Science is young
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Science is young
Next: Fastest clock
From: BURT on 6 Jun 2010 20:09 On Jun 6, 5:00 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 6, 6:25 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 7:52 am, rick_s <m...(a)my.com> wrote: > > > > In article <cf97e4ce-6f14-4a3c-885f-6407e5db8...(a)q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, > > > donstockba...(a)hotmail.com says... > > > > >On Jun 4, 1:14 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jun 3, 10:23 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > > > >> > On 6/3/2010 11:49 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > >> > > On Jun 3, 9:13 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> On 6/3/2010 10:24 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > >> > >>> On Jun 3, 12:21 pm, rick_s<m...(a)my.com> wrote: > > > >> > >>>> In article > > > >> > >>>> <0d746578-840e-4997-a4c1-a6e73cae7...(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, > > > >> > >>>> macromi...(a)yahoo.com says... > > > > >> > >>>>> We should all agree that science is only a few hundred years old > > > >> > >>>>> taking Galileo as its father. We understand nothing completely. The > > > >> > >>>>> idea of science having complete theories is for the very distant > > > >> > >>>>> future; possibly 10's to 100's of millions of years ahead. > > > > >> > >>>>> Mitch Raemsch > > > > >> > >>>> If science is so young, then how did someone understand the principal > > > of > > > >> > >>>> electromagnetic wave signals 200 years before Hertz, Maxwell and > > > Marconi? > > > > >>>>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Glorification_of_t... > > > >> > >>>> ucharist_-_Salimbeni.JPG > > > > >> > >>>> The answer is simple. Take a look into Pascal's Amulette and you can > > > put > > > >> > >>>> two and two together. > > > > >> > >>> What's your point rick? > > > > Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. > > > > My point is there is a lot of evidence that science is not young. > > > > But maybe science here on earth in this civilization is. > > > > I am going to show you something, and most people will still not understand > > > what I am talking about. > > > >http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=-15.186573&lon=-75.244425&z=12.7&r=0&s... > > > On his chest he has a missile. With his right hand he is saying he fired two > > > missiles. > > > > We know from the historical red 3 space probes that a missile exploded at the > > > south pole of the moon, perhaps 2 million years ago which released water and > > > inner atmosphere into space. > > > We have an eye witness account scratched onto a rock, found in Peru, and we > > > have lots of other evidence about this weird event. > > > We even found the second unexploded missile on the far side of the moon. > > > >http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-P-9625 > > > scroll right and you will see the missile. It has been examined and it has what > > > looks like old Peruvian markings on it. > > > > So how could science be young?- Hide quoted text - > > > It began later than civilization. Galileo is considered its father. > > The evidence that science is young is that in its short history it was > > based near entirely on mistake. I say that we came from that history > > and we are no where near getting things right. It is just not > > objective to think science is great at this moment. What is for sure > > is that when we get away from its way of mistakes then will be a great > > future of science and not until then. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > - Show quoted text - > > Hi Mitch. When I think that up until 120 ago there was no flight, no > television or radio, no electricity, no automobiles, no telephone- > from a scientific standpoint, we are finally beginning to many great > things- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Technology doesn't make man great. It is superficial. It is in no way a measure of the greatness of spirit. It is only a level of comfort. Technical genius is superficial. Mitch Raemsch
From: GogoJF on 6 Jun 2010 20:18 On Jun 6, 7:09 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 6, 5:00 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 6, 6:25 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 6, 7:52 am, rick_s <m...(a)my.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <cf97e4ce-6f14-4a3c-885f-6407e5db8...(a)q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, > > > > donstockba...(a)hotmail.com says... > > > > > >On Jun 4, 1:14 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > >> On Jun 3, 10:23 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > On 6/3/2010 11:49 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > > >> > > On Jun 3, 9:13 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > > > >> > >> On 6/3/2010 10:24 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > > >> > >>> On Jun 3, 12:21 pm, rick_s<m...(a)my.com> wrote: > > > > >> > >>>> In article > > > > >> > >>>> <0d746578-840e-4997-a4c1-a6e73cae7...(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > >> > >>>> macromi...(a)yahoo.com says... > > > > > >> > >>>>> We should all agree that science is only a few hundred years old > > > > >> > >>>>> taking Galileo as its father. We understand nothing completely. The > > > > >> > >>>>> idea of science having complete theories is for the very distant > > > > >> > >>>>> future; possibly 10's to 100's of millions of years ahead. > > > > > >> > >>>>> Mitch Raemsch > > > > > >> > >>>> If science is so young, then how did someone understand the principal > > > > of > > > > >> > >>>> electromagnetic wave signals 200 years before Hertz, Maxwell and > > > > Marconi? > > > > > >>>>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Glorification_of_t... > > > > >> > >>>> ucharist_-_Salimbeni.JPG > > > > > >> > >>>> The answer is simple. Take a look into Pascal's Amulette and you can > > > > put > > > > >> > >>>> two and two together. > > > > > >> > >>> What's your point rick? > > > > > Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. > > > > > My point is there is a lot of evidence that science is not young. > > > > > But maybe science here on earth in this civilization is. > > > > > I am going to show you something, and most people will still not understand > > > > what I am talking about. > > > > >http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=-15.186573&lon=-75.244425&z=12.7&r=0&s... > > > > On his chest he has a missile. With his right hand he is saying he fired two > > > > missiles. > > > > > We know from the historical red 3 space probes that a missile exploded at the > > > > south pole of the moon, perhaps 2 million years ago which released water and > > > > inner atmosphere into space. > > > > We have an eye witness account scratched onto a rock, found in Peru, and we > > > > have lots of other evidence about this weird event. > > > > We even found the second unexploded missile on the far side of the moon. > > > > >http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-P-9625 > > > > scroll right and you will see the missile. It has been examined and it has what > > > > looks like old Peruvian markings on it. > > > > > So how could science be young?- Hide quoted text - > > > > It began later than civilization. Galileo is considered its father. > > > The evidence that science is young is that in its short history it was > > > based near entirely on mistake. I say that we came from that history > > > and we are no where near getting things right. It is just not > > > objective to think science is great at this moment. What is for sure > > > is that when we get away from its way of mistakes then will be a great > > > future of science and not until then. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Hi Mitch. When I think that up until 120 ago there was no flight, no > > television or radio, no electricity, no automobiles, no telephone- > > from a scientific standpoint, we are finally beginning to many great > > things- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Technology doesn't make man great. It is superficial. It is in no way > a measure of the greatness of spirit. It is only a level of comfort. > > Technical genius is superficial. > > Mitch Raemsch Being able to eventually get off of this Earth, will not only help mankind, but it will insure its survival by the sheer fact that all of our eggs will not be in one basket. I think all of these advances are predestined- because they are prequels to our eventual migration.
From: BURT on 6 Jun 2010 20:30 On Jun 6, 5:18 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 6, 7:09 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 5:00 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 6, 6:25 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 6, 7:52 am, rick_s <m...(a)my.com> wrote: > > > > > > In article <cf97e4ce-6f14-4a3c-885f-6407e5db8...(a)q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > donstockba...(a)hotmail.com says... > > > > > > >On Jun 4, 1:14 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > >> On Jun 3, 10:23 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> > On 6/3/2010 11:49 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > > > >> > > On Jun 3, 9:13 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > >> On 6/3/2010 10:24 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > > > >> > >>> On Jun 3, 12:21 pm, rick_s<m...(a)my.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > >>>> In article > > > > > >> > >>>> <0d746578-840e-4997-a4c1-a6e73cae7...(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > >> > >>>> macromi...(a)yahoo.com says... > > > > > > >> > >>>>> We should all agree that science is only a few hundred years old > > > > > >> > >>>>> taking Galileo as its father. We understand nothing completely. The > > > > > >> > >>>>> idea of science having complete theories is for the very distant > > > > > >> > >>>>> future; possibly 10's to 100's of millions of years ahead. > > > > > > >> > >>>>> Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > >> > >>>> If science is so young, then how did someone understand the principal > > > > > of > > > > > >> > >>>> electromagnetic wave signals 200 years before Hertz, Maxwell and > > > > > Marconi? > > > > > > >>>>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Glorification_of_t... > > > > > >> > >>>> ucharist_-_Salimbeni.JPG > > > > > > >> > >>>> The answer is simple. Take a look into Pascal's Amulette and you can > > > > > put > > > > > >> > >>>> two and two together. > > > > > > >> > >>> What's your point rick? > > > > > > Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. > > > > > > My point is there is a lot of evidence that science is not young. > > > > > > But maybe science here on earth in this civilization is. > > > > > > I am going to show you something, and most people will still not understand > > > > > what I am talking about. > > > > > >http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=-15.186573&lon=-75.244425&z=12.7&r=0&s... > > > > > On his chest he has a missile. With his right hand he is saying he fired two > > > > > missiles. > > > > > > We know from the historical red 3 space probes that a missile exploded at the > > > > > south pole of the moon, perhaps 2 million years ago which released water and > > > > > inner atmosphere into space. > > > > > We have an eye witness account scratched onto a rock, found in Peru, and we > > > > > have lots of other evidence about this weird event. > > > > > We even found the second unexploded missile on the far side of the moon. > > > > > >http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-P-9625 > > > > > scroll right and you will see the missile. It has been examined and it has what > > > > > looks like old Peruvian markings on it. > > > > > > So how could science be young?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > It began later than civilization. Galileo is considered its father. > > > > The evidence that science is young is that in its short history it was > > > > based near entirely on mistake. I say that we came from that history > > > > and we are no where near getting things right. It is just not > > > > objective to think science is great at this moment. What is for sure > > > > is that when we get away from its way of mistakes then will be a great > > > > future of science and not until then. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Hi Mitch. When I think that up until 120 ago there was no flight, no > > > television or radio, no electricity, no automobiles, no telephone- > > > from a scientific standpoint, we are finally beginning to many great > > > things- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Technology doesn't make man great. It is superficial. It is in no way > > a measure of the greatness of spirit. It is only a level of comfort. > > > Technical genius is superficial. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > Being able to eventually get off of this Earth, will not only help > mankind, but it will insure its survival by the sheer fact that all of > our eggs will not be in one basket. Balogna. Tapping the entire resources of our planet for a few people in space is the dumbest thing Stephen Hawking has ever said. That will never solve any problem. If we loose the Earth we are dead all of the way. So this idea really is rediculous. > I think all of these advances are > predestined- How would a few people in space be an advance? Are they going to dance around on mars? Are they going to get smarter? I mean come on? It would be billions of dollars of resources that are set to run out right about now anyway. Mitch Raemsch > because they are prequels to our eventual migration.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: GogoJF on 6 Jun 2010 20:40 On Jun 6, 7:30 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 6, 5:18 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 6, 7:09 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 6, 5:00 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 6, 6:25 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 6, 7:52 am, rick_s <m...