ZetaX

Oxygen is no use by its own, it is way to reactive. An atmosphere of oxygen would in most cases either react with the planet's material or be blown away. Nitrogen is fine.

They obviously want(ed) to show it doesn't, and very likely it won't in more rigid tests.

So NASA should use several million dollars to "test" something very fishy which just behaved rather arbitrarily in the one test done¿

You are confusing NASA with journalists.

Your answer has nothing to do with my post, which has nothing to do with QMthrusters, but is obviously a response to what I quoted there.

No, it does not. If you think otherwise, you will need to give a deduction of that, which I doubt to exist (for example, only one of the two does not uniquely define how two billiard balls fly apart after a collision).

You know, even hypothetically assuming wormholes, you would still probably have to conserve energy and momentum (or your wormholes are just fantasy). This includes the wormhole needing lots and lots of energy to transport the matter.

Can we please also get a thread titled "How to cook Grenade"¿

Assuming all of the atmosphere is CO2 (am lazy), the loss of mass is at most the loss of the carbon; thus you loose a little less than 1/3 of the mass, and thus of the pressure.

To check whether a black hole with the mass of our sun shreds you, just calculate it Newtonian style. This is obviously not entirely correct, but the order of magnitude is (non-rotating black hole assumed).

What makes you think a black hole with several times the mass of the moon is "micro"¿

Yes you do: That's not how expansion of the universe works. I bet you did not check the wikipedia article on it.

xcorps: I already told you to read it up. You are just making assumptions because you do not understand it.

Nowhere did he use the word "into". Just read it up on Wikipedia or any other semi-reliable source. Also, the limit on the speed is a local one, not a global one.

You need significantly less than 40000km of breaking length; the 6000km at the bottom are enough (but not enough if you throw in usability and security margins, not even speaking about the problems manufacturing this). Gravity and centrifugal forces are somewhat in favor of this, and additionally you can build it cone-shaped (or actually a more complex shape), i.e. the lower and upper end being thicker to support (or tether) all the stuff above.

That's also too much simplified: heating any inner part of your body for some time (say by 10K for some hours) will definitely cause harm due to denaturation of proteins and changed metabolic rates. Putting it more pragmatically and more extreme, you definitely can kill humans by heating their brain to 90°C for a day. You could call this a burn, too, and that would be fine as it has the very same effects, but it should be made clear that even those can be problematic.

Read the whole story please: the discussion was about feeding dead humans to pigs and eating those pigs.

No, I am giving a _possible_ argument why his statement is at least not that probably as he thinks it to be. I am not falsifying anything here. And Soylent Green (aka food made from humans) would, if getting rid of the abovementioned illnesses, be pretty fine as long as the humans used died in a completely unrelated/natural way. It is simply an efficient use of ressources instead of letting them rot away.

Actually it is not: I just gave this as a simple example how his argument might completely fail. The claim was his, and thus so is the burden of proof.

a) Your post read fully and completely like you are talking about people eating people, which the original one did not talk about. Citation needed. Going through a different kind of animal should get rid of most adverse effects of canibalism.

Read his post again: he feeds the humans to the pigs first.

There are literally tens of thousends of open problems, and at least hundreds of them should be very difficult. If you want to understand a specific one, then I can try to elaborate (which will not always be possible: the Hodge conjecture(s) would alredy be pretty nasty, and stuff like the existence of motives would be completely over the top). @Aethon: That article seems to exagerate the implication of the unsolvability of the haling problem (hence omega) a lot.

You read that example with homosexuality, right¿ Where is the difference, because I honestly see none that are relevant in this regard. Both groups are doing nothing to you and it is only your problem if you cannot accept different "lifestyles". Edit: this is in responce to 78stonewobble .

Note that the "Ãœbermensch" as in Nietsches work is not only of strong intellect, but also of perfect bodily health. Thus it would not really apply here. Regardless of that, I would challenge the notion of asperger being an illness at all. It is a state of the brain/mind/human incompatible with "normal" human social thinking. Calling it an illness fells very akin to calling homosexuality one, the problem actually being in the "normal" people that want the others to adhere to their standards. Thus if you want to consider aspergers inadequate for the ship, then you will need to elaborate further. A lot of jobs can easily be done by persons only talking very sparsely with others, be it the aforementioned toilet cleaner or a scientist; you just need to treat aspergers differently, e.g. giving them a specific task to do by themselves (like "find a fix to the oxygen loss in section 57-A"). The ship, when underway, will not face many huge engineering problems (those are mostly pre-launch), just lots of small ones.

Evolution does not have a "next step". That is simply not how it works, there is no goal, everything is only measured by survivability (which for aspergers generally is probably lower in a more natural environment).