Hey, since we are charting new territory in fantasy land, we may as well consider this solution to a hot issue we face today...
(This fantasy may have been inspired by another movie related to Monty Python's. This one instead of being grotesquely fantastic, it is simply enchanting: "THE BARON OF MUNCHAUSEN")
This is as fantastic as the concept of God, but it may the ultimate dream for mankind, no? Imagine instead of being forever in the afterlife looking at God, you go back to your own roaring twenties. Well, enough fantasy for today. Now the facts...
Time travel is the concept of moving between different points in time in a manner analogous to moving between different points in space, either sending objects (or in some cases just information) backwards in time to some moment before the present, or sending objects forward from the present to the future without the need to experience the intervening period (at least not at the normal rate).
Ancient folk tales and myths sometimes involved something akin to traveling forward in time; for example, in Hindu mythology, the Mahabharata mentions the story of the King Revaita, who travels to heaven to meet the creator Brahma and is shocked to learn that many ages have passed when he returns to Earth.
TibetanMonkey, Originator Of The Banana Kung-Fu
2010-04-02 12:26:39 EST
TRAVEL MACHINE = TIME TRAVEL MACHINE
You know what I mean, right? In case you though I had a travel agency... Well, my girlfriend has one. Let me know!
TibetanMonkey, Originator Of The Banana Kung-Fu
2010-04-02 13:47:19 EST
On Apr 2, 10:29 am, "Green Turtle" <SuperTur...@greenpiece.com> wrote: > "TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle"<nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:email@example.com... > > > I think we should concentrate in this kind of technology instead of > > trying to colonize the Moon, Mars, and the Universe beyond. > > > We set the timer 100 years into the future, and voila! We will know > > for sure what's cooking. > > Well, of course the problem here is the idea of time travel is just simply > silly, and is the stuff for weak minded non intellectual type of people like > you. > > For example, we invent the thermometer, and we start measuring temperature, > so now would you start running around talking about traveling through > temperature? See how ridiculous this sounds? > > Time is not some medium that you can travel through. (no more than the > stupidity of saying we're going to travel through a measurement like > temperature). > > On the other hand for weak untrained ignorant people like you, you're able > to believe the science fiction of time travel, pr the science fiction of > man's co2 output driving some catastrophic global warming. > > Time is simply a measurement with respect to motion. In other words, > without motion, there can't be a measurement of time. > > You can no more travel through time then you can travel through a > measurement like temperature. > > All well, so much for the untrained unthinking mind you have. > > Super Turtle
If we followed the scientific path, we would admit the evidence for GW. So for those who are skeptics, this is a possible solution other than God and space exploration.
What do you think of this "dreamer"? I would call his plans, "Let's destroy the Earth, and keep moving"...
President Bush has unveiled a new vision for space exploration, calling on NASA to "gain a new foothold on the moon and to prepare for new journeys to the worlds beyond our own."
TibetanMonkey, Originator Of The Banana Kung-Fu
2010-04-02 15:47:52 EST
On Apr 2, 12:16 pm, "Green Turtle" <SuperTur...@greenpiece.com> wrote: > "TibetanMonkey, Originator of the Banana Kung-Fu"<comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:firstname.lastname@example.org... > > > On Apr 2, 10:29 am, "Green Turtle" <SuperTur...@greenpiece.com> wrote: > >> You can no more travel through time then you can travel through a > >> measurement like temperature. > > >> All well, so much for the untrained unthinking mind you have. > > >> Super Turtle > > > If we followed the scientific path, we would admit the evidence for > > GW. > > You mean the evidence that the globe been warming for the last 10,000 years > since the last ice age? Sure, ok, none of us really have a problem with that > issue here. > > The issue we are debating here is man made global warming, and the > specifically is man's carbon dioxide output driving the temperature in the > way that you guys are claiming? > > That's where the IPCC, the CRU, and the Al Gore's of the world are falling > down, and that's also why your side has to resort to lying like a bunch of > used car salespeople. Unfortunately, it's not my side that made Al Gore > their hero, and it is not my side that gave Al Gore all those awards. > > And, it not my side that ignored the 30 plus errors in Al Gore's movie. I > mean where were all the scientists of the world pointing out the errors of > Al Gore's movie? I have not seen EVEN ONE statement from any major > scientific institution from the IPCC to the CRU to NASA having made ANY > statements that Gore's movie is full of errors. Why the silence here? > > Why the WALL of silence here. > > So you talk about the scientific process, why is that Lord Monckton had to > point out those 30 plus errors in Al Gore's movie then? Explain to me thus > then why the scientific process is so broken? If we're to trust your side, > then WHERE IS the major scientific institutions pointing out the errors of > Al Gore's movie? There is none and no one from your side doing as such? In > other words no one from your side is doing their job. Why? > > Now, one could just point out that Gore just