Strictly regarding travel through time, and not time dilation, another proof that it is not possible is that we still exist.

If time travel was possible, surely some idiot from the future would have screwed humanity's entire time line by now.

Yeah, you can't beat my logic. ;)

Our females have monthly ovulation cycles, animals don't.

They do have cycles but we don't call them that. We refer to the animals as being "in heat". Some come into heat more often because God wanted to insure their life.

I find it strange that people will talk about Nature as "MotherNature" as if it was a real person. But if you say somthing about God did this or the other people say stuff like "There is no God".

As far as having parts of the body that we no longer needed you can add the Wisdom Teeth to that list. Most people have them removed to avoid problems because they can't be clean as well. Some people think they are left over from our ancestors back when we use to eat more plants.

I don't really have anything to add to this fascinating subject of discussion, other than to say that -once again- I agree with Mr. Tesla.

Hello Diego and Mr Tesla (I have to grin at this one...)

I also dont believe in time travel. if i am proved wrong (if i live long enough...before the sun blows up) experiments did prove that time dilation takes place when an object is moved at a rapid velocity, in relation to a stationary object. when the atomic clock was flown around the world they measured some infintesimally small chnage in its time compared to the master clock when they arrived back......

So thinking about this raises the question... if an object (eg a star ship) travelling at high velocity for a long time (10 years) arrives at its destination (lets say back at its home planet after a roundtrip) and the occupants step out to greet the staff who originally waved them goodbye....
we all understand that the ships passengers will NOT have aged as much as the planets people....

But dont we also have a semi strange event of the past living breathing people standing in the here and now ... they (the ships crew) have gone from a slowed down timeline but also still being part of the real universe in real time...to then appearing to the present accelerated timeline people in this real time...(there has to be some sort of bubble/warping effect here to achieve this.. doesnt there ??)

This whole issue raises another question (if only to me..) of the warping of space/time... can we do it with anything else other than raw velocity.

I mean whats so dam special about going just fast... that it produces time dilation...(and yes I know E=MC^2) we MUST be able to reproduce the effects in a lab... when we finally find out how.... then bingo...

That's a very moderate view of science and religion. Religion basically promotes a moral/ethical code in society, while science promotes education and the overall advancement and modernization of society. I would not go hardcore on science or religion; I would just take the best of both worlds. ;-)

I agree. Our western values, and our legal system, are based on christian ethics.
The basics to what is considered civilized behaviour can be found in the new testament.

It's people who take the old testament verbatim that cause the most grief nowadays.


Regards Hans

The question of whether the chicken or the egg came first is the essence of the argument between creation and evolution.

Creationists would say "and God created chicken", since She would hardly have created an egg without a mother around to hatch it.

Evolutionists say that a bird that was not quite a chicken hatched a mutated egg that just barely was a chicken.

Since feral chickens look a lot like robins and are only a little bigger, it would seem that evolution has been demonstrated if only induced by mere humans with selective breeding. Natural evolution is mostly selective breeding and the occasional gamma ray, both courtesy of the environment.

Lots of good answers in here. But I have to ask: why would any given responder in here believe anything at all? If you're scientifically minded, you have to rest on proof. So why would anyone scientific 'believe' this or 'believe' that with no proof at all??? .

The seti people and alot of other scientists believe that life exists somewhere else in the universe, and as of now we have no proof or even evidence.

The only thing we know is the ingredients for life are out there but we have nothing saying they have to form life.

So I think everyone believes in something even scientists, it`s just whether or not you look for the truth or you just sit around believing with no proof.

"Given the pathetic condition of the human condition, I would have to conclude we are the result of intelligent design by committee."

- Mark Cook

The transition from alpha to beta testing is scheduled somewhere near the end of the next millenium :o)


Regards Hans

This seems to have turned into a religious discussion featuring Jeffrey against the rest of the world. :p

Btw, if god created us in his image, then god sucks.
We are weak "bags of mostly water". Hehehe

NASA's campaign to send the nom de plumes of people from around the world into the heart of the asteroid belt ends Sat., Nov. 4.

Submitted names will be carried on board NASA's Dawn, the first spacecraft to travel between and scrutinize two distinct worlds. Mission scientists are confident Dawn observations of asteroid Vesta and dwarf planet Ceres will answer basic questions about the nature and composition of these celestial wanderers.

My problem with all the talk of ftl travel is the tacit assumption that almost always seems to be made that relativity must (for whatever reason) just be blatantly wrong, when it is already the best tested and confirmed scientific theory in human history.

Quote:
"limiting the number of children a family can have does not work."

At the simplest level, it cannot fail, but I accept there are moral issues concerning this which is why in our current society it won't work, as people will simply rise up against the government in question, or cheat the system.

I feel draconian measures would be required to enforce this idea, with perhaps a limit of two children per family, with formulae being developed to account for divorces and re-marriages, and compulsory abortion should a third pregnancy occur. This would (numerically) replace the adult population, and with natural wastage - there will always be childless couples or those who choose to only have one - the population would take a dive fairly quickly.

This idea would be abhorrent to many, and probably unacceptable to the rest, but what choice do we really have in the short to medium term?

Our planet is in serious trouble, and yet few people seem to recognise this. It isn't just a case of exhausting our absolute resources, is is more to do with outstripping our renewable resources as well. There are simply too many of us. :(

Mules can't reproduce. Are they alive?