That was just my polite way of reminding you that not every form of life on this planet relies on the Sun for its energy.



Seems pretty shortsighted to immediately rule out something on the basis that our technology is incapable of making it feasible. 100 years ago most people would have considered putting a person on the moon to be impossible. Heck, even the idea of traveling from London to New York in only a few hours would have seemed pretty outrageous.

The point is that you don't know what we will be capable of in the distant future. Nobody does. Never say never, man.

where did you get this from? the larger a ship gets the more energy that must go into it to get it moving...
basic physics man, like this is INTUITIVE physics...

and matter-matter anhiliation is millions of times more efficient, but the result is the same.

if you wanted to get to the closest star to ours in one lifetime you would need over several hundred Kg fuel, and thats again, assuming complete 100%engine efficiency (all matter->energy)

in which case it would be FAR more efficient to just use what industry base you have and/or what organic growth base you have.
come to think you should integrate the two...

they just simply aren't enough. not in this lifetime, not in anyone's.

you would need to develop a system who's matter->energy efficiency was either over 100% (definately NOT ion engines) or some FTL capability that doesnt require more energy with more mass.

At first each planet will be self sufficient just like the colonies here were, but as travel gets better, I think we will take more advantage of the actual natural characteristics of the planet.

...

did I not explain that unless there is some amazing technological revolution that bends the fabric of our universe it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to get a net benefit out of said strategy?

Well duh. What? You thought that everyone thought that this was going go happen tomorrow? If it ever does happen then it will be a LOOOOONG time in the future. And who knows what our technology will be like then?

still, we are bound by physical limits.

and if we developed said technology...
WHY WOULD WE NEED TO TRANSPORT THAT STUFF?

For fun, have a little 'imagination' Schem

Lifes not all about limits you know.

agh, my ears!!! they burn of naive philosophy!!!

How can you burn of naive philosophy?

Something abstract cant burn something real

aha, unless you bring an abstract action to a concrete noun representing an abstract noun.
then its possible.

In an abstract terms of grammar yes, but in real life, no.

I'm using concrete ideas to represent abstract concepts.
duh, I thought you would have caught that one. besides, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, life is what you call it, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder (all ways of saying I'm right)

And wrong.

A rose by any other name will not smell sweet to those allergic.
If life is what you call it, and you call it death, does that bring eternal life?
And if beauty is in the eye of the beholder, than if the beholder is blind does it, then not exist?

I was being quite saracastic,
But its seems you just cant get a clue

not when you sound so dull and unintelligent.

Unitelligent?

I prefer visionary, I actually analyze things and submit them to the whim of creativity and opinion. Thats what makes me different from you. I have personality that isnt composed of the ability to capatalize things.

true, I'm completely irreverant of whimsy.

First time we agree apart from the Bush thread.

This truely is a momentous antecedent.