made a stupid movie. However, > it's being shown in schools and all around the world as great scientific > evidence for global warming. Therefore the scientific community is extremely > guilty for not have pointed out the many errors in that movie. So why is it > that no one on the left political spectrum from NASA or any major scientific > institution of the world has pointed out the many errors in Al Gore's movie? > Why? > > If the many obvious errors in Al Gore's material cannot be pointed out by > your side, then why should I trust any of the science that your side is > sending out when they can't correct their simple errors? And remember, it's > not my side giving Al Gore all those accolades and awards to Gore, it is > your side? So, your side gives out awards, but NEVER correct any errors? > > And that is your scientific process you're asking me to submit to as an > authority here? > > Name one major scientific institution that's pointing out the large number > of errors in Al Gore's movie? You will find none! Why is this? > > If they had the scientific evidence, why then does people like Al Gore have > to lie? And why is there need to hide the decline? > > The debate not about global warming for 10,000 years, or cooling for x > number of years, the issue is man's CO2 driving the temperature in the way > that you guys are claiming, and that's exactly where the scientific process > breaks down. > > It is galactic trailer park scientific evidence to use bunch of thermometer > records for the last 100 years, and take the last 30 years with all kinds of > issues of urban heat effect, and then tell me that this is proof of man's > carbon dioxide causing that temperature change? This is just so stupid. You > simply don't have that evidence nor have the proof nor has there even been a > reasonable scientific process here. > > > So for those who are skeptics, this is a possible solution other > > than God and space exploration. > > Well, I not sure where you going with this. You only need a scientific > process and space exploration if you believe in a caused universe like the > Christians do. If you believe that the universe always existed like Plato > and Aristotle, and just about every other major NON Christian society, then > you really don't need a scientific process to go and observe the universe, > because it'll always have been the way it is and in fact MUST be the way it > is. Because the universe does not have to be or exists, that is the very > reason why you have a scientific process. This explains why the scientific > process rose in the Christian west - because we believed in a caused > universe, not a static one. > > As it turns out, around the 1920s, the scientific community lost this battle > and the evidence forced the scientific community to adopt the same view as > the Christians: namely that the universe did not always exist, and was > caused. > > > (I quote) > > > President Bush has unveiled a new vision for space exploration, > > calling on NASA to "gain a new foothold on the moon and to prepare for > > new journeys to the worlds beyond our own." > > The country's bankrupt and we can't afford to go to the moon. In fact, Obama > canceled the space exploration trip to the Moon. The fact matter is Bush is > just another leftist socialist as is Obama. So I'm not really sure where > you're going with this discussion? You seem to be confused over left and > right political spectrums, and Bush certainly wasn't anywhere near even the > center or middle of the political spectrum in terms of being conservative. > > Let me see: Supposedly the criticism of Bush was he's in bed with the > military infrastructure system? Oh, wait, that's Obama who just announced > MASSIVE 30 to 40,000 troops to be sent to Afghanistan. For some reason when > Bush is doing it, is selling out to the military system, but what Obama does > it he's a peace loving hero. At the end of the day their both doing exactly > the same shit. > > Then supposed Bush was in bed with big business? Opps, that was Obama > bailing out the auto industry - sorry got the wrong guy in bed with big > business again! Oh, wait..it same shit we got from Bush and Obama! > > And then of course the international finance people that were supposedly in > bed with Bush. Now of course we can't think of helping the working poor > people that can't get loans or keep their houses. However, was the financial > trading industry that's made this financial mess, not really the banking > syste. So who did Obama bailout? The people? No! The banking industry ? No! > Guess who? Well it was the very financial traders who lost the money that > were bailed out by Obama. Once again, in bed with big business, once and > again in bed with these money grabbing financiers. And once again it's the > same shit. And, once again, it's hard to tell a difference between Obama and > Bush. > > So be it the auto industry, the banking industry, or huge buildups and > billions being spent on troops being sent out to some shit hole called > Afghanistan halfway around the world that has LITTLE to do with our own > security, it's the same shit. Gee, is this Obama or Bush I am talking about? > Hum, I can hardly tell the difference! > > Super Turtle
I get bored with long winding answers, but I'll like to address two issues:
a) GLOBAL WARMING IS MAN MADE... Where you think all those gasses from 136 million cars (my best statistic for America alone*) are going? Think of yourself being in a garage with the motor of a car running...
b) I like to quote what someone said, "Democrats spend and tax you; Republicans spend and borrow." I rather I have the former. At least I have a sense of reality.
