As opposed to women - who prefer to bloat rather than release the methane! :-P

For consumption the units might be tons. For duration, years. What are the units of measure for "evolve and adapt"?

If you measure "reproduction" in terms of individuals instead of years, then homo sapiens is vastly "outscored" by ants, termites, and even various types of pond scum… and hopelessly "less proven" than even the newest strain of bacteria.

I am of the opinion that our species' best days may well be behind us. A few hundred years ago, there was a place for creative, thinking, adventurous people to go (America). They were tested, and rose to the challenge. But I wonder if life has perhaps become too easy, if too many morons aren't surviving to raise more litters of morons while intelligent people are discouraged from reproducing. Some recent research indicates that the average IQ in the Western world has dropped by 14 points over the past 100 years. Certainly if the SAT test is any indication, America is becoming a Nation of idiots. That test has trended downward since 1972.

When it comes to geo-politics, nothing is ever certain. But we now have the means to eradicate most life on earth, and there are more than a few who think that Obama's adventures in Syria may bring that event to fruition.

These are certainly entertaining, but in no example you've given has the entire body of physical science and mathematics been in opposition to the conclusion. Most are merely mistaken assessments of future market conditions, or erroneous projections where the science was still unknown.

Einstein laid out relativity for us long before we were able to prove its assertions. The GPS system, for example, initially launched with a switch that had two settings, "Relativity is Real" and "Einstein was wrong". Einstein had predicted that time would run slower in a gravity well (or an accelerated frame of reference, which turns out to be the same thing). Since the GPS satellites relied on very precise time-keeping, it was important to know whether the clocks on the satellites would run FASTER because they were much further up the gravity gradient. Einstein's bold prediction turned out to be correct, and the switches remained in the "Relativity is Real" position.

Einstein's work is validated every day in the LHC at CERN and every minute of every day via mu meson decay.

Mu mesons decay into electrons in about 2 millionths of a second. They're created in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays. They typically have a velocity on the order of .2 billion meters/second (.998c). Absent relativistic effects, they would travel just 600 meters before turning into electrons. Applying the Lorentz transforms, it becomes clear why they are able to travel nearly 10 kilometers (~16 times as far) before decay. The explanation is called (depending on frame of reference) length contraction or time dilation. In the latter view, the meson, measured from our frame of reference, exists for nearly 16 times as long as it does in its own frame of reference.

Another of Einstein's predictions was that mass increases with velocity. Scientists at CERN can observe this fact every time they crash particles together.

The point is, relativity is well-established, and one consequence of that is that we are restricted to our local stellar neighborhood.

Just for grins, Assume we want to send 2 50kg humans to the nearest star (4+ light years) in a period of 100 years. They would require an average speed of 1/25 of a light year per year. Neglecting relativity for the moment, that's an average speed of 1/25th of the speed of light, or 26.8 million miles per hour. The fastest vehicle ever launched from earth had a top speed of about 37,000 mph, which would be 730 times too slow at its peak speed (as compared to the Proxima Centauri mission AVERAGE speed). In fact, if they wanted to actually STOP at Proxima Centauri (instead of just whizzing past) they'd need to decelerate for half the trip, which means an average speed closer to 53.6 million miles per hour and assuming constant acceleration, a peak speed of about 107.2E6 mph.

Enough. SI units from here out.

Distance: 4.242 light years
Top speed: 1.72E11 m/s
Mass: 100 kg (We'll send small people, naked, without a ship!!)
E (in joules)=1/2mv^2 = 1.488E24 joules

Now the entire population of the planet uses about 145 petawatt-hours per year. That's 5.22E20 joules. So for the entire mission, we'd need all the energy used by the entire world for a bit more than 5700 years. Turn out the lights! Save energy!

Of course, we could reduce the amount of energy required by making the mission longer. Lengthen it to 1000 years and the top velocity required drops by a factor of 10, the energy requirement drops by a factor of 100 and we only need the entire earth's energy usage for 57 years!

Keep in mind that these calculations don't add any weight for fuel, a space ship, food, water, communications gear, power plant... The Apollo 7 capsule weighed 16,520 kg. If our explorers used that spaceship, the energy requirement would increase by a factor of 165. The 1000 year trip would now require the entire energy usage of the planet for just over 9400 years. Bear in mind that all of this assumes CONSTANT acceleration. If you use a staged vehicle (additional mass), the total energy cost goes UP.

