Time is relative. If time slows down, you would not realise it, because if it ever slowed down, so would everything else. Including your brain. As far as you would be concerned, everything would be happening at the same speed that it normally does. A year would still go by to you, but to an unaffected observer, that year may take many years to occur. Unless you could somehow create a seperate time continuum around your brain, to allow you to witness everything going by very slowly. But this would just cause your brain to age faster than your body.

It's very much like slowing down a video replay to create a slow motion effect. The person still travels from point A to point B in the same relative timeframe and does not notice a difference, the only difference is, that time is altered so that an observer would see it as happening slower - this has an interesting factor in that a person travelling in slow motion, then coming out of slow motion, will have aged less than the observer during that period of time. Theoretical physists do not know precisely what would happen if this occured, but they are certain that it is most definately time travel. The tradeoff that prevents this time travelling from occuring to our benefit in terms of space travel, is that areas in which time is slower, take you exactly the same amount of time to travel through as they would if time passed at normal speeds.

In an area where time slows down, a ship travelling through that area would theoretically slow down also. Basically, if the distance would take 89 years to traverse at normal time speed, then it would take you the same amount of time to travel it at slow time speed - the only difference is, that it would be a very slow 89 years to someone who was observing from an area in normal time. This would mean that you would still die of old age, unless, again, you could create a seperate time continuum around the ship, but not you. The idea of creating a human stasis tube in which time passes slower than it does in the rest of the ship is one that is not new to science fiction - in fact, keeping someone young while travelling for hundreds of thousands of years has been in nearly every single science fiction novel and movie in which starships do not achieve superluminal speeds.

Now, it is theoretically possible to travel into the future by entering an area of slowed-time-space, and staying there for a while. If time travelled half as fast in this area, then staying there for a year would mean that you would be a year younger than you should be when you emerge - in other words, you would've travelled two years into the future, instead of just one. Interesting eh?

I'm going to have to agree with Dino on this one. A) The mars rock is only possibly from mars, not definately. B) There are only some marks that look vaguely like bacteria, not proof at all. C) The mars rovers did find some chemicals that seemed consistent with life, but they occur naturally without life as well.

On the other hand, just to prove your basic stupidity. If mars ever had life on it, it was at the time a few billion years ago when it did have And whilst I'm not averse to the thought that there may be some life somewhere in the universe, I don't think it has ever been in contact with humanity. A) Our current understanding of the laws of physics state that interstellar travel is unlikely. B) In the words of Lisa Simpson: It's just that the people who claim they've seen aliens are always pathetic low-lifes with boring jobs. C) Why the heck would an advanced civilisation make contact but always go for inbred hillbillies instead of the president?


Not including situations where the president is an inbred hillbilly.

Nate, I think alien visitation is a crock of shit but if aliens needed bodies, hosts, some weird form of gratification(S & M?) who are they going to mess with, Farmer Brown and his gurnseys or the leader of one of the most powerful nations on earth. Just a thought. Nice last sentence, I think that the last 2 have left much to be desired. One more thing: Wouldn't it be funny if according to what Drake put down that there actually are over ten THOUSAND advanced civilizations, only problem is that they are just as advanced as us and have no hope of contacting the others?

There is life on the moon.

We put it there, in the form of bacteria.

Simple life does NOT exist on other planets except for the moon, and I've already gone over that one. No life has been found on any other planet, and it never will be, because life is unique to earth.

Hawkins does not believe that life has to exist on other planets. Get your facts right. Hawkins is a Theoretic Physicist, not a SETI whacko.

Again, get your facts straight. The first planet mankind explored was not Jupiter, it was the Earth, and then the moon. Jupiter is inexplorable due to the fact that it doesn't have a surface. In other words, it's a gas giant.

There is no life on mars! For god's sake.

You talk out your ass

You ARE shadowman aren't you?

I just saw a post on another forum that said "Albert Einstein was a Jew so he must have believed in god". So don't sweat it Odd Trusting, you're not alone in the universe, there ARE some other people who are as stupid as you.

Indeed.

And I believe you're talking about Stephen Hawking, not Hawkins.

Argh yes of course! It's Odd Trusting's bad spelling rubbing off on me! See? These idiots are harmful.

Goddamn, please shoot me humanely if I start making any other stupid spelling mistakes. :banghead:

Err...

Last year a European scientist said that there could be life on mars.

On mars, you see, there is methane. Methane normally gets blasted away because of the thin atmosphere. But the is still a bunch of methane there.
The scientist said that they had detected a substance called fermaldihyde (sp), that only came about when methane passed through several layers of martian soil. So, little bacteria under the surface were coughing up bacteria.

This is no Grand truth. Just a hypothesis.
Maybe he is referring to this?

By the wo, Go read my story in Non-Oddworld Art & Literature.