*I like to quote America because that's the only place I know where you are FORCED to drive everywhere.
TibetanMonkey, Originator Of The Banana Kung-Fu
2010-04-02 16:42:33 EST
On Apr 2, 1:16 pm, "Green Turtle" <SuperTur...@greenpiece.com> wrote: > "TibetanMonkey, Originator of the Banana Kung-Fu" > > <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:24e67b21-502c-4dcd- > > > I get bored with long winding answers, but I'll like to address two > > issues: > > > a) GLOBAL WARMING IS MAN MADE... Where you think all those gasses from > > 136 million cars (my best statistic for America alone*) are going? > > Think of yourself being in a garage with the motor of a car running... > > Well the fact matter is the systems not like a car running in a garage. And > in fact if you took the time to understand how a greenhouse works, the way > carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere is completely different > scientific process than that of how a greenhouse works. > > However, how much co2 comes from man? How about some real numbers? > > In one year man puts out approximately 3% of the carbon dioxide, and nature > puts out 97% of the total. > > And we're talking pretty much about a trace gas here, CO2 is at about 380 > parts per 1,000,000, and that's per 1,000,000. > > So, nitrogen is about 80% > Oxygen is about 20% > > co2? Well, that is 0.038% > > That is not even 1/10th of a %, and of the outputs, man is 3% of the output. > > Fact matter is, mans output of carbon dioxide is insignificant to the above > totals. In fact we've had in recent histories such as the mediaeval warming > period where carbon dioxide levels have been lower, but temperatures have > been higher, and we see in the reverse where we seen lower temperatures but > higher levels of carbon dioxide. > > So it's a great question, because you fail to point out exactly how much of > that gas is being put out in one year by man, and it's very small. > > Furthermore the heat trapping ability of the atmosphere is mostly from > things like water vapor, not man's carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide at the > 180 parts per 1,000,000 is doing most of the work it going to do. Icreases > in carbon dioxide are log rhythmic in nature not linear. This means is like > putting a coat of black paint on a glass window, the second coat of paint > has no where near the facts of the first coat of paint. > > So let's see, we're putting out 3%, and the effects are log rhythmic in > nature. Gee, exaclty how silly can one get here?
It's more silly to ignore the impact for our WASTEFUL LIFESTYLES than to believe in a time travel machine.
We are living beyond our means. Haiti has already past the point of no return and much of Africa and Asia are following close. It's not just gases, it's also land clearing resulting in desertification, boating for sports resulting in ocean pollution (I do kayaking and see all the junk floating out there), drinking-water pollution. Where's the place for some COMMON SENSE, man? > > > > > b) I like to quote what someone said, "Democrats spend and tax you; > > Republicans spend and borrow." I rather I have the former. At least I > > have a sense of reality. > > But they're both doing the same thing, and are both pushing socials plans, > and neither them is pushing for the concept that the amount of taxation and > socialism we have in society is too much and destroying the economy. You're > telling me that republicans don't have a sense of reality? There no > differnce! You just telling me how silly you are that you think there's some > kind of special philosophical difference here. > > I mean this is like two kids in a sand arguing about Ford vs. Chevy and the > conversation runs into talking about whose mother is more ugly. It's a > straw man argument, and it's silliness on your part. > > This silly fake lable of republicans are democrats is only for week minded > fools like you. Fact of the matter is socialist bull shit = socialist bull > shit and that's what your government dealing out here. > > I mean what is this intellectual trailer park day? So, Obama is a socialist, > it's now is it is GOOD AND OK when he sends 40,000 troops off to > Afghanistan, when Bush does the same thing, it wrong and he is a warmonger > now? Give me f-king break here...it is the same shit. > > Super Turtle
Obama is not in power the way Chavez is. He must go with the flow and never threaten the hungry beast. His political career as well as his own life would be at risk. Again, use your common sense.
But Chavez doesn't offer any solution either because he profits from oil too!