denyasis

[quote]so i have to say that my above reasoning appears to blow your point to kingdom come?[/quote] I think the problem with both our arguements is that we can't do a Direct Apples to Apples comparison: [quote]There would be a definite increase in complexity from making that tiny insect body functional compared to making an elephant body functional, but there is no way in a million years i could believe the corresponding increase in brain size could justify that![/quote] <b

While we are on biology; Titan would be a nice place, but it does lack an easy way to get food for the colonists. If we were to make an artifical ecosystem, we'd have to import everything (the plants, animals, fertilizer, etc) for quite some time until enough biomass is present that the system would be somewhat self sufficient, which could take years, if it happens all. If, say we are looking for a "perfect" planet outside our solar system, obviously we would want one with a li

[quote]What i am trying to troobleshoot is the idea that brain size relative to body size denotes intelligence?[/quote] Try breaking it down to smaller parts. [quote]It seems to me that a body such as the body of a mouse or the body of an elephant would both have similar processing power requirements to run?[/quote] That might not be necesarily so. I don't know much about intelligence (don't have much of my own to begin with <img src="smiles/Tongue.gif" border=0 align=

[quote] I don’t get that remark at all. It must mean a person driving a truck is much more stupid than a person driving a car, because the truck is much bigger in comparison to the persons brain![/quote] Semi's are inherently more difficult to control (hence higher standards to be licensed for CDL) There are more blind spots. The Semi itself is also more cumbersome. It requires more effort on the driver's part to control the Truck than it does a car. Now I'm not implying that a truck dr

[quote]ps: any of you have even a passing familiarity with neurological psychology, cognitive science, i.e. "brain studies", or am i the most qualified participant on the subject? i'm certainly no expert, but i know a lot (of what other people have said) about how the brain works.[/quote] Perhaps it would help, we we stated some of our credentials. Nothing to revealing, Just so we have an idea where the other is comming from: I'm DenYaSis: -Studied Forensic Chemistry in Col

Back to adaptablility. There is a limit to the adaptability of the human. Different G's present a series of problems that are very difficult to over come by adapttation. Adaptation only works in the sense that the body can already make/do the things it is required to do. Its the same as working out, the body makes more muscle, not a new type of muscle. There's a limit to the stress you can place on the organs in terms of gravity, especially the heart. Sure there will be adaptat

it looks like there's not much easily available research on the subject (prolonged exposure to high G, rather than relatively short durations). I think you kinda generally answered you own question here: low G is another issue entirely. muscles tend to atrophe without word; astronauts on long missions have to exercise or face dangerous conditions when they return to constant life in full G Going from Earth (1G)

perhaps our colony would be in the air Ahh ala Cloud Ctiy. I would dare say that could be very possible. Since we'd be using water to gernerate O2, We'd have tons of H2 available. Since the atmospshere doesn't have any O2, There would be a reduced fire hazard risk. Given that the difference in density from Methane to Hydrogen is greater than the different between Hydrongen and our Earth atmosphere, is would be likely that we could create a floating city.

since the mantle is liquid water, it must be somewhat warmer than the surface Not necesarrily so. Water is a very interesting chemical in that solid is less dense than the liquid (ice floats). This means that you can turn Ice into water by adding pressure to it (Keeping the temperature constant - below freezing). Ice skates work on this principle. The weight of the human is transfered via a small surface area (the blade) to the ice, turning it to water.

very true, I did forget about that. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but that would make It Easier to build using the strut/footings as we'de need fewer and they wouldn't have to be as extensive? I guess the other hard part would be insulating the structure. I mean we would want amibent temp to be around 68-72 and possibly warmer if we are growing food, etc. I think heating up our colony would be pretty expensive in terms of energy and we wouldn't want to lose any of that to the atmosphere.

I like the titan Idea. Well let's see if we can figure out, what at minimum, we need for a self sustaining colony: Energy - As is a usable power source, whether it be solar, or we bring it with us. I'd assume, since its so cold, that Solar wouldn't produce much power. We'd probably have to brin our own power source. Using electrolysis to produce O2 and burning the methane would work, Barley: 4H2O +CH4 -> 4H2 + 2O2 + CH4 --> CO2 + 2H2O + 4H2 P - R 0-4(-241.83) = 967.

