I've always wondered if Venus, which has many similarities to the Earth, would have had an Earth like habitat if/when it was further away from the sun like the Earth is. I also don't know if or how orbits and day length are affected by distance from the sun as well. On the assumption that Mars will get closer to the sun over time, I still don't know if the sun would expire and blow up before the orbit is significantly changed.
Anyway...
A reason for life on Earth is the magnetic field from molten iron in the core. A banal guess for this is simply because the Earth is the right size for gravity to create friction inside the core.
Assuming that Mars has all the right stuff (elements) and enough time on its hands, could it be terraformed by diverting a myriad of comets and asteroids into it? Could it be terraformed by its own gravity if its mass was simply increased?
QUOTE
Beer w/Straw
A reason for life on Earth is the magnetic field from molten iron in the core. A banal guess for this is simply because the Earth is the right size for gravity to create friction inside the core.
A reason for life on Earth is the magnetic field from molten iron in the core. A banal guess for this is simply because the Earth is the right size for gravity to create friction inside the core.
The reason for Earth's magnetic field is strictly conjecture. How can molten iron in Earth's core be responsible for the magnetic field when all magnetic properties disappear in iron long before the molten stage?
An analysis will show that planetary magnetic field strength has a direct correspondence to atmospheric density and dynamics. That there is a relationship may be inferred. This may be more than an equally valid hypothesis.
Life as we know it on another planet would require an oxygen rich atmosphere to sustain. Mars gravitational field may not be sufficient to retain that much of an atmosphere at this time.. so yes an increase in gravitational mass would probably be helpful in retaining sufficient gases and water enough to facilitate that atmospheric forming.
Jack
I basically asked not one but several questions in my post and for that I get a half baked response.
And which part do you consider half baked?
Theoretical problems involved in terraforming another planet are just that, theoretical... as there exists no empiricism for that field of endeavor at this time. Rigid analytics for such a procedure could consume years of work by many dedicated people. In theory anything may be possible, including terraforming.
Some of the questions you ask are metaphysical, for which no answers currently exist.. and anyone proposing answers can only blow smoke or offer conjectures.
Which do you prefer?
Jack
QUOTE (fizzeksman+May 30 2008, 06:20 PM)
And which part do you consider half baked?
The part where your post contained no useful information, as in all of it.
Next time, if you don't have anything to say, don't say anything.
The part where your post contained no useful information, as in all of it.
Next time, if you don't have anything to say, don't say anything.
Neat http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1154784.stm
Yea, and if they're wrong we might wipe out the entire solar system, besides, in a million years other planets will be habitable. Seems like a waste of space.
QUOTE
It is an "alarmingly simple" technique, the astronomers say. It could ensure humanity's survival and even allow our descendants to alter our Solar System to move moons and planets to make new Earths.
Yea, and if they're wrong we might wipe out the entire solar system, besides, in a million years other planets will be habitable. Seems like a waste of space.
My mistake for assuming you had enough intelligence to see the relevance!
Jack
QUOTE (xtrmn8r+May 30 2008, 08:10 PM)
Neat http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1154784.stm
Yea, and if they're wrong we might wipe out the entire solar system, besides, in a million years other planets will be habitable. Seems like a waste of space.
Well, if you read the article, I believe it said it should be done every 6000 years. But yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking earlier about smashing asteroids into Mars:
"Oh crap we forgot to convert it to metric! BYE BYE human race"
Yea, and if they're wrong we might wipe out the entire solar system, besides, in a million years other planets will be habitable. Seems like a waste of space.
Well, if you read the article, I believe it said it should be done every 6000 years. But yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking earlier about smashing asteroids into Mars:
"Oh crap we forgot to convert it to metric! BYE BYE human race"
QUOTE (fizzeksman+May 30 2008, 08:16 PM)
My mistake for assuming you had enough intelligence to see the relevance!
Jack
Oh that hurts.
Jack
Oh that hurts.
QUOTE (fizzeksman+May 30 2008, 03:32 PM)
The reason for Earth's magnetic field is strictly conjecture. How can molten iron in Earth's core be responsible for the magnetic field when all magnetic properties disappear in iron long before the molten stage?
