ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 26th June 2018, 05:44 PM   #81
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,477
Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
Probably not EML1 or 2, though. They're only "gateways" for low thrust, low energy, and very, very slow transfer trajectories, they're inefficient to ship to if time is any sort of priority, and you can't take advantage of aerobraking to reach them.
And aerobraking is the big plus for Mars Orbit as a working space. Such a system has been used successfully many times in both orbital and landing missions to Mars and other planets, and even here on Earth

1991 Hiten (Japan) - Earth/Moon

1993 Magellan (NASA/JPL) - Venus

1997 Mars Global Surveyor (NASA/JPL)

2001 Mars Odyssey (NASA/JPL)

2005 Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (NASA/JPL)

2014 Venus Express (ESA)

2017 ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter (ESA)

In the case of Mars, the atmosphere is so thin, that heat shielding requirements are minimal, but its also thick enough to be significantly affective for aerobraking.

From Wikipedia..."Simulations of the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter aerobraking using a force limit of 0.35 Nm2 with a spacecraft cross section of about 37 m≤, equate to a maximum drag force of about 7.4 N, and a maximum expected temperature of 170įC). The force density (i.e. pressure), roughly 0.2 Nm2 exerted on the Mars Observer during aerobraking is comparable to the aerodynamic resistance of moving at 0.6 m/s at sea level on Earth, approximately the amount experienced when walking slowly."

This means that aerobraking can be used routinely very little additional weight penalty for heat shielding and structural integrity.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 10:24 AM   #82
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,447
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Translation: Curl up into the foetal position and await oblivion.
I don't agree with Samson that we should not strive to explore the Cosmos, but if he's curling up to await the oceans boiling dry, he'll have a long wait. Around a thousand times the duration that our sub species has been in existence.

Also moving populations to mars in the foreseeable future will be no solution; rather it will add to the problem. So we need to develop space travel, and above all to improve our knowledge of conditions on other solar systems.

I am in general agreement with Roboramma's post #58.

Last edited by Craig B; 28th June 2018 at 10:27 AM.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 10:28 AM   #83
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,721
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
I don't agree with Samson that we should not strive to explore the Cosmos, but if he's curling up to await the oceans boiling dry, he'll have a long wait. Around a thousand times the duration that our sub species has been in existence.

Also moving populations to mars in the foreseeable future will be no solution; rather it will add to the problem. So we need to develop space travel, and above all to improve our knowledge of conditions on other solar systems.
Learning to travel to and colonize less than perfect environments seems like an important step in doing the hilighted. Mars is nearby and a good starting point.
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 05:28 PM   #84
cjameshuff
Thinker
 
cjameshuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 174
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
I don't agree with Samson that we should not strive to explore the Cosmos, but if he's curling up to await the oceans boiling dry, he'll have a long wait. Around a thousand times the duration that our sub species has been in existence.

Also moving populations to mars in the foreseeable future will be no solution; rather it will add to the problem. So we need to develop space travel, and above all to improve our knowledge of conditions on other solar systems.

I am in general agreement with Roboramma's post #58.
Nobody's talking about "moving populations to Mars", they're talking about establishing colonies on Mars. That's certainly not going to "add to the problem" in any way.

The only way we're going to develop the technologies needed for space travel is to actually engage in space travel. The idea that the required technologies are going to just materialize out of nowhere if we wait long enough isn't at all realistic, the only possible result of that strategy is humanity going extinct without ever leaving Earth. The duration of our window of opportunity isn't clear, but it certainly isn't infinite, and the sooner we get started the better our chances of long term survival.

As for conditions in other star systems, those are way, way down the list of issues to deal with. Expansion off Earth is a prerequisite for reaching them, but it'll be a very long time before we're capable of star travel. There isn't a planet, moon, or asteroid in the solar system that wouldn't be orders of magnitude easier to colonize than something in another star system.
cjameshuff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 07:27 PM   #85
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,477
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
I don't agree with Samson that we should not strive to explore the Cosmos, but if he's curling up to await the oceans boiling dry, he'll have a long wait. Around a thousand times the duration that our sub species has been in existence.
1. I was speaking metaphorically, about the whole human race, not just Samson.

