Science is both good and evil depending on the science...
Medicine is good... Transgenic plants are bad...
Science is nor good and nor evil, its the people who use it are evil or good.
Nuclear chain reactions can kill millions or give the cheapest and cleanest energy for millions, its the people choice how they use up this information.
I love how the large-scale structure of the universe looks like brain neurons. The large spots are filaments and the black spots are called voids, vast stretches of mostly empty space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_%28astronomy%29
I love how the large-scale structure of the universe looks like brain neurons. The large spots are filaments and the black spots are called voids, vast stretches of mostly empty space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_%28astronomy%29
Interesting point, though I think you're only seeing what you want to see. I'm pretty positive you can make any part of space look like pretty much any part of the brain depending on how you frame your pictures of both
SouLCarveRR, neither was I insulting, nor complaining. But I can insult you if you like. My bit about the avatar is akin to telling someone wearing an anti-Semitic shirt that it's stupid to not expect adversity.
Besides that, I was making a point to elevate the thread beyond intellectual curiosity for its own sake and/or personal entertainment. But the point was made, no one cares, so I'll oblige FDFederation.
Expanding Earth Theory explains the mystery of how the dinosaurs in all their massiveness could have possibly operated under 9.8 m/s² gravity. In short, they didn't. Smaller earth means less gravity, with the earth we know today having been quietly collecting space rocks and dust over the billions of years.
In my layman's opinion, I see no reason not to take the theory to its foregone conclusion: a tiny earth being host to gigantic insects! Then, bigger, hairer, beefier monster spiders ruled the world...until finally, reptiles. Do you not feel the woeful lament of the tiny house spider who silently pines for the "good ol' days?"
Dinosaurs existed for roughly 170 million years compared to 4 billion years of Earth collecting space particles. The change in Earth's mass since then is so insignificant and negligible. The change in Earth's mass is even more insignificant and negligible when compared to effects from atmosphere, available food, temperature, biology, etc. You should also look into the circulatory systems of birds, and insects.
On a side note, you should also check out the tallest trees in the world.
When you talk about "expanding Earth", you should really be looking at the formation of Earth (long before life arose); that's when Earth had significant change in mass.
Expanding Earth Theory explains the mystery of how the dinosaurs in all their massiveness could have possibly operated under 9.8 m/s² gravity. In short, they didn't. Smaller earth means less gravity, with the earth we know today having been quietly collecting space rocks and dust over the billions of years.
In my layman's opinion, I see no reason not to take the theory to its foregone conclusion: a tiny earth being host to gigantic insects! Then, bigger, hairer, beefier monster spiders ruled the world...until finally, reptiles. Do you not feel the woeful lament of the tiny house spider who silently pines for the "good ol' days?"
Fun fact: surface gravity increases as the inverse square to the distance to the center of the attracting body, and it also depends on the density, not just mass. So even though the mantle has more mass, the surface gravity would still be pretty much the same at the outer core if you removed the mantle & crust. The crust (0.5% of the earth's mass) and anything else it has gathered is irrelevant.
It's the same concept as an astronaut experiencing near-zero gravity despite being only 60 miles above the earth's surface.
Quote:
In 1987 I realized that the dinosaurs' large size could be explained by a reduced gravity and then soon realized that the most likely cause of a reduced gravity was a smaller diameter, less massive, Earth.
So...yeah, if the earth had a smaller diameter, gravity would have increased, not decreased...
Troll? Is it so inconceivable that a man may speak plainly and honestly at all times, that you do not know it when you see it? But this is what happens when you pay respect to insincere prattlers of unicorns and spaghetti.
My layman's banter is nothing more than poking fun for fun's sake (at my own proposed theory no less). It doesn't mean that I think gigantic insects are a ridiculous notion.
I insist that even 100 million years is an expanse of time well beyond man's ability to comprehend, despite how casually these ginormous numbers gets thrown around all the time, and that you are vastly underestimating how long it truly is to say that the change in mass would be negligible.
However, I will say that your take on oxygen levels seems right on the money, since the insects in the rainforests are so enormous! But it does not discredit other factors. That would be like saying chemotherapy doesn't cause hair loss because we already know it's genetics.
Says here says I weigh less on smaller planets, and more on bigger planets, with the exception of some of the gas giants. Nevertheless, on all the smaller ones (of which Earth is much more structurally similar) I weigh less.
Says here says I weigh less on smaller planets, and more on bigger planets, with the exception of some of the gas giants. Nevertheless, on all the smaller ones (of which Earth is much more structurally similar) I weigh less.
No. You can weigh more on a smaller planet than on a larger one depending on the density. For example, in your link, you weigh more on Mercury than you do on Mars, even though Mars has twice the mass of Mercury.
While it's true that the Earth probably intakes more cosmic dust than we give it credit for, the science behind expanding earth theory is totally bunk.
