radiation could render the inhabitants infertile - not a good way to run a colony.

Colonies built on Mars would have to have supplies flown in to keep the inhabitants alive while they figure out some way to obtain food from the planet. In fact, the first "colony" to be built on Mars would probably be no more than a single structure where a crew of 4 people live. There are a number of psychological problems that come with this, however on Devon Island in the Canadian Arctic they've already built a simulation ground that will be similar to this scenario: one small structure, a small crew to live there for months simulating scientific research. This might be a good training ground to prepare for that.

Also, going back to the gravity issue, Mars' gravity is 1/3 that of earth's; this could cause complications for the humans living on the planet. Their bone cell count would decrease, they would lose calcium, and if they live there for long enough, their bodies would have acclimated too much to the lower gravity to return to earth and function normally.

Once more, I'm not saying missions to Mars are impossible. But colonizing Mars is a whole other story, and we really should be focusing on the missions themselves rather than get ahead of ourselves and assume that we'll even get that far. Anything is possible, however at this moment the future for such elaborate scientific expeditions looks rather bleak, simply because of our economic situation. We really need to get things together here on earth before we spend a huge amount of money on colonizing another planet. The only feasible way we could fund such a project would be if the nations of the world joined in larger unions similar to the EU, to pool economies and funds. That is, unless the US recovers from its current rut enough to delve into these experimental and very costly expeditions.

Supporting Evidence: Cost of the moon race. (www.asi.org)
2 points

The laws of the universe were formed at the instant of the big bang (actually it was more of a big expansion, but whatever). I thought that much was obvious.

0 points

Once more, what gaps? So far you've mentioned the 2006 oversupply, the OPEC tape, and the testimony of the sacred "various talking heads", yet you haven't elaborated how any of those invalidates my previous arguments or the information correlating to decreased oil production, or the fact that decreased production affects prices. Nope, no elaboration at all. How exactly are you supposed to "rub my nose" into these "gaps" if you don't even make an argument out of them?

Let me ask one last time: HAVE YOU EVER BEEN IN A DEBATE BEFORE? Because you sure as hell don't act like it.

3 points

"you keep creating straw men arguments."

Look up the definition of a "straw man" argument, please. Thank you.

"I'm not claiming anything about a God being complex or no"

I never said you did; you, however, are pulling a tactic I've seen again and again: asking where the "complex" laws of the universe came from to give the answer that "God done did it". I'm merely anticipating your coming argument and getting it out of the way so we won't have to waste any further time on that.

"If you're up to date on the latest evolution thinking"

Wow, that one came out from left field. Since when are we talking about evolution?

"I'm trying to follow such thinking"

No, you were talking about the cosmological constant, gravity, electromagnetism, and all the other laws of the universe. Biological evolution had absolutely nothing to do with the conversation.

"I'm asking questions about evolution"

There's a pretty HUGE dichotomy between the theory of evolution and the physical laws of the universe - I really hope you realize that. No, you were not talking about evolution.

"you answer by attacking a God you don't believe exists"

Please explain how I can "attack" something I don't believe exists in the first place. No, seriously, explain it to me, it sounds fascinating.

"Hmm, sounds like, a fanatic."

Not really; I consider myself a moderate if anything. I'm not persecuting you, I'm not insulting you because of your faith, I'm not discriminating or hiring ninja assassins to murder you in your sleep. I'm trying to have a discussion with you, and if you think that's fanatical behavior, you've obviously never been to the DEBATE FAITH room on Stickam.

3 points

If god exists, then god is even more complex then the laws. Thus, the questions you have just asked would have to be applied to god as well, making god existing no more likely than the laws existing, by your logic.

Humans created the concept of complex. If conscious minds were not capable of fathoming complexity, then it would be a non-issue. The laws of the universe are not complex, nor are they simple. They are only either based on how we choose to describe them, how they appear to us. It is a subjective opinion we form, therefore it cannot be used as proof of god's existence.

2 points

"people with good taste recognize The Beatles as the best band ever."

People with any concept of good music recognize King Crimson as beating the living hell out of the Beatles any day of the week.

1 point

"Every one of your debates fall back on this method of ad honimem [sic] and derogatory treatment of those who either disagree with you or refuse to engage with you."

Actually, no they did not. There were no ad hominem attacks, and I normally don't use sardonicism while debating. However, you started to bring sarcasm into the equation, therefore I matched. Look up "ad hominem", read your initial comment, and come back with an intelligible debate, please. If you won't prove that you're right and I'm wrong (which I'm perfectly fine with, if you make a good enough argument), there's no use in claiming such. If you can debate like a mature adult, then I will treat you with the respect you deserve. Currently I don't see any reason to respect you, with your method of arguing.

Also, here are some more figures: Ten minutes after I posted my comment, you had responed. In those ten minutes, I received a down vote. Each time you responded to my comments, a down vote occurred. This correlation indicates you're a liar, in addition to not being able to argue your way out of a paper bag.

I honestly don't care if you vote my comments down - I just expect you make a decent argument against what I am saying, because a down vote means I must be incorrect. So far you've only voted my comments down because you don't agree with them; that's a rather petty action, don't you think? If I'm wrong, prove me wrong. It's that simple.

As much as I'm sure you'd love to continue this pointless banter, I'm not on this website to waste my time and the time of the forum host to bicker with a person who can't make an intelligible argument, let alone stay on topic. Until you're interested in actually debating the issue at hand like an intelligent adult, don't bother me, and don't disrespect the forum's host by sidestepping the issue and posting inane comments.


1 of 4 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]