Just plain full o' crap, aren't ya.
Molten metal certainly can't be a permanent magnet but it can carry a current, and currents create magnetic fields. Check out this link to an experiment using turbulent molten sodium to create a magnetic field: http://focus.aps.org/story/v19/st3
Mercury: No atmosphere, magnetic field
Venus: Dense atmosphere, no magnetic field
Earth: Atmosphere, magnetic field
Mars: Thin atmosphere, magnetic field
Jupiter-Neptune: Dense atmospheres, magnetic fields
Hypothesis nullified by actual data.
Just plain full o' crap, aren't ya.
Molten metal certainly can't be a permanent magnet but it can carry a current, and currents create magnetic fields. Check out this link to an experiment using turbulent molten sodium to create a magnetic field: http://focus.aps.org/story/v19/st3
QUOTE
An analysis will show that planetary magnetic field strength has a direct correspondence to atmospheric density and dynamics. That there is a relationship may be inferred. This may be more than an equally valid hypothesis.
Mercury: No atmosphere, magnetic field
Venus: Dense atmosphere, no magnetic field
Earth: Atmosphere, magnetic field
Mars: Thin atmosphere, magnetic field
Jupiter-Neptune: Dense atmospheres, magnetic fields
Hypothesis nullified by actual data.
QUOTE (barakn+May 30 2008, 09:30 PM)
Venus: Dense atmosphere, no magnetic field
Does anyone know why then, that Venus has no magnetic field?
:EDIT:
Venus has an iron core about 3,000 kilometers (1,200 miles) in radius. Venus has no global magnetic field, though its core iron content is similar to that of Earth. Venus rotates too slowly to generate a magnetic field similar to Earth's.
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profil...ay=OverviewLong
I'm still not sure on plate tectonics
Does anyone know why then, that Venus has no magnetic field?
:EDIT:
Venus has an iron core about 3,000 kilometers (1,200 miles) in radius. Venus has no global magnetic field, though its core iron content is similar to that of Earth. Venus rotates too slowly to generate a magnetic field similar to Earth's.
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profil...ay=OverviewLong
I'm still not sure on plate tectonics
Quote barakn-------------------------------------------------------------
Molten metal certainly can't be a permanent magnet but it can carry a current, and currents create magnetic fields. Check out this link to an experiment using turbulent molten sodium to create a magnetic field: http://focus.aps.org/story/v19/st3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many things that don't occur in nature can be produced or observed under artificial laboratory conditions... such as Fullerenes or Buckyballs, and even precipitation of sodium currents to produce magnetic fields.
Planets Mercury Venus Earth Mars Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune Pluto
Diameter 0.382\ 0.949\ 1\ 0.532\ 11.209\ 9.44\ 4.007\ 3.883\ 0.180
Rotation 58.65\ -243*\ 1\ 1.03\ 0.41\ 0.44\ -0.72*\ 0.72\ -6.38*
Mass 0.055\ 0.815\ 1\ 0.107\ 318\ 95\ 15\ 17\ 0.002
AU to sun 0.39\ 0.72\ 1\ 1.52\ 5.20\ 9.54\ 19.18\ 30.06\ 39.44
Gravity 0.30\ 0.9\ 1\ 0.38\ 2.64\ 0.93\ 0.89\ 1.12\ 0.06
S/temp/C*-180/430*465*-89/58*-82/0*-150 * -170 *-200 *-210 * -220
Quote fizzeksman----------------------------------------------------------------
An analysis will show that planetary magnetic field strength has a direct correspondence to atmospheric density and dynamics. That there is a relationship may be inferred.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note the part about atmospheric density and dynamics.
Quote barakn-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury: No atmosphere, magnetic field
Venus: Dense atmosphere, no magnetic field
Earth: Atmosphere, magnetic field
Mars: Thin atmosphere, magnetic field
Jupiter-Neptune: Dense atmospheres, magnetic fields
Hypothesis nullified by actual data.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not so fast barakn breath!