Dytopic and Millertime are right, its not really possible to compare Genetic code to Computer code in terms of analogy; althogh the comparison is pretty cool. For one, Computer code is mathematical; logic based, if you will. Everything done on a computer is a mathematical function (atleast as far as the computer sees it).The code (with no errors!) is all that matters for a result to be acheived. DNA controls via cehemistry. It functions in both terms of the actual code (Which can be pre

Well yes and no. Scientifically, computer code is entirely different from genetic code. Computer code must be compiled into executable which cannot be reverse compiled back to the source with any ease. Genetic information can. Infact, while Computer code must be read and processed to function, DNA can directly intereact wiht proteins and cofactors without transcription or translation. DNA is the equivelent of source code for the human. We have it all mapped - Ie on paper. We ar

If I were to look at it from a developmental method, I would see the notions of combating aging would fall into general phases as our medical science increases. As our knowledge of genetics and specifically, cell signalling, increases, I could see medicines ( a good analogy would be to liken them to steroids) that would increase the lafe span of a person significantly, but also have major drawbacks including effectiveness, toxicity ( an interesting irony, lol), cancer and other deadly s

what about converting yourself into a robot? That is an interesting concept. As you pointed out, The sticking point would be the brain and spinal cord, as you'd have to convince the brain that the rest of the body existed by simulating nervous impluses, blood, hormones, etc. I'm no doctor, but I do know that we do have a wide array of devices that can take over the primary function of a lot of organs and systems. I would guess these devices would only ge

While I uderstand that you could perfectly optimize conditions and and human lifestyle to extend the human life, you gotta think about what exactly you are doing. Essentially you are putting a person into a test tube where everything is controlled. By having stress (of say running an economic empire), or any other such event, you would be cutting down the lifespan. Those people would essentially have no freedom. It is true that aging is much more than genetics. The scientific community

I'm not so sure about the human life being extended too significantly or indefinitely. Wihle I won't contest the concept of suspended animation, I'd like to point out that from a philosophical sense, those people aren't alive in the sense that they have the same freedoms or abilities as a normal person. But to the point of extending the human life. We've made incredible progress in extending the average life span of a person in some countries. In some places the life span has been incre

When I was thinking of jettisoning tanks/engines I was thinking in terms of continual thrust while jetisoning (pretty much just like the space shuttle). Why thrust dead weight as we start a sling shot? In addition, this would make the ship easier to slowdown when it reaches its destination in terms of momentum not to mention periodic pre-programed busts of thurst to maintain/adjust course or heading. but along the lines of the general discussion, it'd mak

One thing that we haven't mentioned, and I'm not sure how relevant it would be to space only flight, but It may be significant to the slingshot, would be the Mass of the ship. With our current shuttle tech, we jettison fueltanks, engines, etc as we break orbit. This reduces the ships mass, making it easier to propel and escape Earth's gravity (no dead weght to pull against gravity) With the slingshot, we'd still have to pull away from the sun's gravity (the sling shot orbit) while thrus

That's merely stating that the net effect of acceleration is valid as energy is conserved in the system. That means that the BCS isn't magically gaining velocity (relative to the sun) for no particular reason. Everything uses Energy. But, as your quote states, The law of conservation of energy implicitly states that Energy is not being created (or destroyed). The energy already exists in the BCS, as Potential Energy. The force of Gravity merely converted this Potential into Kinetc, as Millertime

I'm glad ,at least somewhat, that we are on similar pages. I too would assume that a good portion of our solar system would be used. I hesitate to say maxed out, as history has shown with the Colonization of the Americas, the home resources don't necesarily need to be totally maxed out, just scarce or unfavorable for certian groups. While I don't really have a uptopian/dystopian view on Humanity itself, I do recognize and agree, that expansion into space is not recogized by the world as

Unfortunately I know nothing of The internet other than I plug in my computer and turn it on I do enjoy how our discussion have formed. It seems we have a few fairly strong models of how a colony would get started. I was wondering about pre-developement, hypothetically, of course. What would our Solar system be like when we have the ability to send a Big Colony Ship out beyond our sola

Yes! They could make it work like a sparkler tho... the nuke fuel being mixed with other compounds to slow down the reaction. Interesting. A chemical reaction is Much Much different than a nuclear type reaction. We do use mechanisms to control the reactions in modern reactors (I'm not very up on how the mechanism works), so I guess it could be possible to use the reactor as a heat source for the rocket. By controlling the rate of reaction, we could contr

Looks like there are no fusion or fission rockets. I think that is our key problem with the propulsion here. Currently, Nuclear devices are our most destructive weapons. A rocket, is essentially, a controlled bomb. If you were to use a nuclear reaction (fission or fussion), you're essentially trying to controll a small nuclear explosion inside the ship. We'd have to build a ship that is not only capable of handling an internal nuclear explosion, but chan

One thing I do know is that from the outside, as we watch an object fall into a black hole it appears to slow down Really? Not trying to argue but I'm not really understanding this. I mean, if the gravity of the black hole is interacting with Object A, then a continual force is applied on Object A, hence constant (more or less) acceleration. That would mean the object's speed would increase as it moved into the black hole. If its slowing down, there must