You're just holding it wrong!
I'm wondering what would happen if we were to mine the moon enough so that there's a significant mass transfered from there to here.
Actually, I think that's a very good idea - maybe not six years, but double the actual term limit : in eight years, the president gets to do what he wants (with the caveat of having the Congress on his side), and he doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected at the end. He can work on a project from the conception phase to the concretization without thinking about whether his electoral base will go for it. I don't see why it would be more dangerous to have a president for eight years instead of four. Can anybody?
Corporation, corporate America. Not *cooperate*.
Windows. Windows happened.
Your RNG is broken!
It simply might be that there is no 'yet'. Maybe there simply is no way to do it efficiently with the existing laws of nature. The perpetuum mobile is just an example that there are things which will always be impossible regardless of our technological advancements. Maybe space travel is as impossible just not as obvious?
That's the thing : maybe there are laws that will forever forbid us to travel through space, but if there are, we don't know them - and there are no indication that they exist.
Let's be optimistic
Build me a perpetuum mobile.
Are you saying that because my metaphor is factually incorrect, you can compare not being able to defy the laws of thermodynamics and not being able to travel through space, a thing that we simply don't know how to do (efficiently) yet?
Impossible is just a word people use to make themselves feel better when they quit.
1) Not true. 2) Something is very wrong with that.
Science and religion are not incompatible. It's blind faith and science that cannot work together.
But similarly, if "scientists" are wrong about the existence of God, that may be equally catastrophic (or at least would fundamentally alter so much of the underpinning of the science as to put it back at square one).
If (a) God(s) was proven to exist tomorrow, what exactly would that entail for science? I'm pretty sure nothing would change.
The whole of Christianity hinges on the Resurrection: whether that tomb really was empty the Sunday after that Passover.
There's pretty good reason to believe that, at least, something unusual happened -- Paul wouldn't have used the argument "Some of you were eye-witnesses to these events" in his letters if he didn't think "these events" supported what he was preaching. (He was writing his letters for particular people at the time, not for us 2000 years later.)
Sadly, the tomb being empty is in no way evidence of resurrection. So first you'd have to prove that it really was empty, and then you'd have to prove that the dead man inside disappeared. Good luck on that.
UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker
