Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Moontanman

  1. Don't be an asshole Doc, I never suggested such a thing, I said severely threatened, a kid throwing rocks is not a sever threat. I know the law, evidently better than you, drawing a weapon can only be done if you are in fear of your life or sever bodily harm. a punk that threatens to kick my ass is not threat unless I can't get away. You have to equate your response with the threat. If were to draw my gun and the threat didn't go away then we would be in the realm of what to do, allowing someone to take your gun and shoot you with it kinda negate the idea of carrying a gun doesn't it? So if I had to pull my gun it would only be if I was really willing to shoot. Scare tactics are for bull shit artists. Very few people ever know i am armed and that's the way i like it.
  2. I never suggested pulling a gun for shits and giggles, that's a very good way to loose your permit, but if threatened severely I would pull mine, I don't see a reason to wait until I'm bleeding on the ground.
  3. Where I live you can conceal carry a pistol to deal with a personal attack. Most aggressive assholes will hesitate to hassle someone they think can shoot them. Aggression is easy when you think the person you are hassling is helpless. Most people around here keep their pistols in their cars most of the time but I'm not adverse to taking it with me where ever I go, I wouldn't want to shoot anyone, lots of paper work involved, but if faced with the prospect of taking an ass whipping or pulling my gun i would pull my gun. Anyone who doesn't back down from a pistol probably needs to be shot. Of course I live where the legal defense of "he needed killin" is a viable defense in court. ;)On the bright side the number of people who actually get shot by citizens with pistol permits is almost nonexistent.
  4. Agreed, a nuclear rocket with a solid core can easily give an ISP of 900 twice that of the best chemical rockets. No amount of tweaking the design of rocket nozzles will ever give us an ISP even close to that. A gaseous core nuclear reactor can give us an ISP of 5000 more than 10 times as much as the best chemical rockets. Yes I think nuclear will be the way to go once we get the superstitious fear of nuclear out of our social mind set. see this link http://www.nuclearspace.com/Liberty_ship_menupg.aspx
  5. While I think there is reason to think they were exclusively freshwater I will wait until I read the book you cited before I argue any further. I have burnt the Internet up looking for info and all I could get was a few tantalizing clues and generalizations. I see no reason to continue with out more information. I'll continue to search and read the book.
  6. Again Archegosaurus was a freshwater form not marine. Neither are reptiles, or mammals but they evolved forms that were marine. What's your point? Why would the distribution of fish have anything to do with the distribution of amphibians? I have already said that lobe finned fishes were marine and freshwater but amphibians evolved from the freshwater versions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcopterygii Archegosaurus were freshwater forms, they were associated with freshwater deposits not marine. BTW I will be the first to admit this is an extremely difficult thing to nail down, I'm betting that very little real information exists on the overall ecology of these animals.
  7. Ok, I know enough about fishes to know about osmotic pressure and even freshwater fish benefit from the addition of a small amount of salt, it lessens the stress of capture. But I still disagree with the contention that tetra pods had to be able to swim and or live in the oceans for them to have populated the Earth. The fossil record doesn't show any oceanic amphibians even thought they've been around longer than other tetra pods. Even dinosaurs didn't return to the ocean but they were world wide in distribution so the idea that Pangaean deserts would've required amphibians to colonize the oceans isn't worth it's salt
  8. While I'm not a rocket scientist is do know one:D I do agree that improvements will always be possible but at some point you come up against the idea of diminishing returns. The real problem with rocket engines isn't the design of the engine it's the fuel. The theoretical limit of current rocket fuels is an ISP of about 450 http://www.nuclearspace.com/Liberty_ship_pg6.aspx http://www.nuclearspace.com/Liberty_ship_pg7.aspx Ok, now the main engines of the space shuttle have an ISP of about 450. That is pretty close to the limit of chemical fuels, you can get a tiny bit better by using something like liquid Florine but besides being a very dangerous chemical the exhaust is not very nice either. Liquid Hydrogen and oxygen only produce water vapor. So not matter how good you make a chemical rocket engine it has a limit as to how much energy you can get out of the fuel, IE an ISP of about 450.
  9. While I will have to read the book to understand your argument completely I wonder why you think migration due to long distance would be a problem. A species of salamander could migrate long distances over millions of years taking advantage of changing climate patterns. We would think the idea of a fish migrating across the Sahara Desert would be impossible but just a few thousands years ago what we know as a desert was a lush area with rivers and lakes and lots of rain. A fish could well have migrated over that area then. I am quite sure that Pangaea had changing climate patterns as well and over a geologic time span an animal could well have migrated all over it while speciating along the way. No need to swim and oceans or migrate across burning sands.