A closer examination will show that faster planetary rotation periods, necessary to sustain strong atmospheric dynamics, coupled with sufficient gravity to retain an atmosphere, increases the probability of stronger magnetic fields associated with those planets. This explanation better accounts for strong magnetic fields of the Jovian planets, Uranus and Neptune. They are believed to have non metallic cores, and the magnetic fields are contemporarily believed to be generated by motion currents of electrically conductive materials such as sea water. Such electrical currents have never been observed in the ocean currents on Earth. The extremely slow rotation (278 days) of Venus, can also account for the current lack of a detectable magnetic field associated with it.
Mercury, as a small planet with insufficient gravity to keep an atmosphere captured, presents an enigma for both the molten core hypothesis, (it is believed to have a solid core by the absence of observable volcanic activity) and the atmospherically driven magnetic field hypothesis. Proposed is that Mercury's proximity to the sun, resulting in high surface temperatures, results in boil off of surface materials sufficient to create a shallow, near surface atmosphere, which results in its very weak magnetic field.
(a good link to reinforce accepted contemporary beliefs)
http://cseligman.com/text/planets/magnetism.htm
Jack
Molten metal certainly can't be a permanent magnet but it can carry a current, and currents create magnetic fields. Check out this link to an experiment using turbulent molten sodium to create a magnetic field: http://focus.aps.org/story/v19/st3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many things that don't occur in nature can be produced or observed under artificial laboratory conditions... such as Fullerenes or Buckyballs, and even precipitation of sodium currents to produce magnetic fields.
Planets Mercury Venus Earth Mars Jupiter Saturn Uranus Neptune Pluto
Diameter 0.382\ 0.949\ 1\ 0.532\ 11.209\ 9.44\ 4.007\ 3.883\ 0.180
Rotation 58.65\ -243*\ 1\ 1.03\ 0.41\ 0.44\ -0.72*\ 0.72\ -6.38*
Mass 0.055\ 0.815\ 1\ 0.107\ 318\ 95\ 15\ 17\ 0.002
AU to sun 0.39\ 0.72\ 1\ 1.52\ 5.20\ 9.54\ 19.18\ 30.06\ 39.44
Gravity 0.30\ 0.9\ 1\ 0.38\ 2.64\ 0.93\ 0.89\ 1.12\ 0.06
S/temp/C*-180/430*465*-89/58*-82/0*-150 * -170 *-200 *-210 * -220
Quote fizzeksman----------------------------------------------------------------
An analysis will show that planetary magnetic field strength has a direct correspondence to atmospheric density and dynamics. That there is a relationship may be inferred.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note the part about atmospheric density and dynamics.
Quote barakn-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury: No atmosphere, magnetic field
Venus: Dense atmosphere, no magnetic field
Earth: Atmosphere, magnetic field
Mars: Thin atmosphere, magnetic field
Jupiter-Neptune: Dense atmospheres, magnetic fields
Hypothesis nullified by actual data.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not so fast barakn breath!
A closer examination will show that faster planetary rotation periods, necessary to sustain strong atmospheric dynamics, coupled with sufficient gravity to retain an atmosphere, increases the probability of stronger magnetic fields associated with those planets. This explanation better accounts for strong magnetic fields of the Jovian planets, Uranus and Neptune. They are believed to have non metallic cores, and the magnetic fields are contemporarily believed to be generated by motion currents of electrically conductive materials such as sea water. Such electrical currents have never been observed in the ocean currents on Earth. The extremely slow rotation (278 days) of Venus, can also account for the current lack of a detectable magnetic field associated with it.
Mercury, as a small planet with insufficient gravity to keep an atmosphere captured, presents an enigma for both the molten core hypothesis, (it is believed to have a solid core by the absence of observable volcanic activity) and the atmospherically driven magnetic field hypothesis. Proposed is that Mercury's proximity to the sun, resulting in high surface temperatures, results in boil off of surface materials sufficient to create a shallow, near surface atmosphere, which results in its very weak magnetic field.
(a good link to reinforce accepted contemporary beliefs)
http://cseligman.com/text/planets/magnetism.htm
Jack
Anyway....
