Moontanman

There are several ways to reuse what we call nuclear waste, fast breeder reactors, generation 4 nuclear reactors use up what we call waste and leave behind much less waste in volume and weight and it has a short half life making it dangerous for much less time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor There are thorium reactors, breeder reactors, liquid metal reactors. What we call waste will eventually be used to generate energy, old nuclear dumps will be mined for the valuable energy they contain.

This is disputed, the main stream school of thought says this is sampling bias, not a true indication of declining dinosaurs... There were almost certainly world wide fires set by reentering debris around the world but global winter is the key i think. I'm not so sure it really matters, a comet of sufficient size would have the same effects as a meteor. I think we can only say the ancestors of modern shrews survived, we have no idea if these creatures were as specialized as modern shrews. Elephants do not eat tons of food a day, nor do they have to eat every day to survive, my point was that a larger animal with a slow metabolism is not as vulneralbe as a small fast metabolism animal. Again, this is misleading, larger animals are less vulnerable than smaller ones to cold all things being equal. Larger animals require less food per kilo than small animals, larger animals have to eat much less often and can go longer periods of time with out food. All things being equal... The most likely unequal thing is that large animals cannot go dormant like small animals can. Define very small number of species... you are mistaken that estivation would not have helped, animals already in estivation (and around the world right now millions of animals already are) would have been protected. Animals can go into estavation and hibernation without the proper "signals" environmental stress can trigger both behaviors. If anything estivation is more flexible than hibernation but both types of animals will indeed go into their respective modes of survival if the conditions developed that threaten their survival. But at any one time around the earth there are animals that are both in hibernation and estivation. So your point of a trigger is meaningless. If anything the late Cretaceous was so warm that hibernating was probably an unusual mode of behavior for animals, estivation was probably more common due to the world wide warm climate

Religion doesn't qualify as a quack claim it has no science in it at all...

I still don't see how you can connect that with the extinction of the dinosaurs.

No one has said everything died out jess, many animals died, many species did and among dinosaurs only the avian dinosaurs survived. There were enough mammals, reptiles and other animals who survived to repopulate and evolved into the animals we see today. Aquatic animals, land animals, and plants both microscopic and macroscopic were affected abruptly at the K/T boundary. This is quite a claim, I'm not sure i understand what you mean...

Do you have any evidence to support this idea? All the evidence i am aware of negates this idea completely. Again, I ask for any thing that supports this idea.

You might have a point Ontogeny, it would appear that men at least fantasize more often than women and men fantasize about more partners than women but I still wonder how much our culture plays into how likely women are to admit sexual fantasies and report them accurately with the sword of guilt programed by our culture over their heads. While men are not only more likely to admit to sexual fantasies and encounters but also more likely to exaggerate them due to our cultural influences. http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=one-reason-why-humans-are-special-a-2010-06-22&sc=WR_20100702

A human and a Dimetrodon...

A great many females of various creatures do indeed have sex with as many males as possible, garter snakes have veritable orgies of sex with several males all twisted up in a pile with one female, fish have spawning orgies of immense size, whales do indeed have recreational sex, if anything they are more sexual than humans, often having sex with many individuals, while the idea of a female saving her favors for a man who is most likely to support her offspring is a common human fantasy the reality is that human sex drive and or reluctance to have sex is a purely cultural thing and there are indeed human cultures where sex is somewhat less than serious as mating for life. In some cultures a young girl is not ready for marriage until she has had at least one child and they start having sex as soon as puberty with many partners. The idea of no sex until marriage and limited sexual partners is often a Judeo/Christian idea that was not shared in the ancient world and is still not as well followed in our time as rumors would have it....

Anecdotal only, not a statistically significant survey of the general population I am afraid

I understand it is not a mechanical effect swansont, I understand it can be measured, I also understand that time slow down is not real from the stand point of the moving guy as he observes the universe from inside his craft. His time actually slows down, he survives the trip to Andromeda, the people he left behind age at the regular rate, they will be millions of years dead even though the universe looked time dilated to the astronaut.

