Moontanman

I honestly don't know what to tell you, the link i provided shows it has been done but chlorine is so reactive not many things are gonna hold up long.

Exactly what do you want sources for? Warm blooded dinosaurs? Dinosaurs lived in polar regions and other cool to cold habitats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur Swamps being important habitat for dinosaurs? Spinosaurus is the only dinosaur thought to semi aquatic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinosauridae Most dinosaurs were dry land animals, the early depictions of huge dinosaurs hiding from predators in swamps is now thought to be unrealistic due to the body forms of almost all dinosaurs being adapted to upland habitats. Aquatic dinosaurs? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur

Chlorine should be just as conductive as neon, the gas has to be ionized to conduct electricity, even neon has to be done this way. the electrical current ionizes the gas. Nobel gasses like neon are used because they are inert and do not corrode electrodes or the glass like other gasses would. You should be able to get the chlorine to glow for a short while until it corroded the electrodes, long enough to see what color it was. if you need to to work for longer platinum electrodes should work for a while. How long do you need the light to work? a metal that corrodes in chlorine the way aluminum does in oxygen should work. Does this link help? http://www.springerlink.com/content/717847j4481306r8/

It's not hard to find the religious tone in the opposition to rights of Native Americans, (even the genocide of native peoples), abolition of slavery, and womens suffrage. Religion, specifically the Christian religion but others as well, is used by both sides of many moral issues. Religion is often at the forefront of movements to stifle progressive thinking on many issues. It's often only in hindsight we see these progressive issues as the moral high ground.

Yes warm blooded, most authorities think that most dinosaurs were indeed warm blooded, especially the theropod dinosaurs. BTW the article says dinosaurs that lived in shallow seas and swamps. the idea of the swamp dinosaurs is totally outdated and there were no known aquatic dinosaurs.

Look here for info about hydrgenosomes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogenosome

First of all the idea that aliens would somehow be compelled to visit the Earth if they were in our solar system is assuming a lot. Are we really that interesting? There is every reason to think that aliens would avoid gravity wells and use resources in space like asteroids and comets to construct artificial space colonies. No need to visit the Earth at all, any aliens who traveled from even the nearest star would be used to living in artificial habitats for many generations and probably have no use for planets and the possibility of infectious organisms and the difficulty of negotiating gravity wells. The Lagrange points of Jupiter could be swarming with millions of aliens. So assuming aliens would even want to visit the earth is as they say "ass u me" I think that star traveling aliens would have long ago lost any need for planets. BTW Mokele assuming that any rocks blasted off Mars or Venus would necessarily be in space for millions of years before they landed on the Earth is ignoring statistics, while most would never hit the Earth, and many would be in space for millions of years, statistically a very few could be in space a very short period of time before they hit the Earth. There are always data points points outside the bell curve, lots of rocks have been blasted from Mars, Venus, and the Earth, to assume all of them are in space for millions of years is unreasonable. Bacteria buried deep in a rock could survive as spores for quite some time and some would almost certainly find their way to another planet in amazingly short periods of time. i agree that brine shrimp eggs or water bears are unlikely but they are not impossible. i think that if UFOs are real aliens, they are most likely colonizers that are living in space and their only interest in the Earth is "what if we get into space and contest their claims to those resources" i am of course assuming no FTL super aliens

I can remember a time when the police couldn't put up a road block and stop people to check for their ID just to be checking ID's. They actually needed probable cause to stop citizens and demand an ID. Now days the police can indeed stop every car on any road and demand an ID for no reason other than curiosity. Maybe it's just me but this doesn't strike me as progress. On the other hand why do so many conservatives seem to think it's a good idea to give amnesty to illegals just because they have been here for a period of time? If I kidnap someone and keep them for a certain period of time does this mean i should have amnesty? The law is the law, if we are going to give amnesty to illegals why should the amount of time they are here matter? Why do i feel that Conservatives want illegals here so they can exploit them by paying them low wages? I am more or less liberal but not extreme as a matter of fact i have some very Conservative values but i do not want people to come here illegally, I see no reason to allow it other than of course if I had a construction business and needed some cheap quick labor. i often walk around my neighborhood with no ID, sweat pants have no pockets, if i am stopped and have no ID does this make me a criminal? I honestly hate the slippery slop argument but in this case I've watched the slope get ever more slippery, do we live in a free society or not? Where does it end? do they eventually break down my door and demand an ID on the off chance there might be someone there with no ID? If I am just unlucky enough to be dark or Asian or maybe my English is not quite as the same as everyone else's do i need to keep my ID on me all the time? I just don't see how anyone can say that citizens should have to provide "papers" at all times. Conservatives talk about how Liberals are leaning toward communism but if i remember correctly this is the way most communist countries treat their citizens.

I think that what we are talking about is not strictly anaerobic, using hydrogen in this way is more akin to aerobic respiration than anaerobic. We or i am talking about hypothetical complex organisms that store photosynthesis as oxidizers instead of carbohydrates. Anaerobic simple organisms store very little carbohydrates either. Also anaerobic respiration covers a huge field, many different chemicals used for respiration, some more energetic than others. On earth of all the respiration possibilities the one that is powered by oxygen that is also brought about by the most energy surplus of all energy synthesis, photosynthesis. Most organisms use some sort of energy derived from chemical reactions or radiation as a way to obtain hydrogen, there are organisms that use hydrogen directly to make food. Yes but we are talking about complex plants not microbes (no anaerobic complex plants) and the one animal that operates via anaerobic respiration is quite tiny and descended from aerobic organisms, it is a very specialized aerobic animal. The idea, to me at least, is that complex life uses solar power, (so far chemo-synthesis has not developed any complex life forms but if it did i bet it would follow the same energy storage idea's set forth there)) and it also has to be able to store that solar power for later use as part of it's body structure. In a hydrogen atmosphere that energy would have to be stored as oxidizers of some sort for the energy to be released. if the energy storage is not possible then i see no way for large complex life forms to develop, plant or animal. Now would that stored energy be able to make a fire when released? that is also a good question

Actually a balloon full of propane drops like a rock, propane is so heavy the behavior of a balloon full of it acts really weird after you have been used to balloons full of hydrogen or even air.