If Mars was as close to the sun as the Earth was it would have the same orbital period via Johannes Kepler and very funky asteroid acrobatics.
If more mass was added to Mars, it rotational period could be made as that as Earth's.
If it has an iron core similar to what is assumed Venus and Earth to have, the change in rotational period and friction causes by gravity of the increased mass could heat it to levels as that as Earth giving it a gravitational field to that as Earth's.
Mars has mountains which could be an indication it has tectonic plates and atmosphere escaping into space could then be replaced via elements released by volcanic action able to reach the surface of the planet.
It's not metaphysics but a beautiful thought.
If Mars was as close to the sun as the Earth was it would have the same orbital period via Johannes Kepler and very funky asteroid acrobatics.
If more mass was added to Mars, it rotational period could be made as that as Earth's.
If it has an iron core similar to what is assumed Venus and Earth to have, the change in rotational period and friction causes by gravity of the increased mass could heat it to levels as that as Earth giving it a gravitational field to that as Earth's.
Mars has mountains which could be an indication it has tectonic plates and atmosphere escaping into space could then be replaced via elements released by volcanic action able to reach the surface of the planet.
It's not metaphysics but a beautiful thought.
B,WS In answer to your question, you could easily terriform Mars.
You would have to adhere to an international meeting or an agreement of sorts but you could do it this way.
Design a small robot, which carries a plant allotment that combines the features of a tuber and a surface plant, into one.
Make a bid to NASA or what ever space agency is appropriate and ask if you can pay to have your payload taken to Mars via piggyback, on one of the next Mars missions.
Design this robot, to had a digging capacity, so that it can automatically excavate , insert a damp sponge with nutrients and then this hole is closed.
What would happen, is that the tuber part of the plant would do well, however the other top part, in time would start to develop leaves.
This would start to generate oxygen and or other gasses on the planet.
*There is currently a plant, which is half potato and tomato, sold in some of the seed and home fix it catalogs.
The robot would also act as a remote farmer, responding to a preprogrammed set of instruction, which would both look over the plants, telemetry that data back to Earth and tend to any problems with the plants.
You might be able to build this robot for fifty to one hundred thousand American dollars?
The installment onto a Mars type of lander, might run you a million?
You would need the backing of an international entrepreneur and or company.
The banking and acceptance from the space agencies, would probably be some of the hard parts.
I have no idea what would occur years down the line, if plants did take a roothold on the surface of
You would have to adhere to an international meeting or an agreement of sorts but you could do it this way.
Design a small robot, which carries a plant allotment that combines the features of a tuber and a surface plant, into one.
Make a bid to NASA or what ever space agency is appropriate and ask if you can pay to have your payload taken to Mars via piggyback, on one of the next Mars missions.
Design this robot, to had a digging capacity, so that it can automatically excavate , insert a damp sponge with nutrients and then this hole is closed.
What would happen, is that the tuber part of the plant would do well, however the other top part, in time would start to develop leaves.
This would start to generate oxygen and or other gasses on the planet.
*There is currently a plant, which is half potato and tomato, sold in some of the seed and home fix it catalogs.
The robot would also act as a remote farmer, responding to a preprogrammed set of instruction, which would both look over the plants, telemetry that data back to Earth and tend to any problems with the plants.
You might be able to build this robot for fifty to one hundred thousand American dollars?
The installment onto a Mars type of lander, might run you a million?
You would need the backing of an international entrepreneur and or company.
The banking and acceptance from the space agencies, would probably be some of the hard parts.
I have no idea what would occur years down the line, if plants did take a roothold on the surface of
QUOTE (fizzeksman+Jun 1 2008, 06:54 AM)
Quote barakn-------------------------------------------------------------
Molten metal certainly can't be a permanent magnet but it can carry a current, and currents create magnetic fields. Check out this link to an experiment using turbulent molten sodium to create a magnetic field: http://focus.aps.org/story/v19/st3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many things that don't occur in nature can be produced or observed under artificial laboratory conditions... such as Fullerenes or Buckyballs, and even precipitation of sodium currents to produce magnetic fields.
