Staredit Network

[qoute]I assumed he was talking about ultraviolet lasers. 'Black light' is a common term for an ultraviolet light bulb.[/quote]
Ultraviolet radiation and frequency is weaker and slower than visible light radiation and frequency. Why would it be stronger than laser?


The movie was a romance in reality. Just ironic. But I have to say, I hope we dont blow up a 30 megaton nuke on a moon.

Its also nice to have a clean environment.

Lmao, why would we go to mars if we weren't sure of the idea first? Anyway, I say that we wouldn't go to other planets exactly because we won't be able to find or travel to any acceptible ones. Using robots isn't very efficient if you ask me.

Actually you got it wrong, its the other way around.
Infrared is before Visible Light (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple) then Ultraviolet, hence the prefixes.

No, ultraviolet actually has a higher frequency and higher energy than visible light and infrared. As such, lasers made using it would probably be more powerful than visible light or infrared lasers, although of course this depends on the technology available (they're also harder to make).

You'd have to detonate about a billion such nukes to come even close to blowing up the Moon. No danger there.

I didn't bother to point that out before, but yeah, it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Then we make unacceptable ones acceptable somehow.

Well, it's more efficient than using humans, anyway.

Why do you have to repeat what already has been said in a more elaborated and confusing statement?


Do you even comprehend what a 30 MEGATON nuke is? We're not even close to reaching such a powerful bomb yet.


Not now, anyways.

Sorry to break it to you, but we passed that decades ago. The Tsar Bomba had a yield of about 50 megatons, and was tested in 1961.

Pizzowned..

There is no such thing as a black laser. If you have a laser, that you can't see, it's just because its not in the visible spectrum...
How so, we just send them up there with solar panels, and tada, we can forget about them until they come back with a bunch of hydrogen from Jupiter.

Not to mention that astronauts are really hard to keep alive for very long without constant support from a giant planet.

We would go there to learn about it...
Like bush wanted to send people to the moon...

I admit that iam owned

In my opinion, humanity only has 2 paths it will go down after earth is completly used up. (Or close too it) Total annihalation, or we'll keep multiplying like bacteria. For the first, Earth will run out of resources, countries will slaughter each other for the few resources there are left, but those won't last either and we'll all die. The latter, interplanetary travel and colinization will become a reality, and that technology will progress fast enough to go past our solar system. Otherwise we're screwed X(

5.972e24 kg Earth
6.4219e23 kg Mars
XD i googled the mass of earth and mars, and those are the measurements, but i have no idea how to convert them. :/ not sure what the "e" stands for but anyways...
If you wanted to let marz semi-naturally form an atmosphere, wouldn't you want to use the asteroid belt to add mass to mars so it would gain gravity? Probably have the a probe dragon asteroids into the orbit at an angle, so in would roll into the surface, not smash it. And if you just kept doing this for a while, wouldn't mars eventually gain an atmosphere?

I concur to ei47, our planet is wasting up it's resources. Hopefully in the future, we will find innovative planets, maybe individual planets like ours, but in a larger magnitude, so human beings can subsist in independent dwellings for a period, then have wars for lands .


WE ARE SUCKING UP OUR RESOURCES, HELP THE FREAKING MOTHER EARTH DAMN IT, SAVE THE PANDAS WOO HOO .

Sorry I jsut had to say that declaration.

I believe that humanity's advancing civilization will buckle on itself in the next few hundred years and we will revert back to more primitive technology. If you look at human history, there is a constant pattern of peaks and valleys in technology and knowledge. We may be at our peak.

It is equivelant to *10^. So the mass of the Earth is actually 5972000000000000000000000 kilograms, and Mars is 642190000000000000000000 kilograms.

The total mass of the Asteroid Belt is still only about 3*10^21 kilograms, one 200th the mass of Mars. I don't think this would make much of a difference.

I sure hope not. The way I see it, we just have to hold onto our development for a few more decades and we're home free (because of artificial intelligence). However, even if you're right and we end up blowing ourselves up and going back to more primitive technology, it may not be a simple peaks and valleys thing. See, on this peak we've been using up our fossil fuels, and we won't get another chance at such an easy energy boost for hundreds of millions of years. If we get bumped back to early Industrial Revolution technology, we're pretty much screwed over, because we won't have any energy to get us back up to where we are now. So we'd damn better not blow ourselves up, huh?

But who says all this technology is a good thing? Maybe we were better off when there were fewer of us, and we rarely lived past 40, and we fed off the wild. ;p

Don't think Humanity is gonna have to revert have to primitive technology for a long long time.

The fact that we rarely lived past 40 and were forced to eat raw animal meat and so on suggests that we are better off now. If you have any real evidence that technology is in fact bad and cave men are innately better off than technological beings, I'd like to see it.

Not better for us, better for earth lol. We're a virus :K

vBasically my answer.v

Even though we're a virus, we're the virus that keeps national parks clean as well treatings animals much better than how the old virus kept taming and killing them. So basicly, we're the cure as well as long there isn't too much destruction.

The thing is, it's not the Earth we care about. We're not here to make sure a certain big ball of lava remains intact. Rather, we're here to make ourselves happy. If maximum possible happiness involves destroying the Earth, so be it. Lesser of two evils, right?

Its true that all species are out for their own survival, others be damned, but we humans have the ability to be aware of what we're doing and decide to change. IMO, if something has that power, it should choose not to destroy that which it does not need to. I have nothing against killing for survival. It happens billions of times everyday between all species in existance. But we waste things, we kill for pleasure, we kill because the byproducts of our lifestyles pollute habitats, and so on. To me, that just feels wrong. And although I personally don't want to lose my TV, computer, air conditioning, etc., I still believe it would be some sort of fantastic justice for human civilization to fail. Especially if it does itself in.

That's my opinion.

This is true, but if it came down to the Earth or us I would overwhelmingly pick us.

Well, it certainly would be a sort of magnificent justice if all the crazy morons and greedy corrupt jerks somehow killed themselves, sure. But when they can take the rest of us down with them...well, that makes it an entirely different story. And in the real world, they most certainly do have the power to take the rest of us with them. So somehow we need to keep them from doing it.

Make sure you read the entire conversation.
He said we would probably be living on mars until we realize its pointless, and I said why would we be living there if we weren't sure of the idea in the first place.


...
Wow.
If we weren't so sloppy there wouldn't be pollution in the first place. There wouldn't be radioactive material and excess CO2 and trash everywhere. We aren't doing nearly enough to keep the planet a healthy environment for life.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.

There's plenty of radioactive material in the environment already. As for garbage and chemical pollution, yes, any more than is necessary is our fault. However, we must accept that, at our current level of technology, there is a certain necessary amount. There are industries we need that just plain produce a certain amount of pollution, which we can't cut down on without either one, improving our technology, which we will do eventually but can't do immediately, or two, causing damage to our own civilization. It is naive to assume that we can reasonably get rid of all the pollution we're creating.

That, at least, is definitely true.

Well, you have to be careful how you look at this. Objectively, yes, violence against other people is a waste and I'm looking forward to the end of it. But nevertheless it is sometimes necessary for us to fight in order to prevent other people from infringing on the rights of either us or someone else. So long as the initial immoral act that triggered the fighting was done by somebody else, it is possible to fight and still know that we are not damaging our civilization as a whole by doing so.