(a)my.com> wrote: > > > > > > > In article <cf97e4ce-6f14-4a3c-885f-6407e5db8...(a)q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > donstockba...(a)hotmail.com says... > > > > > > > >On Jun 4, 1:14 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> On Jun 3, 10:23 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> > On 6/3/2010 11:49 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > On Jun 3, 9:13 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> > >> On 6/3/2010 10:24 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > > > > >> > >>> On Jun 3, 12:21 pm, rick_s<m...(a)my.com> wrote: > > > > > > >> > >>>> In article > > > > > > >> > >>>> <0d746578-840e-4997-a4c1-a6e73cae7...(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > >> > >>>> macromi...(a)yahoo.com says... > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> We should all agree that science is only a few hundred years old > > > > > > >> > >>>>> taking Galileo as its father. We understand nothing completely. The > > > > > > >> > >>>>> idea of science having complete theories is for the very distant > > > > > > >> > >>>>> future; possibly 10's to 100's of millions of years ahead. > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > >> > >>>> If science is so young, then how did someone understand the principal > > > > > > of > > > > > > >> > >>>> electromagnetic wave signals 200 years before Hertz, Maxwell and > > > > > > Marconi? > > > > > > > >>>>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Glorification_of_t... > > > > > > >> > >>>> ucharist_-_Salimbeni.JPG > > > > > > > >> > >>>> The answer is simple. Take a look into Pascal's Amulette and you can > > > > > > put > > > > > > >> > >>>> two and two together. > > > > > > > >> > >>> What's your point rick? > > > > > > > Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. > > > > > > > My point is there is a lot of evidence that science is not young. > > > > > > > But maybe science here on earth in this civilization is. > > > > > > > I am going to show you something, and most people will still not understand > > > > > > what I am talking about. > > > > > > >http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=-15.186573&lon=-75.244425&z=12.7&r=0&s... > > > > > > On his chest he has a missile. With his right hand he is saying he fired two > > > > > > missiles. > > > > > > > We know from the historical red 3 space probes that a missile exploded at the > > > > > > south pole of the moon, perhaps 2 million years ago which released water and > > > > > > inner atmosphere into space. > > > > > > We have an eye witness account scratched onto a rock, found in Peru, and we > > > > > > have lots of other evidence about this weird event. > > > > > > We even found the second unexploded missile on the far side of the moon. > > > > > > >http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-P-9625 > > > > > > scroll right and you will see the missile. It has been examined and it has what > > > > > > looks like old Peruvian markings on it. > > > > > > > So how could science be young?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > It began later than civilization. Galileo is considered its father. > > > > > The evidence that science is young is that in its short history it was > > > > > based near entirely on mistake. I say that we came from that history > > > > > and we are no where near getting things right. It is just not > > > > > objective to think science is great at this moment. What is for sure > > > > > is that when we get away from its way of mistakes then will be a great > > > > > future of science and not until then. > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Hi Mitch. When I think that up until 120 ago there was no flight, no > > > > television or radio, no electricity, no automobiles, no telephone- > > > > from a scientific standpoint, we are finally beginning to many great > > > > things- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Technology doesn't make man great. It is superficial. It is in no way > > > a measure of the greatness of spirit. It is only a level of comfort. > > > > Technical genius is superficial. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > Being able to eventually get off of this Earth, will not only help > > mankind, but it will insure its survival by the sheer fact that all of > > our eggs will not be in one basket. > > Balogna. Tapping the entire resources of our planet for a few people > in space is the dumbest thing Stephen Hawking has ever said. That will > never solve any problem. If we loose the Earth we are dead all of the > way. So this idea really is rediculous. > > > I think all of these advances are > > predestined- > > How would a few people in space be an advance? > Are they going to dance around on mars? > Are they going to get smarter? > > I mean come on? It would be billions of dollars of resources that are > set to run out right about now anyway. > > Mitch Raemsch > > > because they are prequels to our eventual migration.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > I think you really have to think in terms of hundreds, even thousands of years down the line here. If we have done, what we have done in 120 years, and if knowledge is geometric in growth, then imagine what things will be like in 500 years.