2. Oblivion for the human race looks likely to arrive a good deal sooner than the swelling of the Sun. It could come tomorrow with a planet killing asteroid, but even absent that, the human race is currently doing a cracking job of making our pale blue dot uninhabitable. Humans might be able to evolve into a species that can tolerate an additional 15įC to 25įC average global temperature (and all its attendant drastic changes in climate and environment) given a time scale of millions of years, but that can't happen on the time scale at which these changes are happening.

Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Also moving populations to mars in the foreseeable future will be no solution; rather it will add to the problem. So we need to develop space travel, and above all to improve our knowledge of conditions on other solar systems.
Not at all true if the predicted climate changes happen over the next one to two thousand years... a self sustaining colony on another planet is vital if we want the human race to persist, but it is sure as hell not going to persist here on Earth unless we find a way to stop what we are doing.

Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
I am in general agreement with Roboramma's post #58.
I'm not.

Mars is a vital second step (the Moon was the first) if humans ever hope to become an interstellar, space faring species. Ancient peoples of the planet could not make a coracle and paddle across the Atlantic, and neither could later peoples build a sailing ship from scratch without all the precursor knowledge and development handed down from previous ship builders going right back the the coracle itself.

In any case, besides all that, isn't it better to give ourselves multiple options rather then put all our store in the hope that we will wake up and decide not to continue to make our one and only planet uninhabitable?
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

Last edited by smartcooky; 28th June 2018 at 07:48 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 08:14 PM   #86
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 57,597
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Around a thousand times the duration that our sub species has been in existence.
[pedant]We're not a subspecies, we're a species.[/pedant]
__________________
"Curiosity killed time by making up for lost cats."
The Three-Word Story
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2018, 09:55 PM   #87
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 10,762
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post

Mars is a vital second step (the Moon was the first) if humans ever hope to become an interstellar, space faring species. Ancient peoples of the planet could not make a coracle and paddle across the Atlantic, and neither could later peoples build a sailing ship from scratch without all the precursor knowledge and development handed down from previous ship builders going right back the the coracle itself.
The key to developing space is going to be robotics, not human workers. Developing that technology will be accelerated by sending more robotic, not manned, missions.

Weíre not going to the stars if we canít automate everything. So letís work on that.

Yes, manned missions will also advance our technical understanding, but slower than a focus on robotics.

There may not be the same will to engage in robotic exploration as there is for manned exploration, and that may justify a focus on manned missions, but that is a separate issue.

Quote:
In any case, besides all that, isn't it better to give ourselves multiple options rather then put all our store in the hope that we will wake up and decide not to continue to make our one and only planet uninhabitable?
no matter what we do to the earth, on the scale of thousands of years it will always be more habitable than anywhere else in the solar system.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2018, 01:14 AM   #88
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,799
Mars Scmarz ... the way to avoid being wiped out by a rise in global temps over the next ~500 years is to find ways to download ourselves, into silicon for example, and put the bank of chips (or whatever) into a nice robot. Once we've done that, putting a bunch of us in a rocket or two (along with compact robots for setting up factories etc) and heading out to Venus, the Moon, Mercury, Ganymede, Titan, Triton, ... oh, and Mars too ... that's what will be the stepping stone to interstellar travel!

Question: what's the minimal mass for a splendor of robots (rhymes with swans, better than pride ) which could dig up rocks, and process them (together with "air") into raw materials for factories to produce more robots?
JeanTate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2018, 02:15 AM   #89
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,477
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
The key to developing space is going to be robotics, not human workers. Developing that technology will be accelerated by sending more robotic, not manned, missions.
Firstly, this is by no means set in stone. If it were then why are NASA, SpaceX and the Chinese gearing up for manned missions?

As far as robotics go, they might be great for taking photos and readings, but the robot has yet to be built that has intuition, or can follow a hunch, or can look at something and say to itself "that over there is worth a closer look". We are a long, long way away, perhaps a hundred years or more, from robots that can even approach a human's ability to explore over a wide area, and the wider the area your can explore, the more you can discover.

Its a fact that from 1969 to 1972, 12 men spent a total of 80 hours on the moon, and in that time they travelled at total of 91 km, and that is only counting the the last three missions using the LRV, not the travelling they did on foot. Compare that with the most advanced surface robot ever built... Curiosity. It has been on Mars for over 50,000 hours and has travelled.... wait for it... a whopping 19.5 km.