To be honest with you I thought that was what I was saying... But it see your point, a neutron star would not cool as fast as a less dense object of similar size....

So the cube square law does not apply?

Again, I disagree, try this thought experiment, take the before mentioned steel balls and bring them to the ambient temperature. transfer exactly 100 watts of energy into each one and allow them to cool back to ambient in a vacuum, the tiny ball will still cool to ambient faster than the other two and the medium sized one will cool faster than the big one but slower than the small one. The small object has far more surface area per cubic unit of volume than the bigger objects....

Thats a good looking dog but no Dog is the result of natural selection, they are all the result of human selection. I keep Basset hounds, I could relate many traits that are unique to basset hounds but all of them are the result of humans choosing them in some way, if for no other reason it's because the dogs do their jobs or look better than their siblings and are the only dogs allowed to reproduce. Domestic dogs are not the result of natural selection they the result of intelligent design, ours!!!

I have seen them, i really have no problem wrapping my mind around the concepts ... all except one, time dilation, I think the conventional conclusion is fatally flawed. I can see how mass is frame dependent, speed up and your mass appears to be greater than the people you left behind, to you they appear to be more massive and contracted but the time contraction is only real for the guy who is moving, when he speeds up to him it looks like time has slowed down for the people he left, to them his time looks slower but when he comes back his time is still real but he find his observation of the people he left behind was wrong. You could travel to the Andromeda Galaxy and back in one human life time but no matter how time dilated your take off point looks to you when you get back your time has been slower but the observed slowness of the people you left behind is not real. Ok, go ahead, whip me, beat me, make me write bad checks....

Taking responsibility and avoiding consequences does not mean women do not have sex drives similar to men, they do seem to tend to be a bit less flamboyant about their sex drives than men but women like sex, just as much as men, i would be amazed to find that the female sex drive differs in some profound way from men... Thinking about it doesn't make your sex drive higher, nor does not doing it make it any lower, I don't see your correlation...

I disagree take a steel ball the size of a BB, a golf ball, and a soccer ball, heat them in a kiln till the are white hot and let them cool off in a vacuum. the BB will cool off quicker than the golf ball sized ball and Much quicker than the soccer ball sized steel ball.

The paddlefish are doing well, feeding now mostly on floating pellets and still a few live daphnia every few days as my daphnia cultures wind down for the summer. So far two were DOA and two have died due to lack of vigor or just not eating. The eight remaining fish are growing and they feed very aggressively. I plan to transfer them to a 75 gallon (about 280 liters) aquarium in a couple of weeks. I have a short video of them on facebook and I plan to see I can put a video of them on u-tube. Paddlefish are survivors of an ancient line that predates the Coelacanth, very similar to sharks and chimeras.

You are the one who wanted to use the inside but the outside is not perfectly symmetrical either so this proves nothing.

Whoooppp there it is.... The line proves the lack of symmetry....

Not it's not, your heart is not even close to the center of our bodies, and our brain is irregularly shaped and is way off center There are people born with one lung and why couldn't they have a lung transplant?

I've drank bleach before and I'm not only here but too cool for school as well....

i like it because i can wrap my head around the concept of multidimensional but I have trouble describing what i see when i do. It's basically the universe as we see it is a 3d or 4d membrane floating in a 5 or more dimensional bulk space, 11 dimensions feels right in my mind when I think about it hard but 5 might be enough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe http://archive.sciencewatch.com/jan-feb2004/sw_jan-feb2004_page1.htm From the stand point of a higher dimension our 3 or 4 d infinite universe is indeed finite and two such 3 or 4 d branes colliding would appear from our point of view to be a big bang but it actually occurs everywhere in space at once. No singularity, space only appears to be infinite and expanding from our perspective. From outside our brane in bulk space we are just a tiny part of the bigger picture. There could be an infinite number of such colliding branes or even things we can only guess at sharing our bulk space. Occam's razor would say the big bang is simpler.