No. You can weigh more on a smaller planet than on a larger one
depending on the density. For example, in your link, you weigh more on
Mercury than you do on Mars, even though Mars has twice the mass of
Mercury.
While it's true that the Earth probably intakes more cosmic dust than we
give it credit for, the science behind expanding earth theory is totally
bunk.
Ah! Granted. But the correlation of mass to gravity is still present, such that hypothetically dumping a billion tons of rocks on a given planet will never reduce its gravity.
That is just the sort of hubris exhibited in the "ten miracles" article. Like how it says earth's rotation and orbit hasn't changed. To put it colloquially, "O rly?" Or again (with regards to modern day measurements), how the ratio of 100 years (generous) to 100 million is totally marginalized.
Ah! Granted. But the correlation of mass to gravity is still present, such that hypothetically dumping a billion tons of rocks on a given planet will never reduce its gravity.
A billion tons is still a pathetic fragment of the earth's crust, which itself is a pathetic fragment of the Earth's overall mass. The idea that gravity somehow changed in a few million years by any noticeable margin because of some ancillary space dust is an absurdity of the highest degree of magnitude. And Jupiter keeps most asteroids out of our solar neighborhood, not that even that would make much difference.
Even if we're to believe that 50% of the earth's volume (the mantle & crust) was gathered after the dinosaurs died or even after planetary accretion was complete (an absolute absurdity), the surface gravity still would not change. That's how utterly hopeless this theory is. Hookah's video also does a great job at dismantling this pseudoscience. Don't want to put you on the defensive here, but as FD said, can we stick to posting actual science in this thread?
@Gradius12: Go
@TheZizz: Go
Or, you know, you could just say everything is fucking irrelevant, if you want to go down that road.
@TheZizz: Go
Do it in another thread. This thread is for posting informative links to topics related to science.
http://news.discovery.com/tech/dragonfly-uav-121108.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121108151730.htm
https://www.engineeringforchange.org/news/2012/10/23/packed_particle_bed_filters_a_simple_solution_for_pure_water.html
http://www.asme.org/kb/news---articles/articles/design/a-machine-that-gives-you-money-
http://www.asme.org/kb/news---articles/media/2012/11/podcast-the-nanomechanics-of-spider-webs
http://www.asme.org/kb/news---articles/articles/technology-and-society/where-engineering-and-ballet-meet
http://www.asme.org/kb/news---articles/articles/bioengineering/biomimicry--engineering%E2%80%99s-sincerest-form-of-flatte
Yes, I know it's unfortunately from Fox News :(
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/11/09/space-station-astronaut-drives-robot-on-earth-via-interplanetary-internet/
Science is both good and evil depending on the science...
Medicine is good... Transgenic plants are bad...
Science is nor good and nor evil, its the people who use it are evil or good.
Nuclear chain reactions can kill millions or give the cheapest and cleanest energy for millions, its the people choice how they use up this information.
Back to the topic:
Another victory for the Standard model vs String theory / Supersymmetry: http://phys.org/news/2012-11-confining-supersymmetry-lhcb-evidence-rare.html
The cosmic web:
I love how the large-scale structure of the universe looks like brain neurons. The large spots are filaments and the black spots are called voids, vast stretches of mostly empty space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_%28astronomy%29
Simulation of distribution of dark energy in a galactic supercluster: http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/darkmatter0903.jpg
Bright spots represent a galaxy.
One of my favorite sites, showing us the scale of the universe: http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/
This page shows the Milky Way's satellite galaxies: http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/sattelit.html
The closest one is the Canis Major dwarf, which is just 25000 light years away: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canis_Major_Dwarf_Galaxy
@Gradius12: Go This is the best zoom out I ever seen and its with awesome music:
Since we are at astronomy: Its pretty nice that the closest solar system to us probably have a planet even though its a 3 star system: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/oct/17/earth-planet-found-alpha-centauri
Interesting point, though I think you're only seeing what you want to see. I'm pretty positive you can make any part of space look like pretty much any part of the brain depending on how you frame your pictures of both
SouLCarveRR, neither was I insulting, nor complaining. But I can insult you if you like. My bit about the avatar is akin to telling someone wearing an anti-Semitic shirt that it's stupid to not expect adversity.
Besides that, I was making a point to elevate the thread beyond intellectual curiosity for its own sake and/or personal entertainment. But the point was made, no one cares, so I'll oblige FDFederation.
EDIT: a point a point
http://www.dinox.org/expandingearth.html
Expanding Earth Theory explains the mystery of how the dinosaurs in all their massiveness could have possibly operated under 9.8 m/s² gravity. In short, they didn't. Smaller earth means less gravity, with the earth we know today having been quietly collecting space rocks and dust over the billions of years.
In my layman's opinion, I see no reason not to take the theory to its foregone conclusion: a tiny earth being host to gigantic insects! Then, bigger, hairer, beefier monster spiders ruled the world...until finally, reptiles. Do you not feel the woeful lament of the tiny house spider who silently pines for the "good ol' days?"