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Weíre not going to the stars if we canít automate everything. So letís work on that.
More importantly, were not going anywhere if we don't go anywhere.

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Yes, manned missions will also advance our technical understanding, but slower than a focus on robotics.

There may not be the same will to engage in robotic exploration as there is for manned exploration, and that may justify a focus on manned missions, but that is a separate issue.
IMO, we need both

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
no matter what we do to the earth, on the scale of thousands of years it will always be more habitable than anywhere else in the solar system.
Your optimism is commendable, and I really hope you are right, but the outlook is bleak. The best estimates are for a three to four degree rise in average global temperatures by the year 2100, and that is if we cut emissions drastically now. Four degrees doesn't sound much but its huge considering a good number of climate scientists consider just a two degree rise to be the tipping point beyond which the Earth cannot recover. The reality is that the rise will be more like eight degrees, and that is globally catastrophic.. in some parts of the world, super-storms will happen on a weekly basis, and what were once called 1-in-100 year floods will become annual or even more frequent events. In other parts of the world, temperatures will be so high that they are unsurvivable, and populations will try to migrate to cooler areas. Once the Greenland Ice Sheet has completely melted, there's no going back... "game over man, game over!".

And I haven't even discussed sea level rise.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2018, 06:22 AM   #90
cjameshuff
Thinker
 
cjameshuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 174
We might someday be able to build robots that can do the job, but we're never going to do so without people out there to drive the development of those robots to solve the problems they encounter. Sending a science rover or orbital probe every few years isn't going to get us anywhere. That approach only ends with us eventually becoming unwilling or entirely losing the capability to send yet another robot to slightly refine the results of previous robots.

Technology doesn't just appear out of nowhere. We will not develop the capabilities for spaceflight by just waiting long enough. The only way to develop spaceflight is to actually go out there.
cjameshuff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2018, 01:43 AM   #91
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,742
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Firstly, this is by no means set in stone. If it were then why are NASA, SpaceX and the Chinese gearing up for manned missions?

As far as robotics go, they might be great for taking photos and readings, but the robot has yet to be built that has intuition, or can follow a hunch, or can look at something and say to itself "that over there is worth a closer look". We are a long, long way away, perhaps a hundred years or more, from robots that can even approach a human's ability to explore over a wide area, and the wider the area your can explore, the more you can discover.

Its a fact that from 1969 to 1972, 12 men spent a total of 80 hours on the moon, and in that time they travelled at total of 91 km, and that is only counting the the last three missions using the LRV, not the travelling they did on foot. Compare that with the most advanced surface robot ever built... Curiosity. It has been on Mars for over 50,000 hours and has travelled.... wait for it... a whopping 19.5 km.



More importantly, were not going anywhere if we don't go anywhere.



IMO, we need both



Your optimism is commendable, and I really hope you are right, but the outlook is bleak. The best estimates are for a three to four degree rise in average global temperatures by the year 2100, and that is if we cut emissions drastically now. Four degrees doesn't sound much but its huge considering a good number of climate scientists consider just a two degree rise to be the tipping point beyond which the Earth cannot recover. The reality is that the rise will be more like eight degrees, and that is globally catastrophic.. in some parts of the world, super-storms will happen on a weekly basis, and what were once called 1-in-100 year floods will become annual or even more frequent events. In other parts of the world, temperatures will be so high that they are unsurvivable, and populations will try to migrate to cooler areas. Once the Greenland Ice Sheet has completely melted, there's no going back... "game over man, game over!".

And I haven't even discussed sea level rise.
Thread drift alert:
I started the thread because it seemed absurd to me to rely on Mars to replace Earth as first choice planet, barring a Chicxulub event, which indeed had to occur on land to allow us a prized evolutionary niche, we can make plans to hang in here.

New Zealand is making no such plans, deciding to increase population at the highest global RATE and definitely carbon footprint with what might be deemed malice aforethought.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2018, 04:07 AM   #92
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,477
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Thread drift alert:
I started the thread because it seemed absurd to me to rely on Mars to replace Earth as first choice planet, barring a Chicxulub event, which indeed had to occur on land to allow us a prized evolutionary niche, we can make plans to hang in here.