From: BURT on 6 Jun 2010 20:52
On Jun 6, 5:40 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 6, 7:30 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 5:18 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 6, 7:09 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 6, 5:00 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 6, 6:25 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 7:52 am, rick_s <m...(a)my.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > In article <cf97e4ce-6f14-4a3c-885f-6407e5db8...(a)q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > donstockba...(a)hotmail.com says... > > > > > > > > >On Jun 4, 1:14 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Jun 3, 10:23 pm, purple <pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > On 6/3/2010 11:49 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > On Jun 3, 9:13 pm, purple<pur...(a)colorme.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> > >> On 6/3/2010 10:24 PM, BURT wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > >>> On Jun 3, 12:21 pm, rick_s<m...(a)my.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> > >>>> In article > > > > > > > >> > >>>> <0d746578-840e-4997-a4c1-a6e73cae7...(a)z13g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > >> > >>>> macromi...(a)yahoo.com says... > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> We should all agree that science is only a few hundred years old > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> taking Galileo as its father. We understand nothing completely. The > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> idea of science having complete theories is for the very distant > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> future; possibly 10's to 100's of millions of years ahead. > > > > > > > > >> > >>>>> Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> If science is so young, then how did someone understand the principal > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > >> > >>>> electromagnetic wave signals 200 years before Hertz, Maxwell and > > > > > > > Marconi? > > > > > > > > >>>>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Glorification_of_t... > > > > > > > >> > >>>> ucharist_-_Salimbeni.JPG > > > > > > > > >> > >>>> The answer is simple. Take a look into Pascal's Amulette and you can > > > > > > > put > > > > > > > >> > >>>> two and two together. > > > > > > > > >> > >>> What's your point rick? > > > > > > > > Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. > > > > > > > > My point is there is a lot of evidence that science is not young. > > > > > > > > But maybe science here on earth in this civilization is. > > > > > > > > I am going to show you something, and most people will still not understand > > > > > > > what I am talking about. > > > > > > > >http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=-15.186573&lon=-75.244425&z=12.7&r=0&s... > > > > > > > On his chest he has a missile. With his right hand he is saying he fired two > > > > > > > missiles. > > > > > > > > We know from the historical red 3 space probes that a missile exploded at the > > > > > > > south pole of the moon, perhaps 2 million years ago which released water and > > > > > > > inner atmosphere into space. > > > > > > > We have an eye witness account scratched onto a rock, found in Peru, and we > > > > > > > have lots of other evidence about this weird event. > > > > > > > We even found the second unexploded missile on the far side of the moon. > > > > > > > >http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS15-P-9625 > > > > > > > scroll right and you will see the missile. It has been examined and it has what > > > > > > > looks like old Peruvian markings on it. > > > > > > > > So how could science be young?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > It began later than civilization. Galileo is considered its father. > > > > > > The evidence that science is young is that in its short history it was > > > > > > based near entirely on mistake. I say that we came from that history > > > > > > and we are no where near getting things right. It is just not > > > > > > objective to think science is great at this moment. What is for sure > > > > > > is that when we get away from its way of mistakes then will be a great > > > > > > future of science and not until then. > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > Hi Mitch. When I think that up until 120 ago there was no flight, no > > > > > television or radio, no electricity, no automobiles, no telephone- > > > > > from a scientific standpoint, we are finally beginning to many great > > > > > things- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Technology doesn't make man great. It is superficial. It is in no way > > > > a measure of the greatness of spirit. It is only a level of comfort.. > > > > > Technical genius is superficial. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > Being able to eventually get off of this Earth, will not only help > > > mankind, but it will insure its survival by the sheer fact that all of > > > our eggs will not be in one basket. > > > Balogna. Tapping the entire resources of our planet for a few people > > in space is the dumbest thing Stephen Hawking has ever said. That will > > never solve any problem. If we loose the Earth we are dead all of the > > way. So this idea really is rediculous. > > > > I think all of these advances are > > > predestined- > > > How would a few people in space be an advance? > > Are they going to dance around on mars? > > Are they going to get smarter? > > > I mean come on? It would be billions of dollars of resources that are > > set to run out right about now anyway. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > because they are prequels to our eventual migration.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > I think you really have to think in terms of hundreds, even thousands > of years down the line here. If we have done, what we have done in > 120 years, and if knowledge is geometric in growth, then imagine what > things will be like in 500 years.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Before you go on show that it is doable to any degree. It is not. What is doable is too small and it is going to stay that way. No. The Earth is where people will remain. There is no excuse that it this will change in the future. If you want to dance on mars spend your own money to do it. Leave the Earth's resources alone. They will recylce for the Earth in the future when man develops. Something more important is going to happen on your timeline gogo. In this century we have a global collapse comming. We will be dealing with that for the longest time after. So space travel will become less important. I guess an inferior genius like Hawking appeals to your nonsense? Mitch Raemsch |