(a good link to reinforce accepted contemporary beliefs)
http://cseligman.com/text/planets/magnetism.htm
Jack
Fullerenes don't exist in nature?
Here is a link to a report on fullerenes in meteorites: http://www.innovations-report.de/html/beri...icht-19367.html
Your argument is so weak as to be nonexistent. You've simply stated that what is observed in the lab might not be observed in nature. You have not provided any argument why it couldn't be observed in nature.
Atmospheric conditions certainly matter in the magnetism of gas and ice giants. Your theory that the magnetic fields are created in the atmospheres of terrestrial planets is complete and utter bull, though. You've managed to pull up some very old and discarded assumptions about Mercury. The core isn't solid: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0705...rcury_core.html . Despite the slow rotation rate, Venus's atmosphere has extremely fast winds in its dense atmosphere. Try and explain the absence of a magnetic field there in light of your atmospheric magnetic model.
And I don't see why you have a problem with magnetic fields being created by electrical currents in molten metal when you are apparently perfectly willing to accept the same process occurring in "seawater."
Molten metal certainly can't be a permanent magnet but it can carry a current, and currents create magnetic fields. Check out this link to an experiment using turbulent molten sodium to create a magnetic field: http://focus.aps.org/story/v19/st3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many things that don't occur in nature can be produced or observed under artificial laboratory conditions... such as Fullerenes or Buckyballs, and even precipitation of sodium currents to produce magnetic fields.
(a good link to reinforce accepted contemporary beliefs)
http://cseligman.com/text/planets/magnetism.htm
Jack
Fullerenes don't exist in nature?
Here is a link to a report on fullerenes in meteorites: http://www.innovations-report.de/html/beri...icht-19367.htmlYour argument is so weak as to be nonexistent. You've simply stated that what is observed in the lab might not be observed in nature. You have not provided any argument why it couldn't be observed in nature.
QUOTE
Quote fizzeksman----------------------------------------------------------------
An analysis will show that planetary magnetic field strength has a direct correspondence to atmospheric density and dynamics. That there is a relationship may be inferred.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note the part about atmospheric density and dynamics.
Quote barakn-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury: No atmosphere, magnetic field
Venus: Dense atmosphere, no magnetic field
Earth: Atmosphere, magnetic field
Mars: Thin atmosphere, magnetic field
Jupiter-Neptune: Dense atmospheres, magnetic fields
Hypothesis nullified by actual data.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not so fast barakn breath!
A closer examination will show that faster planetary rotation periods, necessary to sustain strong atmospheric dynamics, coupled with sufficient gravity to retain an atmosphere, increases the probability of stronger magnetic fields associated with those planets. This explanation better accounts for strong magnetic fields of the Jovian planets, Uranus and Neptune. They are believed to have non metallic cores, and the magnetic fields are contemporarily believed to be generated by motion currents of electrically conductive materials such as sea water. Such electrical currents have never been observed in the ocean currents on Earth. The extremely slow rotation (278 days) of Venus, can also account for the current lack of a detectable magnetic field associated with it.
Mercury, as a small planet with insufficient gravity to keep an atmosphere captured, presents an enigma for both the molten core hypothesis, (it is believed to have a solid core by the absence of observable volcanic activity) and the atmospherically driven magnetic field hypothesis. Proposed is that Mercury's proximity to the sun, resulting in high surface temperatures, results in boil off of surface materials sufficient to create a shallow, near surface atmosphere, which results in its very weak magnetic field.
An analysis will show that planetary magnetic field strength has a direct correspondence to atmospheric density and dynamics. That there is a relationship may be inferred.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note the part about atmospheric density and dynamics.
Quote barakn-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury: No atmosphere, magnetic field
Venus: Dense atmosphere, no magnetic field
Earth: Atmosphere, magnetic field
Mars: Thin atmosphere, magnetic field
Jupiter-Neptune: Dense atmospheres, magnetic fields
Hypothesis nullified by actual data.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not so fast barakn breath!