New Zealand is making no such plans, deciding to increase population at the highest global RATE and definitely carbon footprint with what might be deemed malice aforethought.
Yeah, we get it. You are anti manned space flight.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2018, 04:21 AM   #93
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 10,762
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post

As far as robotics go, they might be great for taking photos and readings, but the robot has yet to be built that has intuition, or can follow a hunch, or can look at something and say to itself "that over there is worth a closer look".
That something hasnít been done isnít a reason not to pursue it, it is certainly possible to do, as evidenced by the fact that the human machine can do those things.

Quote:
We are a long, long way away, perhaps a hundred years or more, from robots that can even approach a human's ability to explore over a wide area, and the wider the area your can explore, the more you can discover.
I think this is our fundamental point of disagreement: that timescale. I donít think itís a hundred years or more. Maybe fifty.

But on the scale of the exploration of our solar system that hundred years is the blink of an eye. For most of the future of humanity we will have robots that can not only explore more cheaply than humans, but also more effectively. Even if it takes two hundred years to develop that technology, two hundred years is a moment next to the thousands of years scale of developing the solar system and interstellar exploration /development will take orders of magnitude longer.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2018, 04:31 AM   #94
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 10,762
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post

Your optimism is commendable, and I really hope you are right, but the outlook is bleak. The best estimates are for a three to four degree rise in average global temperatures by the year 2100, and that is if we cut emissions drastically now. Four degrees doesn't sound much but its huge considering a good number of climate scientists consider just a two degree rise to be the tipping point beyond which the Earth cannot recover. The reality is that the rise will be more like eight degrees, and that is globally catastrophic.. in some parts of the world, super-storms will happen on a weekly basis, and what were once called 1-in-100 year floods will become annual or even more frequent events. In other parts of the world, temperatures will be so high that they are unsurvivable, and populations will try to migrate to cooler areas. Once the Greenland Ice Sheet has completely melted, there's no going back... "game over man, game over!".

And I haven't even discussed sea level rise.
While Iím somewhat optimistic that we will be able to avoid a worst case scenario, Iím not entirely convinced that we will, and as you say there is certainly reason for concern. But even in that worst case scenario the earth will still be much more amenable to life than anywhere else in the solar system and removing that excess carbon from the atmosphere, or any other geoengineering solution, while perhaps extremely difficult, will nevertheless be orders of magnitude easier than attempting to terraform any of the other planets.

Honestly Iím all for colonizing space. I just donít think we are ready for it yet, and doing so is not a solution to our environmental problems. Any difficulties we are creating in our living environment on the earth are trivial next to the problems we will face with living on the environment of Mars or the asteroids.
I think we will solve both, but neither solution is a substitute for the other.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2018, 05:11 AM   #95
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,742
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Yeah, we get it. You are anti manned space flight.
I am in favour of freezing the CO2 concentration at current levels, for my great grand children, and you look same.
This is impossible as you also know.
Why kick inanimate objects?
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2018, 05:53 AM   #96
cjameshuff
Thinker
 
cjameshuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 174
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Thread drift alert:
I started the thread because it seemed absurd to me to rely on Mars to replace Earth as first choice planet, barring a Chicxulub event, which indeed had to occur on land to allow us a prized evolutionary niche, we can make plans to hang in here.

New Zealand is making no such plans, deciding to increase population at the highest global RATE and definitely carbon footprint with what might be deemed malice aforethought.
Odd that you never said anything about replacing Earth with Mars, or even mentioned anyone who wanted to do so.


Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I must say this makes planet Earth look a pretty good spot to be. The authors of this article downplay the seriousness, but it suggests Mars is a lost cause for Elon Musk and his ilk.

https://phys.org/news/2018-06-martia...-captures.html

Look after Earth I suggest.
Looks more like you started this thread to bash the idea of manned spaceflight and Mars colonization based on ignorant misconceptions.
cjameshuff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2018, 06:00 AM   #97
cjameshuff
Thinker
 
cjameshuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 174
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
While Iím somewhat optimistic that we will be able to avoid a worst case scenario, Iím not entirely convinced that we will, and as you say there is certainly reason for concern. But even in that worst case scenario the earth will still be much more amenable to life than anywhere else in the solar system and removing that excess carbon from the atmosphere, or any other geoengineering solution, while perhaps extremely difficult, will nevertheless be orders of magnitude easier than attempting to terraform any of the other planets.
Terraforming is entirely irrelevant. Mars colonization does not require Mars to have a more suitable natural environment for human habitation, or depend on this ever being the case.


Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Honestly Iím all for colonizing space. I just donít think we are ready for it yet, and doing so is not a solution to our environmental problems. Any difficulties we are creating in our living environment on the earth are trivial next to the problems we will face with living on the environment of Mars or the asteroids.
I think we will solve both, but neither solution is a substitute for the other.
It's nothing but wishful thinking to believe we'll become "ready" for something by just sitting around without trying to do it, and it's a logical fallacy to present space exploration and solving Earthly environmental issues as mutually exclusive activities, or to require the former to be a solution for the latter.
cjameshuff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2018, 08:45 AM   #98
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 10,762
Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
Terraforming is entirely irrelevant. Mars colonization does not require Mars to have a more suitable natural environment for human habitation, or depend on this ever being the case.
I donít disagree with that, but please read my post in the context of what I was replying to.

I was objecting to the idea that we should colonize Mars because we are destroying the habitability of the Earth. One more time, Mars will never be more habitable than the earth, and whatever solutions we have to living on Mars will always be even easier to implement on the Earth, so Earthís environmental problems will never be a reason to colonize Mars.

That doesnít mean that there arenít other good reasons to go to Mars, there may be, but the idea that global warming has anything to do with the subject of Mars colonization is simply wrong.




Quote:
It's nothing but wishful thinking to believe we'll become "ready" for something by just sitting around without trying to do it,
itís wishful thinking to suggest that continuing and expanding our robotic space exploration will improve our space flight capabilities?


Quote:
and it's a logical fallacy to present space exploration and solving Earthly environmental issues as mutually exclusive activities, or to require the former to be a solution for the latter.
At no point did I suggest that they are mutually exclusive. I merely suggested that earthís environmental problems arenít a good reason to colonize Mars.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2018, 11:41 AM   #99
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,721
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
One more time, Mars will never be more habitable than the earth,
Never say never. In a billion years, when the surface temperature of Earth is over 1000c, Mars will be significantly more habitable than Earth.
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2018, 05:08 PM   #100
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 10,762
Yes, but that’s both something I noted myself earlier in this thread and not particularly important to the point I was making: that global warming isn’t a good reason to colonize Mars.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2018, 08:05 PM   #101
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,477
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I was objecting to the idea that we should colonize Mars because we are destroying the habitability of the Earth

<snip>

That doesnít mean that there arenít other good reasons to go to Mars, there may be, but the idea that global warming has anything to do with the subject of Mars colonization is simply wrong.
For mine, its just one of many reasons, and it certainly is not a reason to not colonise Mars

Other reasons are

Asteroid Impact.
In particular, the recent discovery of Oumuamua, a 180m long, 15m wide, 12,000 metric tonne interstellar asteroid that we didn't discover until after it passed the Earth's orbit and was heading out into space. Furthermore, unlike asteroids orbiting in or near the plane of the solar system planetary orbits (where we are looking) it came from a completely unexpected direction (where we are not looking). Objects like this would hit us without any warning, in this case, with the energy equivalent to about 33 megatons (about 2100 "Little Boys"). Anything within 60 km would be instantly vaporised; out to 300km would be destroyed. While not an extinction level event, it would not take one a lot bigger than Oumuamua to seriously compromise the medium term habitability of the Earth.

Supervolcano Eruption
Even the most devastating supervolcano, such as Yellowstone, might not of itself wipe out life on Earth, but there are secondary effects that could do so. What if nuclear power plants or waste sites keeping rods cool in ponds are compromised. If criticality is reached in any on these, then we have a global radiation threat that we would be able to do nothing about because infrastructure such as roads and railway line would be under several feet of ash. A quick look at the size of the area affected by Chernobyl, an area they were able to get control of relatively quickly, will give you an idea how serious this could be. Even just one power plant going critical and unable to be controlled would result on continuing radioactive fallout for centuries.