The sales tax idea seems to be a reasonable thing to discuss, taxes are a strange thing to begin with, you see so many people torqued out of shape over income taxes but from my point of view paying income taxes has never been a problem. I've seen people sit around and get themselves whipped into an absolute frothing at the mouth because they figured out they would pay a few hundred dollars more this year than next in taxes on $45,000, money they never get to begin with. Pissed at anyone they think might be getting government assistance but never blink at sales taxes. For more people who have taxes taken out as payroll taxes would seem to be something you never miss since you never had the money to begin with. What kills me financially is local taxes, if I manage to buy myself a decent car, say $20,000, i pay sales tax of several hundred dollars on it when i buy it and then every year after that i pay taxes on the car as well, several hundred dollars again, over and over each year! then i have to buy tags and inspection and on top of that insurance, every year, so owning a car is meaningless if you become unemployed and don't think they give you a break if you can't afford those taxes and fees, they will take your car and leave you on the side of the road miles away from home with a ticket that will also cost you several hundred dollars. Same thing for property, every year I pay taxes on the things i already payed taxes on when i purchased it. Fail to pay taxes and the property can be taken away from you. Payroll taxes have never seemed a burden, sitting around bitching about what you could have brought home if not for payroll taxes is silly. i simply budget what i net, gross pay is meaningless if you never had it to begin with. But local taxes can be a real problem. I have to pay taxes on cars, property and If for some reason my income had changed i might not be able to drive that car i bought, making it difficult to earn a living to begin with. A sales tax based system might work but if they go like local taxes and keep taxing the same things over and over after you buy them i would have areal problem with such a system.

This is exactly where I was going with this, we often talk about intelligent life on other planets but we seldom give much thought to what it really means. first intelligent life predisposes large active animals or complex life. We seldom give much thought to plants, plants are complex life as well and plants require an energetic respiration just like complex animals do. Put a plant, a weed, a tree or any other complex plant, in an enclosed space, provide it with water, light and CO2 but take away the oxygen faster than it can make it and the plant will die. In the dark plants use oxygen just like animals do. Just like complex animals complex plants did not evolve until oxygen was available on the earth. In our atmosphere plants use sunlight to make carbohydrates and give off oxygen but they also use oxygen to get energy back from the carbohydrates they make. just like animals when they eat plants or each other complex life needs oxygen but oxygen represents stored solar energy just like carbohydrates. In a reducing atmosphere it would make sense for plants to store energy as oxidizers because they couldn't recoup energy from carbohydrates any more than animals could get energy from plant or animal tissue with out oxygen. so it would make sense for complex life to store energy as oxidizers if they lived in a reducing atmosphere. on a super terrestrial world hydrogen would be so all encompassing that oxygen would never accumulate the way it did on earth. so for plants to use stored energy oxidizers make more sense than carbohydrates. Plants would take sunlight and use methane and water to make oxidizers and release hydrogen. animals would eat oxidizing plant tissue and breath in hydrogen and exhale methane and water vapor. it would be the opposite of what happens on the earth but with the same results. so the argument that fire would not be possible in a hydrogen atmosphere is would not be true if complex life evolved on that planet. since complex life is based on solar energy and the ability to store that every for later use complex life would probably make fire possible by the simple need to store energy. Possibly on that planet instead of large deposits of hydrocarbons they would have large deposits of oxidizers. percolates or peroxides. So the presence of complex life would indicates the possibility of fire and civilization even if free oxygen wasn't available? the main problem i see with this is that a hydrogen atmosphere would already be in place before life, I'm not sure what effect this might have but it might allow complex life to evolve faster than it did on the earth.

Sorry my bad

The link wouldn't work for me but you have to wonder how freezing temps would kill off all dinosaurs since they were warm blooded like mammals, and like mammals many had insulation. Many mammals use fur, many dinosaurs used feathers.

Try searching for the workings of metal halide lamps, they use the halogens to make light. http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4964922_metal-halide-lights-work.html

No, Mt. Everest is not the tallest mountain, Olympus Mons is the tallest known mountain

And exactly what would be your theory?

So you are assuming bio-matter in a reducing atmosphere would be an oxidizer? Why? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged This is true, but on the Earth what we did would seem to be heavily dependent on having lots of fuel and oxidizer, can you really imagine modern technology with fire being a rare almost unknown thing?

Not to mention how fast helium difuses through a rubber balloon. Ever put propane in a balloon?

That's one way to look at it, you can also say life on the Earth is evolved to fit the conditions and if the moon hadn't formed life would have evolved to fit other conditions.

This is good one but I've posted it before. http://www.nuclearspace.com/Liberty_ship_menupg.aspx

The sad thing is that as long as no one is being heard but the extreme left and the extreme right the majority of the people are left with no voice and slowly everyone is being expected to take sides or remain silent.

Azolla is one of the fastest growing small plants I know of. I grow it in large quantities to help purify water in ponds and aquariums. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla This plant has huge potential in absorbing CO2 and may have been responsible for reversing a planet wide greenhouse effect 49 million years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event

How do you smelt metals with a windmill? How do you generate or even use electricity with no metals?

No, I think it's pretty obvious they are only against mis- interpretation of the Constitution if it disagrees with their righteous family Conservative religious values