Hazel M

All right. Let's see? "Could we build walls that will withstand tornadic winds?" You reminded me that there should be no tornadic winds if this plan works. I got that. Granite walls? My misreading of what you meant. My apologies. But I do think granite would make a beautiful wall - if they can make them graffiti-proof. I don't know how I am doing here. When I ask "could we" or "will it work", I am not saying I don't believe. I am not saying those who propose this are wrong. I am pointing the questions that immediately come to mind. Does that make sense? By the way, I ask again because I think it is relevant to the plan of preventing the tornadic winds from forming. At what height do those masses meet and at what height do those funnels form? I think the masses collide at a great height. Is it higher than the planned wall height? The funnels, on the other hand, may be forming quite close to the ground. Do you know? ""By the way, the main thing that destroys property - as I understand it - is not the wind, but the pressure drop. Houses explode, they are not blown away."" You are right, I believe. It's why I've always wondered if it wouldn't help to have windows open. Perhaps not as the unequal pressure is mostly in the air mass. Yes?

Ah, I don't think I'm missing the point. Please read my OP again. I neither praised nor condemned the idea - although I confess I might have sounded condemning. I raised issues I wanted you all to talk about and that is exactly what you are doing, for which I thank you. I have seen tornados in action. I have not done any math to show why this experiment would or would not work. Can you show me why those walls would work if we could build them, assuming we'd want to? It's an open-ended question. And by the way, why would they build the walls of granite? Granite is really expensive. Is there anything else cheaper but as strong?

Thank you, studiot. It is on my list although goodness knows when I'll get to it. I am swamped with "to read" books right now. But, I shan't forget it.

Pretty. I like the one on the lower left. Like and invasion.

Yes, of course. AM vs FM and I am always on FM. Solar winds, solar flares, CMEs ----Some do get through to Earth despite our magnetic field?

Solar flares. Are these the same solar flares that used to interfere with radio reception? And why don't we get that interference any more? Better-built, better-grounded radio and wire?

I am following your reasoning and it makes sense. But, how high up do those churning funnels start? A cold air mass meets a warm air mass and trouble starts forming. I forget now how high those walls were to be - 300 m? Is that high enough? There is the question of can we build walls that can withstand tornadic winds? When I see - as I did acouple of years ago - whole trees including their root system lying where the tornado dropped them and piles of rubble where there used to be a house - the roof here, walls lying in scrap heaps, maybe one wall still standing; cars picked up, carried great distances and dropped upside down, I have trouble envisioning a wall stopping such fury. But, of course, I'm forgetting the temperature corrections those walls are supposed to handle. Maybe. Or maybe I just have something against walls? A bit of both?

Answer to first question. No, but thank you for wanting to help. ajb said it well. In science, if you can't provide a scientific argument, don't present. I cannot. As someone with no science background I just have the same reaction that all like me have - it makes no sense. Of course we are wrong as the replies to my first question indicate. Therefore, I see no sense in starting a debate based on that attitude. When I get to the point where I can ask an intelligent question about it, I shall. Not yet. Oh, I could but forums can get too drawn out and heated when talking on two very different levels. Answer to second statement, I hope you were speaking metaphorically. That's how I took it and you are so right.

And there you have it in a nutshell. There is quite a difference between not understanding and disagreeing. Hence my question in the original post.

I promise, Ophiolite, I did read the article. I am just expressing my initial reaction to it. It did get your attention. On the serious side, I am not sure it would work, knowing how tornados act and I think the money could be better spent just building more tornado-resistant buildings, including houses. And I do think no one living near the wall would appreciate how it cuts off moving air and moisture all year. E.g. I have lived in both Kansas City and St Louis. St Louis is beautiful with its "almost-forests" of trees along its streets and around its homes. But all those beautiful trees - I think - have one big disadvantage. St Louis does not get near the breezes and winds that Kansas City gets. Kansas City, being part of the plains, has fewer trees.

True. But first, you have to know what to ask. If I started on Einstein, I'd go on so long and get so convoluted that Science Forum would shut me down. Patience.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140623120320.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Ftop_news%2Ftop_science+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Top+Science+News%29 Eliminate major tornados? Build walls around us? Even if we wanted to be walled in, would walls stop the action of winds with such suction powers? It had me agape, reading this. What am I missing? It sounds so ridiculous. Yet it merits publication in Science Daily? Of course, there is the question of what else would it cut us off from weather-wise? Much-needed rain from the southwest? Snows from Canada? Cooling winds in hot August? Oh, it isn't quite as bad as I envision it but it sounds so outlandish. Does anyone want to defend this idea?

I thank you all. So, Einstein is right and no one is going to support my disbelief. As I indicated at the start, those of us who do not understand something will look for an "out". I do know better than to preach that, though. I shall just carry on. Maybe some day I'll get it. Again, thanks.

Thank you. I just wondered. I know it is part of a scientist's job to try to confirm someone else's theory or show why it doesn't work out. I suppose the difference in meaning of words is important to the scientist. Well, should be important to all of us. But I don't want to start a semantics debate. The way I am using the word, "proof" means, in part, to have evidence. I only wanted to know if there are any who have serious doubts about the theories. Evidently not. Thanks.

This is the kind of question someone would ask who does not understand enough about the topic - e.g. Me. Nevertheless, the question is sincere. Have all of Einstein's theories about relativity been proven to the satisfaction of all professional scientists? In other words, does everyone who thoroughly understands what Einstein is saying and is able to test his theories agree with him? Or are there scientists who have other theories that contradict Einstein? Thanks.

<G>

Ten oz, believe me. My cats never left any doubt in my mind as to what they were saying. But, nevermind that. Just a comment. I do understand what you are saying. You make a very good point. You have to crawl before you walk. How in the world do you keep up with it all? Don't you find it a fascinating study?

Thank you, Acme. I'll get to the articles tomorrow. They sound interesting. And, yes, we sometimes worry about the least of our problems. But it's so interesting, what goes on out there.

I had forgotten static electricity. We used to create static electricity by combing our hair. did it in the dark so we could see the sparks. Thanks for reminder. Been a while.

Thank you, Mordred. I shall check out the references.

It has been so long that I cannot give you a good answer. I don't know where the batteries were. Paid no attention to that. I am not sure, either, how much of the track I touched but do know it was in front of the train. I had to keep moving it as the train approached. The train never touched my finger. I got to wondering, after posting, if it was just a case of what little electricity our bodies have -they do have, don't they? - added the extra power the battery needed. Something else I am remembering. Set a Styrofoam cup on the counter. If I put my fingers on the counter and move toward the cup, it will also move away from my hand. Not much but moves. I'm just loaded with electricity?

A question and comment posed by MirceaKitsune in another thread caused me to recall something. Please explain what was going on here. Some years ago, a neighbor set up his old toy train which operated on a track, driven by battery power. He did put in new batteries but the train would not run. I reached out and put one finger on the track in front of the train. It started moving. Whenever I lifted my finger, it stopped; when I replaced my finger, it went. What was going on?

I didn't know this. So, the comet is just "eaten" by Jupiter. I'm thinking that, if Jupiter ever collects enough of those comets, it might become more solid. Maybe build up a core? A wild dream, that is? Is Jupiter hot enough to melt the solids in the comet?

And, if there is intelligent life "out there", when we land and start taking whatever we want, they may just blow us to bits, no questions asked.

Oh, thank you, lamironi! I think I got it. If/when Earth's magnetic field reverses, Solar wind's magnetic field can hook on for a ride. Solar wind is something I need to know more about but, that aside, do I have it right? In other words, here is a weakness in the planet's construction - a magnetic field that can reverse and is weak while it does so.