A closer examination will show that faster planetary rotation periods, necessary to sustain strong atmospheric dynamics, coupled with sufficient gravity to retain an atmosphere, increases the probability of stronger magnetic fields associated with those planets. This explanation better accounts for strong magnetic fields of the Jovian planets, Uranus and Neptune. They are believed to have non metallic cores, and the magnetic fields are contemporarily believed to be generated by motion currents of electrically conductive materials such as sea water. Such electrical currents have never been observed in the ocean currents on Earth. The extremely slow rotation (278 days) of Venus, can also account for the current lack of a detectable magnetic field associated with it.
Mercury, as a small planet with insufficient gravity to keep an atmosphere captured, presents an enigma for both the molten core hypothesis, (it is believed to have a solid core by the absence of observable volcanic activity) and the atmospherically driven magnetic field hypothesis. Proposed is that Mercury's proximity to the sun, resulting in high surface temperatures, results in boil off of surface materials sufficient to create a shallow, near surface atmosphere, which results in its very weak magnetic field.
Atmospheric conditions certainly matter in the magnetism of gas and ice giants. Your theory that the magnetic fields are created in the atmospheres of terrestrial planets is complete and utter bull, though. You've managed to pull up some very old and discarded assumptions about Mercury. The core isn't solid: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0705...rcury_core.html . Despite the slow rotation rate, Venus's atmosphere has extremely fast winds in its dense atmosphere. Try and explain the absence of a magnetic field there in light of your atmospheric magnetic model.
And I don't see why you have a problem with magnetic fields being created by electrical currents in molten metal when you are apparently perfectly willing to accept the same process occurring in "seawater."
QUOTE (philip347+Jun 1 2008, 07:07 PM)
B,WS In answer to your question, you could easily terriform Mars.
You would have to adhere to an international meeting or an agreement of sorts but you could do it this way.
Design a small robot, which carries a plant allotment that combines the features of a tuber and a surface plant, into one.
Make a bid to NASA or what ever space agency is appropriate and ask if you can pay to have your payload taken to Mars via piggyback, on one of the next Mars missions.
Design this robot, to had a digging capacity, so that it can automatically excavate , insert a damp sponge with nutrients and then this hole is closed.
What would happen, is that the tuber part of the plant would do well, however the other top part, in time would start to develop leaves.
This would start to generate oxygen and or other gasses on the planet.
*There is currently a plant, which is half potato and tomato, sold in some of the seed and home fix it catalogs.
The robot would also act as a remote farmer, responding to a preprogrammed set of instruction, which would both look over the plants, telemetry that data back to Earth and tend to any problems with the plants.
You might be able to build this robot for fifty to one hundred thousand American dollars?
The installment onto a Mars type of lander, might run you a million?
You would need the backing of an international entrepreneur and or company.
The banking and acceptance from the space agencies, would probably be some of the hard parts.
I have no idea what would occur years down the line, if plants did take a roothold on the surface of
Even though I disagree it would be that easy. This is the best coherent and sane thought I've seen you post.
It may be just the beer talking, but congratulations.
You would have to adhere to an international meeting or an agreement of sorts but you could do it this way.
Design a small robot, which carries a plant allotment that combines the features of a tuber and a surface plant, into one.
Make a bid to NASA or what ever space agency is appropriate and ask if you can pay to have your payload taken to Mars via piggyback, on one of the next Mars missions.
Design this robot, to had a digging capacity, so that it can automatically excavate , insert a damp sponge with nutrients and then this hole is closed.
What would happen, is that the tuber part of the plant would do well, however the other top part, in time would start to develop leaves.
This would start to generate oxygen and or other gasses on the planet.
*There is currently a plant, which is half potato and tomato, sold in some of the seed and home fix it catalogs.
The robot would also act as a remote farmer, responding to a preprogrammed set of instruction, which would both look over the plants, telemetry that data back to Earth and tend to any problems with the plants.
You might be able to build this robot for fifty to one hundred thousand American dollars?
The installment onto a Mars type of lander, might run you a million?
You would need the backing of an international entrepreneur and or company.
