Inspector Gadget

Just because that's not what they meant it's still wrong. "atom fri" directly translated is still "atom free". If they wanted to say "Free of nuclear power" they should've said "atomkraft fri". If you want to make it shorthand they should've made a shortened version of "atom" and "kraft" so it doesn't lose meaning. Taking away a whole word change the meaning of the sentence.

Here found a link to Vsauce who made an excellent video:

When you take all of the electrons and photons that make up the internet has a mass of about 50 grams. The internet weighs ca. 50g

I've always had an interest in space. I knew about a stars full lifespan in 8th grade. Always had lots of books and I always loved sci-fi. But my interest in spaceflight came when I played KSP. Further development in my interesest in spaceflight came when I found project rho and watched 2001.

I'm replying to this only so I can find this again. This is awesome!!!

You should seriously play this. http://en.spaceengine.org/ If you want some information on it Scott Manley made a video: Any space lover should try this

We've all seen water out in to a vacuum chamber and seen it begin boil. People therefor have got the idea that the same happens when you throw it out in space. But I don't believe that's the case. It's true that any liquid's evaporation point lowers with the surrounding pressure. But in order for a liquid to vaporize it needs energy from somewhere. When there's no air the water can't get any energy from the surroundings (We say that there's no radiation directed at it). But it has to vaporize and the only source of energy it has is it self. Therefor it pulls energy from itself which will cause it to freeze, while it vaporize. So we have a situation where the water will vaporize and freeze at the same time. But I can't figure out what the water would look like afterwards. My current theory is that it would be something like snow but I'm not sure.

Oh... didn't know it was on the "do not suggest" list. Sorry about that

When we're in career mode I imagine we will have a lot colonizing and minning elements and I have a suggestion to how it works. Colonizing: If you want to establish a colony you need to send some storage modules with the proper materials. When you have enough materials in an area you can build a base. Now you can place the center building in the vicinity as long as it's flat enough. After that it works like a building sim. You can build VABs, launch pads, runways, mine stations, habitats etc. Many have made a similar suggestion for KSC. The difference from KSC is that you have to bring materials to the base to build things. Minning: The different celestial bodies have some unique minerals. They're more concentrated in some areas so colony placement is also important (And can add a challenge). Some parts need specific materials which can only be produced on those planets, which means you have to ship them back to KSC to use them. What do you think of my idea?

Since I didn't read the last comments I didn't realise we were discussing the definition of a theory and not evolution now back to the discussion The way I see it is: A fact is a phenomenon that has been repeatedly observed and can be considered proven. ex. gravity is a fact. A theory is a more or less plausible explanation for this phenomenon. ex. the theory of relativity.

I think a major problem with the development of humans is that evolution is VERY VERY SLOW. And if you look at the technological and cultural advancements we experience as a race were evolving at light speed. This means that our physical and mental traits are trying to adapt to this development but it's simply going to slow. The way we think and behave is very much dictated by our instincts, and before some emotional poetry nut crack make their case, every emotion like anger, love, happines etc. those are all traits that are a natural part of our genom which we got from the monkeys (I know it's actually apes but that makes it sound like we aren't apes anymore). I believe that many of these emotions are standing in our way as they haven't adapted to the modern society. And at our current progression rate evolution won't catch up anytime soon (unless gen manipulation becomes a normal practise).

I'm thinking that there could've been a civilization on earth before but that would require that it was several million years ago (before 65 million years ago). Even plastic can't be presserved for that long and simple stone tools couldn't have lasted that long. Even our alloys now days would properbly have sunken in the ground by now and became chorused. Structures like Mt. Rushmore and the Giza Pyramids would've decayed so much that we wouldn't recognise them as made by intelligent life. So I'm fairly convinced that a civilisation could have existed. They can't have evolved to our stage yet though fore more reasons: 1. If they were as advanced as we are they would've been using up oil reserves at very fast past like us. That means that if there were any other civilisation there would most likely be less oil reserves left now. This can be explained though. There could've been A LOT more oil before and they used up a big part of it, leaving what is left today. They could also have developed another way to power their machinery. 2. If they had developed space flight they most likely would've left traces on other planets and moons. Our appolo program have left a lot of traces on the moon and since there's now air out there and they have been build by some of our least corrosive materials. Just think of all the satellites there would be orbiting around our planet still if there had been any before. This could be explained by a disaster that would've wiped out, not just the earths population, but also the satellites in orbit. They could've been destroyed or flinged out of the earths sphere of influence so that we would no longer detect them. If they had left any traces on other planets like mars or venus, they would've properbly been destroyed by sandstorms, volcanic eruptions etc. I can't think of a disaster so devastating though. 3. We would need a VERY severe disaster in order to wipe out an entire civilisation like that. By that time they would proeprbly build bunkers or other safety measures that would protect them somehow, and those would most likely not decay for millions of years. The only thing I can think that could do this so quickly and devastating that they couldn't respond in time would either be a nuclear war, biological weapons or other WMDs. I'm not sure if that would actually leave any traces we would find. If didn't... it could be the cause of the last mass extinction If anyone could please verify that or prove me wrong please? Another option would be that our planet was being engineered by a hyper advanced civilisation to sooth there needs. It would properbly change the structure of our planet so much that we might consider it a fundamental part of our planet. They could've engineered long ago to specifically make the planet habitable exactly for them and caused life on earth to evolve as it did. They could've introduced greenhouses gasses, tectonic plating... Now I'm just coming up with wild theories

The metal objects would need to be EXTREMELY magnetised before they would have a greater magnetic pull then the gravitational pull.

Why is every one so fond of the alcubierre drive? It's to far out of our current technology and it's on a VERY theoretical level. I think we should invest more time in wormholes. We've already proven micro-wormholes to exist. They're not bigger then nanometers and lasts for nanoseconds but they exist. So I think our next step in FLT travel is wormhole. We just need is to either capture a wormhole and keep it stable or create our own (I know I'm saying "just" here but I think it's easier then building an alcubierre drive). Only disadvantage is that we can't be completely sure were in space (and time) we will be in the other end, or how to connect two points in space.

Because SCIENCE, THAT'S WHY!!!