@TheZizz: Go Since no one cares, you will just troll?
Staying at topic:
It was today's APOD "picture: http://apod.nasa.gov
@TheZizz: Go
Or more likely
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/06/04/giant-insects-disappeared-thanks-to-falling-oxygen-levels-and-agile-birds/
and
http://news.discovery.com/animals/how-dinosaurs-got-so-big-120131.html
Dinosaurs existed for roughly 170 million years compared to 4 billion years of Earth collecting space particles. The change in Earth's mass since then is so insignificant and negligible. The change in Earth's mass is even more insignificant and negligible when compared to effects from atmosphere, available food, temperature, biology, etc. You should also look into the circulatory systems of birds, and insects.
On a side note, you should also check out the tallest trees in the world.
When you talk about "expanding Earth", you should really be looking at the formation of Earth (long before life arose); that's when Earth had significant change in mass.
On a different topic, did anyone listen to Fresh Air on NPR the other day? It talked a bit about genetics, psychology, and neuroscience.
http://www.npr.org/2012/11/12/164958401/parenting-a-child-whos-fallen-far-from-the-tree
Fun fact: surface gravity increases as the inverse square to the distance to the center of the attracting body, and it also depends on the density, not just mass. So even though the mantle has more mass, the surface gravity would still be pretty much the same at the outer core if you removed the mantle & crust. The crust (0.5% of the earth's mass) and anything else it has gathered is irrelevant.
It's the same concept as an astronaut experiencing near-zero gravity despite being only 60 miles above the earth's surface.
So...yeah, if the earth had a smaller diameter, gravity would have increased, not decreased...
If you don't believe me, you can try out the numbers yourself: http://www.ericjamesstone.com/blog/home/gravity-calculator-for-astronomical-bodies-based-on-radius-and-density/
As usual, talk origins also does a good job of debunking this pseudo-science:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2007_08.html
@Gradius12: Go The ultimate debunker potholer54:
@Hookah604: Go
Troll? Is it so inconceivable that a man may speak plainly and honestly at all times, that you do not know it when you see it? But this is what happens when you pay respect to insincere prattlers of unicorns and spaghetti.
My layman's banter is nothing more than poking fun for fun's sake (at my own proposed theory no less). It doesn't mean that I think gigantic insects are a ridiculous notion.
@FDFederation: Go
I insist that even 100 million years is an expanse of time well beyond man's ability to comprehend, despite how casually these ginormous numbers gets thrown around all the time, and that you are vastly underestimating how long it truly is to say that the change in mass would be negligible.
However, I will say that your take on oxygen levels seems right on the money, since the insects in the rainforests are so enormous! But it does not discredit other factors. That would be like saying chemotherapy doesn't cause hair loss because we already know it's genetics.
@Gradius12: Go
http://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/weight/
Says here says I weigh less on smaller planets, and more on bigger planets, with the exception of some of the gas giants. Nevertheless, on all the smaller ones (of which Earth is much more structurally similar) I weigh less.
@Gradius12: Go
COSMIC WEB AYE.... how about a new re-texture... :P
No. You can weigh more on a smaller planet than on a larger one depending on the density. For example, in your link, you weigh more on Mercury than you do on Mars, even though Mars has twice the mass of Mercury.
While it's true that the Earth probably intakes more cosmic dust than we give it credit for, the science behind expanding earth theory is totally bunk.
Well it is a computer simulation. :P
@TheZizz: Go
This thread is for posting informative links related to SCIENCE. Please make another thread for your pseudoscience.
@TheZizz: Go Sorry I didnt know that you dont know basic science or you still cant read the thread's name.
Back to the topic:
"Rogue" planet discovered: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121114083411.htm
Ah! Granted. But the correlation of mass to gravity is still present, such that hypothetically dumping a billion tons of rocks on a given planet will never reduce its gravity.
@Hookah604: Go
That is just the sort of hubris exhibited in the "ten miracles" article. Like how it says earth's rotation and orbit hasn't changed. To put it colloquially, "O rly?" Or again (with regards to modern day measurements), how the ratio of 100 years (generous) to 100 million is totally marginalized.
A billion tons is still a pathetic fragment of the earth's crust, which itself is a pathetic fragment of the Earth's overall mass. The idea that gravity somehow changed in a few million years by any noticeable margin because of some ancillary space dust is an absurdity of the highest degree of magnitude. And Jupiter keeps most asteroids out of our solar neighborhood, not that even that would make much difference.
Again, I point you to the graph I posted:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/EarthGravityPREM.jpg
Even if we're to believe that 50% of the earth's volume (the mantle & crust) was gathered after the dinosaurs died or even after planetary accretion was complete (an absolute absurdity), the surface gravity still would not change. That's how utterly hopeless this theory is. Hookah's video also does a great job at dismantling this pseudoscience. Don't want to put you on the defensive here, but as FD said, can we stick to posting actual science in this thread?