Because its a really good idea not to have all your eggs in a single basket!
So far, we know of one one planet; ours, with humans on it. If we make a mess of it, humans could end. If a sufficiently large asteroid hits it, humans could end. If a big enough supervolcano erupts, humans could end.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2018, 08:44 PM   #102
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 10,762
Quote:
For mine, its just one of many reasons, and it certainly is not a reason to not colonise Mars.
of course it’s not a reason not to colonize Mars. That wouldn’t make any sense. But it’s not a reason to colonize Mars, and if you think it is I’d appreciate it if you defend that proposition.

Again, whether or not there are other good reasons to colonize Mars is separate from whether this one is valid.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2018, 09:35 PM   #103
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,447
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
[pedant]We're not a subspecies, we're a species.[/pedant]
I mean the other creatures closely related to us who existed until a few tens of millennia ago. Our ancestors appear to have interbred with the Neanderthal and Denisovan, and perhaps other close relatives.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2018, 04:49 AM   #104
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,742
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
Never say never. In a billion years, when the surface temperature of Earth is over 1000c, Mars will be significantly more habitable than Earth.
Right now, earth is significantly more habitable than Mars.

Reductio ad absurdem.

Elon Musk would best eschew the Mars nonsense and proactively back Earth.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2018, 05:39 AM   #105
Octavo
Illuminator
 
Octavo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South Africa
Posts: 3,485
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Elon Musk would best eschew the Mars nonsense and proactively back Earth.
The fact that's he's all-in financially speaking with Tesla Energy makes a mockery of your statement.

Name any other person doing more to accelerate conversion to green energy?

1. He made EV's a viable product.
2. He built the biggest battery production plant in the world.
3. Several more gigafactories on the cards.
4. Developed Solar tiles
5. Blankets all of his buildings with solar panels

Seriously, what ELSE do you want him to do? Personally stand behind you hoovering up your farts?
__________________
This signature is intended to imitate people.
Octavo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2018, 06:14 AM   #106
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,742
Originally Posted by Octavo View Post
The fact that's he's all-in financially speaking with Tesla Energy makes a mockery of your statement.

Name any other person doing more to accelerate conversion to green energy?

1. He made EV's a viable product.
2. He built the biggest battery production plant in the world.
3. Several more gigafactories on the cards.
4. Developed Solar tiles
5. Blankets all of his buildings with solar panels

Seriously, what ELSE do you want him to do? Personally stand behind you hoovering up your farts?
We wipe your backsides all the time, except 1995 when you cheated.
But seriously, you are not concentrating on the real battle, which entails helping the Indians and Chinese comprehend they will finish us all off while attaining equality of environmental destruction.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2018, 06:21 AM   #107
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 10,762
I don’t think you addressed anything Octavo said, but the first part of that post was a bit difficult to parse.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2018, 07:06 AM   #108
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,742
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I don’t think you addressed anything Octavo said, but the first part of that post was a bit difficult to parse.
Not for Octavo.
ETA
South Africa and New Zealand battled for the RUGBY world cup in 1995. After a dour 12 all full time score, South Africa won with a drop goal in extra time. Of course it was unthinkable to concede on home ground. Many NZ players were suffering from food poisoning , so of course it was suggested that this was an intervention by SA conspirators.

If Octavo had not suggested Elon Musk, an entrepeneurial South African would hoover farts for completeness of environmental pilgrimage, I would have responded to the post analytically.
In general terms, we are all farting against thunder, it is all a great joke hardly to be relished by granddaughters.

Last edited by Samson; 2nd July 2018 at 07:21 AM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2018, 03:46 PM   #109
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 57,597
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
But seriously, you are not concentrating on the real battle, which entails helping the Indians and Chinese comprehend they will finish us all off while attaining equality of environmental destruction.
You do realise that China is leading the world in development of renewable energy, and that half of all new global solar capacity is located in China?

You can't blame it all on China. China is actually doing something.
__________________
"Curiosity killed time by making up for lost cats."
The Three-Word Story
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2018, 04:25 PM   #110
cjameshuff
Thinker
 
cjameshuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 174
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
of course itís not a reason not to colonize Mars. That wouldnít make any sense. But itís not a reason to colonize Mars, and if you think it is Iíd appreciate it if you defend that proposition.