The banking and acceptance from the space agencies, would probably be some of the hard parts.
I have no idea what would occur years down the line, if plants did take a roothold on the surface of
Even though I disagree it would be that easy. This is the best coherent and sane thought I've seen you post.
It may be just the beer talking, but congratulations.
double copy
B,WS, I’ve got to tell you this, as your group, it seems has a real problem with race and gender.
NOM was the one who came out and somehow hacked into my airline schedule.
I don’t know how he did this, but because of this, I wont fly now.
I had to disclose what I was, there was no free democratic choice about this.
By coincidence, the head of the CIA also disclosed allot about himself, about the same time.
What your collective problems are, is you have your heads up you @sses.
I don’t lie and what I said was true.
If I were you I would leave it alone instead of rubbing it raw.
Like I said, you go to the humanoid encounters list, skim through it and you will find over fourteen references dated over twenty years time, to beings known as magicals and semi-magical aliens.
That’s what I am and I’m not going to hide this.
You and your goons constantly picking on me, is very similar to what the blacks went through in places like Selma Alabama.Then saying they should not vote, as they were closer to monkeys or some other B.S.
I mean it, you’ve got a real problem there, you all do.
If you who sit around in the background with shoulder boards on the shoulders of your shirts, don’t like me, or what I represent, then you can go to that list, make a contact for me and I’ll get off your planet.
What you and your gang are doing, is making a no love loss situation.
My guesses on the technological says I put forward in the thread, have nothing to do with how I look at myself, nor my determination.
I’ve gone to schools, I guess that I have a good technical mind and this is where my return comments came from.
Some day in histories eyes, your collective actions will be looked upon as being only thugs and loiters, who had nothing better to do, but because of their ignorance, preyed on someone who was set up for other’s follies.
My guess about your section of space, since your future war seems planned, is that droves of other aliens who live by Earth will make a mass exodus out of this section of space.
What their probably thinking over, is that if Earth humans are dumb enough to have their grand war, then through worm hole apparatus, this might destabilize two very near super stars.
I don’t have to apologies to you, nor gain your approval so that I seem I’m up to your standards.
NOM was the one who came out and somehow hacked into my airline schedule.
I don’t know how he did this, but because of this, I wont fly now.
I had to disclose what I was, there was no free democratic choice about this.
By coincidence, the head of the CIA also disclosed allot about himself, about the same time.
What your collective problems are, is you have your heads up you @sses.
I don’t lie and what I said was true.
If I were you I would leave it alone instead of rubbing it raw.
Like I said, you go to the humanoid encounters list, skim through it and you will find over fourteen references dated over twenty years time, to beings known as magicals and semi-magical aliens.
That’s what I am and I’m not going to hide this.
You and your goons constantly picking on me, is very similar to what the blacks went through in places like Selma Alabama.Then saying they should not vote, as they were closer to monkeys or some other B.S.
I mean it, you’ve got a real problem there, you all do.
If you who sit around in the background with shoulder boards on the shoulders of your shirts, don’t like me, or what I represent, then you can go to that list, make a contact for me and I’ll get off your planet.
What you and your gang are doing, is making a no love loss situation.
My guesses on the technological says I put forward in the thread, have nothing to do with how I look at myself, nor my determination.
I’ve gone to schools, I guess that I have a good technical mind and this is where my return comments came from.
Some day in histories eyes, your collective actions will be looked upon as being only thugs and loiters, who had nothing better to do, but because of their ignorance, preyed on someone who was set up for other’s follies.
My guess about your section of space, since your future war seems planned, is that droves of other aliens who live by Earth will make a mass exodus out of this section of space.
What their probably thinking over, is that if Earth humans are dumb enough to have their grand war, then through worm hole apparatus, this might destabilize two very near super stars.
I don’t have to apologies to you, nor gain your approval so that I seem I’m up to your standards.
Look!
I'f I wanna terraform Mars do you think I would be preoccupied with dumbshit?
I'f I wanna terraform Mars do you think I would be preoccupied with dumbshit?
I'm sorry that you've never read a history book, nor have intercultural social skills.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.