Somebody please check my math. It's been a while since I've done these sorts of calculations and if I've made an error, I'm only too happy to learn of it.

As for relativity, these speeds aren't really high enough to be much affected because it's such a "short" trip. But say you wanted to get to Proxima Centauri in something like a 4.5 years. That would require an average velocity of .942c. At that velocity, mass would increase by a factor of more than 3. And while a round trip might take just a bit over 4 years for the crew, back on earth, 12+ years would have elapsed.

I don't take offense. "Proven" in this context means only that the species is able to sustain itself for a reasonable period of time, "reasonable" being the norm, average, median (your choice) for the class. Most proven mammalian species are good for a million years more or less. If they don't survive that long, they "fail" as a species.

What? You thought that the purpose of any species was other than to replicate itself? Silly boy! ;-) It's the only thing all the species have in common, they consume resources and reproduce. I suppose you could measure "success" by the mass or volume of resources consumed… in which case insects or plants or some such might be the "most successful".

How else would you compare species of amoeba or trees to humans or a butterflies? Again, not as individuals, but as SPECIES? More importantly, how could a species possibly be "successful" as a species if it dies out in a short period of time? Something that exists to consume resources and reproduce no longer does either? That's failure.

It's sort of like auto designs in a way. If Ford sells 10 million of a given model, and the design is basically sound for a dozen years, one might consider that a "proven" design. If it comes out with a model that no one buys, and it goes away after a year or two, one might consider that model a failure, or "unproven". It doesn't mean that the "unproven" model didn't have good points - it only means that it didn't do what it was intended to do - satisfy the demand of the public.

What other measure would you apply to species to determine whether they are "proven" or not? Remember, it has to be something that ALL species do, else you aren't looking at a SPECIES trait.

Looking…
Hmm. Can't locate the second one at the moment, which is puzzling since I only read it recently. If I come across it, I'll let you know.

Came across another story, "Gossamer" by Stephen Baxter that involves wormholes right out of the gate.

When you think about it, a whole lot of Sci-Fi stories have to have wormholes, stargazes or FTL ships. Many Sci-Fi stories take place in space - often far from Earth. That raises the question, "How did they get there?" -- and off you go!

I recommend "And then there were None" to all residents of the Gulch. (see http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.php)

And "The Marching Morons" offers a lesson we should consider… ahem.

Yep. I was low on gas.

I don't. Now.

Two other science fiction models that come to mind… One in which a "transporter" copies down all the information and "beams" it to a chamber where it's reassembled. The only drawback is that it's not really sending the individual. It's only sending the information on how to construct the individual. When it comes to light that every transport involves making a copy (and killing the original) hilarity ensues.

Another piece I read recently (written in the late 1940s WOC) involved man's first trip into a "null" space through which it was possible to "tunnel" to distant locations in 3-space. After a couple of trips, aliens lay eggs in the dimension ship.

Of course I'll say, "Never".

Not that anyone now alive will ever know.

Farting.

Terraform VENUS? Are you off your nut?

Back here on earth, people go into spasms at the idea that the average temperature might increase by 5 degrees. The surface temperature of Venus is 860F. (Lead melts at 621F.) The atmosphere is 95% carbon dioxide… filled with clouds of sulphuric acid. Oh yeah… the atmospheric pressure at the surface is well over 1000 psi.

"Warp Drive" is more likely than terraforming Venus! Mars might be terraformed following a few thousand years of concerted effort by all of humanity, but Venus? A hundred thousand years of space mirrors big enough to eclipse the planet (but not be blown away by the solar wind), enough meteor strikes to get the planet turning and, oh hell, why not just use your psi power to make it all happen?

Of course, we would greatly increase our chances if we leaked the story that we had ALREADY terraformed Venus and encouraged certain groups to emigrate to the new "land of milk and honey". Maybe we could get the Demoncrats to believe that it was, "First come, first served, FREE government-paid condos on Venus!" (See C.M. Kornbluth's "Marching Morons".) But until we take that first step, there's little chance of Homo Sapiens ever doing anything serious in space. The idiots of society will drag it too far down.