  10. Where do you get that Archegosaurus lived in the ocean? It is described as living in freshwater ponds that were subject to drying up and Archegosaurus was able to wiggle over land to a new pond. No mention of marine existence. Do you think it might have been possible for tetrapods to have migrated over Pangaea before it broke apart?
  11. This is true my logic did faultier there but I did say I had no idea if amphibians had ever adapted to the sea or not. fossils seem to indicate they didn't. The plain fact is not many land animals have ever adapted back to the oceans. Yes I know whales, Plesiosaurs, turtles, seals but not many compared to the number of land animals. Paradoxically dinosaurs never adapted to marine life. If any amphibians did go back to sea they are all extinct now and left little or no fossil evidence. Evidently it's hard jump and thin skinned amphibians seem to be somewhat less than preadapted to marine conditions. As far as the global distribution drifting continents would seem to explain that pretty neatly.
  12. Ok guys, there are no marine amphibians because they developed from bony fishes, Bony fishes evolved in fresh water, not marine. The skeleton of freshwater fishes evolved from fishes with no bones much like sharks, they migrated to fresh water to lay their eggs. the calcium was concentrated in their skeletons so they wouldn't loose it when they entered freshwater. Calcium is important to all animals far beyond the need for bones. The cartilage bony fish that concentrated calcium were preadapted to life in freshwater. True bony fishes developed in freshwater and later returned to the sea. Amphibians evolved from a group of bony fishes called lobe finned fishes that may have only survived in freshwater due to the highly succesful Placoderms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placoderms I honestly cannot say if amphibians ever returned to the sea or not but they evolved in freshwater from freshwater fishes. the coelacanth probably evolved from a lobe finned fish who's lineage never left the ocean. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth http://www.lookd.com/fish/evolution.html Tetrapods evolved from freshwater lobe finned fishes, the fishes you see in the rivers and oceans today are not the direct ancestors of us, Only the coelacanth and some lung fishes remain from those lobe finned fishes. the coelacanth is not a direct ancestor either but it is closely related. http://www.devoniantimes.org/who/pages/lobe-fins.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobe-finned_fish
  13. Ok, I'm not trying to be obtuse here, i am really trying to understand. I understand that from the stand point of both twins their own clocks are running at the normal rate. Both see the other as having a distorted time frame. Both see the other as foreshortened, more massive and time slowed. Why is reality the of the twin who is moving the only reality that turns out to be real? it's all relative, neither twin can say who is moving until one of them stops. Why is one reality real the other not?
  14. "Don't Fear the Reaper" is probably their most famous song, lots of good stuff.
  15. Massive Attack is cool, my son turned me on to them. Blue Oyster Cult is good for long slowly changing tracks that keep you drifting.
  16. Well it wouldn't be proper to say on this forum but yes, there is something better than music but it can be enjoyed while listening to music, of any kind even Blues or Jazz...... But I enjoy as I said Heart the best.
  17. If I had to guess I would say chlorine did it. Over time chlorine will erode most white or clear plastics.
  18. The Music of Heart always does it for me, something about Ann Wilson's voice sooths the beast in me !
  19. Moontanman


    It would seem there is a real difference in the way chimp muscles and human muscles actually work. http://www.slate.com/id/2212232/
  20. From the point of view of the space ship twin wouldn't it be the earth twin who's time was slowed down? Since from his point of view it would be the rest of the universe that was time dilated?
  21. I have a struggle to understand how relativistic mass is real if the observer that is traveling close to the speed of light sees the rest of the universe as massive and time dilated but the at rest observer sees only the speeding object as time dilated and massive. How can both be correct? also when the fast observer is slowed down only his time dilation proves to be real, the rest of the universe has aged at the same rate it always has. Only the time dilation of the fast observer is real when he slows down.
  22. I think it needs to be said that the wind on Mars contains very little energy when compared to wind on the earth. a 100mph wind on Mars it's a gentle breeze on the earth in terms of energy content. Add that to the losses incurred while beaming this energy to the Earth and you get a strong radio signal but almost no net energy increase.
  23. Every time a thunderstorm blows through I hear his thunder, how could you doubt such a display
  24. Um, why couldn't a Great Dane bitch have puppies by a chihuahua sire?
  25. No, absolutely not. Again no it would not work, you cannot get more energy out of system than you put in, you cannot even break even. Friction will always keep you from even coming close.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.