Again, whether or not there are other good reasons to colonize Mars is separate from whether this one is valid.
There is no guarantee that we will be able to adapt to the changes that come with global warming, even if it leaves Earth theoretically more habitable. There's no guarantee we'll be able to colonize Mars on the first try, but it's at least possible to make multiple attempts. There are no second chances if we stay on Earth and climate change puts us in a position where we no longer have the resources or technological base required for getting a foothold outside of Earth's gravity well, and no prospects of regaining those capabilities before we go extinct.

It's not the only or the biggest reason, but it's certainly a good reason. And the whole "Earth will still be more habitable" argument is far from a reason not to extend civilization elsewhere...all it really means is that it'll be easier to recolonize Earth if necessary.
cjameshuff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2018, 04:46 PM   #111
cjameshuff
Thinker
 
cjameshuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 174
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
itís wishful thinking to suggest that continuing and expanding our robotic space exploration will improve our space flight capabilities?
Well, yes. At what point do you see an occasional rover, lander, or orbiter solving any of the problems critical to establishing a sustainable human presence off of Earth? That's like saying humans shouldn't have attempted manned flight until they'd been flying paper airplanes long enough to develop the necessary technologies.

Technologies don't just appear out of nowhere if you wait long enough. Nothing else has ever worked that way, and there's no reason to expect it to work with spaceflight. The only way to develop those capabilities is to actually go out there and start developing them.

As for robotic exploration, without people out there to drive it and the accompanying development of launch capabilities to support it, it's doomed to a continuation of escalating costs and lengthening timelines to squeeze a little more science out of the payloads we can send, until the budget for doing more of the same goes away and we stop sending robots.
cjameshuff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2018, 04:48 PM   #112
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,424
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
[pedant]We're not a subspecies, we're a species.[/pedant]
We're both. Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2018, 05:37 PM   #113
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 57,597
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
We're both. Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Is that still a thing? I didn't think that was a thing any more.
__________________
"Curiosity killed time by making up for lost cats."
The Three-Word Story
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2018, 06:08 PM   #114
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,477
Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
There is no guarantee that we will be able to adapt to the changes that come with global warming, even if it leaves Earth theoretically more habitable. There's no guarantee we'll be able to colonize Mars on the first try, but it's at least possible to make multiple attempts. There are no second chances if we stay on Earth and climate change puts us in a position where we no longer have the resources or technological base required for getting a foothold outside of Earth's gravity well, and no prospects of regaining those capabilities before we go extinct.
THIS, in spades!

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-G...on-Killer.html

Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
It's not the only or the biggest reason, but it's certainly a good reason. And the whole "Earth will still be more habitable" argument is far from a reason not to extend civilization elsewhere...all it really means is that it'll be easier to recolonize Earth if necessary.
There are plenty of groups of people, even civilisations on this planet who were effectively wiped out by climate change, e.g. the Anasazi, the Rapa Nui, and plenty of evidence that the consequences of climate change could make humans extinct.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2018, 06:16 PM   #115
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,424
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Is that still a thing? I didn't think that was a thing any more.
Like nearly everything about human classification it's debatable but it's still used by many. It seems necessary if you are in the camp that considers any of idaltu, rhodesiensis, or neanderthalensis to be subspecies of Homo sapiens.

I think if you want to be pedantic you can criticize my capitalization. I think I got it wrong earlier.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 2nd July 2018 at 06:18 PM.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2018, 06:32 PM   #116
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 57,597
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Like nearly everything about human classification it's debatable but it's still used by many. It seems necessary if you are in the camp that considers any of idaltu, rhodesiensis, or neanderthalensis to be subspecies of Homo sapiens.

I think if you want to be pedantic you can criticize my capitalization. I think I got it wrong earlier.
Of course I want to be pedantic. Have you even met me?

Genus is capitalised, species is not. Homo sapiens sapiens.
__________________
"Curiosity killed time by making up for lost cats."
The Three-Word Story
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2018, 06:36 PM   #117
Dabop
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Oz
Posts: 697
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
You do realise that China is leading the world in development of renewable energy, and that half of all new global solar capacity is located in China?

You can't blame it all on China. China is actually doing something.
They are pushing to close all their coal fired plants by 2022, according to ABC radio national, and have either stopped or delayed over 150 new coal fired plants, last year they brought online just 30 new plants
They also currently are rolling out solar to a massive degree up to 77gw at the end of 2016, doubling it in just a single year and look to do the same again in 2017 (figures not yet released as far as I can find)

Compare this to certain other countries that recently pulled out of climate change agreements

The Chinese are pulling their weight, true they are still having issues, but they are at least trying

I still would like to see EV's being made more use of, China has a booming EV car, truck and bus industry for their locals, if the locals here can home build a quite usable one, and relatively cheaply to boot, surely it cant be that hard
(A member of another forum I hang at has an homebuilt electric hilux, can carry 1 tonne legally, plus pull a trailer with another tonne on it, has a range of 180km at 100kmh, further at slower speeds and is a v8 killer off the line (unlike the original diesel plant lol), another has just started on a crewcab hilux as he needs passenger carrying (due to rego requirements, its easier to start with a hilux or similar full chassis ute than to convert a car, hence the crewcab), he effectively will be looking at a 5 person 'car' with minimal cargo area- no more than a normal car, but going for extended range instead, with an aim of 300km between recharges)
__________________
It's a kind of a strawman thing in that it's exactly a strawman thing. Loss Leader

'When you're born into this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. If you're born in America you get a front row seat.' George Carlin
Dabop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2018, 11:52 PM   #118
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 10,762
Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
There is no guarantee that we will be able to adapt to the changes that come with global warming, even if it leaves Earth theoretically more habitable. There's no guarantee we'll be able to colonize Mars on the first try, but it's at least possible to make multiple attempts. There are no second chances if we stay on Earth and climate change puts us in a position where we no longer have the resources or technological base required for getting a foothold outside of Earth's gravity well, and no prospects of regaining those capabilities before we go extinct.
Okay, I think that makes more sense, but it's pretty hard to make it work. I mean: global warming makes the situation on the earth so bad that Mars colonisation becomes out of reach. But luckily we've already got a colony on Mars. Of course, the situation for that colony is orders of magnitude worse than the situation on the Earth, because no matter how bad global warming might make things here, Mars is still just a much harsher environment.

But, I guess your idea is that at least we've got a colony there by that point and while maybe we can't do anything for them anymore because of the problems caused by global warming, that colony has reached a point where it's self-sustainable. Now humanity lives on two separate island worlds.

If things get that bad I still find it highly doubtful that the Mars colony will outlast the earth.

There is a future in which I can see a colony on Mars thriving. I actually find that quite likely, but in that future the same things that allow us to thrive on Mars make it even easier to thrive on the Earth.

Quote:
It's not the only or the biggest reason, but it's certainly a good reason. And the whole "Earth will still be more habitable" argument is far from a reason not to extend civilization elsewhere...all it really means is that it'll be easier to recolonize Earth if necessary.
The set of circumstances wherein it's both possible to have a self-sustaining colony on Mars and not possible to colonise Mars due to global warming getting bad is so narrow that I think it doesn't exist.

By "narrow" I mean that you need things to get bad enough from one direction and good enough from the other and that narrows to zero.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2018, 06:12 AM   #119
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 22,954
I'm trying to picture the Earthly political and economic system(s) that would fund such a lengthy and fabulously expensive venture as creating a self-sufficient civilisation on Mars.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2018, 08:03 AM   #120
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 14,480
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
There is a future in which I can see a colony on Mars thriving. I actually find that quite likely, but in that future the same things that allow us to thrive on Mars make it even easier to thrive on the Earth.

And that, I think, is the best reason for pushing toward a Mars colony as quickly as possible. The technologies we would develop as part of that process would make surviving a catastrophic climate change scenario much easier, and more likely that we would still be able to manage a diaspora of some sort.

The issue is, waiting until we're actually in that catastrophic climate change scenario would make us more than a day late and dollar short. If we don't work on it now, we may not be able to then.
__________________
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -- Douglas Adams
"The absence of evidence might indeed not be evidence of absence, but it's a pretty good start." -- PhantomWolf
"Let's see the buggers figure that one out." - John Lennon
luchog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:17 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.