Moontanman

CTD you don't want a theory you just want to raise hell

He wants to get to heaven toasty, he has to drag us down to get points with god.

"if you want to get to heaven, you have to raise a little hell!">

I do indeed wish my state would allow medical MJ, I am a chronic pain patient but a few years ago i had to stop taking opiates like oxycontin simply because they were not only killing me but i had forgotten almost 10 years of my life. opiates kill, MJ does not!

Thanks all of you for inspiration. Its very difficult for me to deal with this new disadvantage of mine.

Daniel, please do not think of this as a disadvantage. IQ tests do not measure your self worth in any way. It may very well be that you are like a great many people and tests just make you nervous. There so very many variables and as Jill pointed out your own drive and determination are the real Xfactor, not some tenuous IQ number. Pursue your dreams, do not allow anyone or anything to tell you what you cannot accomplish.

CDT, males do not breast feed, the male breasts are only there because all fetuses start out as female. The male breasts have nothing to do with breast feeding. Your assertion is nothing but obfuscation to throw the thread off topic.

At the end of the Cretaceous period dinosaurs were tending toward larger brains and grasping hands (some of them) In this thread lets discuss the possibility that a civilization of intelligent dinosaurs may have exacerbated the ecological collapse at the end of the Cretaceous and the proposed impactors might have just delivered the straw that broke the planets ecological back. Some say we are in the middle of a vast extinction caused by human activity, could an civilization of intelligent dinosaurs have had a similar effect? Here is a supporting thread to get the debate started.

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/michael.magee/awwls/00/wls143.html

So far there is no suggestion that the two comets (Chicxulub and Shiva) were related. But earth really doesn't get hit that often by large comets, so it would be extremely unfortunate if it got hit twice in a relatively short period.

 

The Shoemaker-Levy comet contained 21 fragments that all hit Jupiter. Could it not be that earth got hit twice by the same comet?

Jupiter got hit on the same latitude, but spread out widely on its southern hemisphere. The fact that Chicxulub and Shiva are on the other side of the world, but (nearly) on the same latitude (just like the Shoemaker-Levy fragments) only seems to agree with my little theory here.

 

Soil samples should be able to tell if the two are of the same origin perhaps.

Or perhaps we can find a third crater from the same era and on the same latitude? Somewhere in the Sahara perhaps?

 

I've often wondered if the Cretaceous Tertiary boundary might have been marked by more than one impact. It always seemed unlikely to me that the Chicxulub impact event could have done in the entire planet but there is evidence on the moon that craters are sometimes caused by multiple impact events in the from of strings of craters and Shoemaker-Levy gave us some evidence of a comet breaking up after a close encounter and coming back to cause a multiple impact event. Such an event, even if it was several small impactors, would be devastating to the planets ecology, far more so than a large single impact event.

 

 

p.s. Moontanman, your post is totally off topic, but would be a nice thread in itself. Perhaps the dino's cremated their dead, and that would be a good reason why we don't find fossils.

 

I know, just me being a smart ass but in the pseudoscience forum it might be cool.

CDT, what do you mean "an aversion to discussing the topic of this thread"? I read it, it was out of date but still good read and it still contains good information about the ideas that stand at the root of modern evolutionary theory. You seem to be intent on arguing if it is still right or something similar. cut to the chase, what do you want to do besides use straw man arguments to support creationism? If you want to support creationism start your own thread and go for it, rest assured that dog won't hunt unless you have a completely new dog. The old dog is dead and fossilized.

Today it was overcast with a high pressure of 121170 millibars. The high was 495c with a light mist of sulfuric acid throughout most of the day. Winds were out of the West at 3 to 4mph..... Oh you mean in 2009! Well that was way before global warming went out of control......

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Why-Do-Women-Have-Breasts-46783.shtml

And, in fact, most of the woman's breats is not made of mammary glands (which produce milk) but of a mix of conjunctive tissue and fat tissue (that's why when a woman slims, breasts face the risk of getting smaller).

 

The development of conspicuous breasts with a characteristic shape seems to be a way of sexual signaling. This fact was encouraged during the human evolution by the nude skin, which emphasized them.

 

When men are attracted by a woman's breasts they do not think "Oh, she's gonna be a good mother!", they simply experience sexual arousal. And when a woman wears bras and other methods to emphasize her breasts, she does it to improve sexual appeal, not to show how good she is for breast feeding �Nor do I believe that women who want to have breast implants aim at improving their baby's nutrition...

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_do_women_have_breasts

Some zoologists (notably Desmond Morris) believe that the shape of female breasts evolved as a frontal counterpart to that of the buttocks, the reason being that whilst other primates mate in the typical piggy-back position, humans are more likely to successfully copulate mating face on. A secondary sexual characteristic on a woman's chest would have encouraged this in more primitive incarnations of the human race, and a face on encounter would have helped found a relationship between partners beyond merely a sexual one.

 

Others believe that the human breast evolved in order to prevent infants from suffocating while feeding. Since human infants do not have a protruding jaw like our ancestors and the other primates, the infant's nose might be blocked by a flat female chest while feeding. According to this theory, as the human jaw became recessed, so the breasts became larger to compensate.

Secondary sexual characteristics seem to be part of the answer and breastfeeding helpless infants seem to be the two most accepted answers.

CDT what if anything does either of your links have to do with the OP?

 

Okay if the photon is its own anti-particle through wave interference' date=' quantum physics views all particles as waves-particle dualities, then would not all particles be there own anti-particle?[/quote']

 

No.

Jill, the idea that birds did not evolve from tyrannosaurs is a totally straw man argument, both birds and tyrannosaurs evolved from a dinosaur much smaller and quite different from both birds and tyrannosaurs, this guy is just trolling for converts.

Right. My point is just that hitting the earth with a 0.9999c relativistic velocity 100kg iron cannonball and hitting it with a black hole of the same mass and velocity will have very different effects. The cannonball would collide with the Earth and transfer all of that energy into heat, shockwaves, etc. The black hole would only transfer a small amount its energy to the Earth, via gravitational drag, and nobody would notice. (This is of course ignoring radiation the black hole emits as it decays.) Kind of like firing a stream of neutrinos through your head, vs. punching you in the face.

What if the earth was struck by a relativistic neutron star? Would it just trash the Earth (similar the pic i posted) or would it vaporise the earth? I once read a story about aliens destroying the earth. (some sort of interstellar war of whack a mole) but they used basket ball sized chucks of neutronium, one was anti-matter and one was was matter neutronium, they dropped them into the Earth and they orbited inside the earth until they finally came together at the center of the earth and "wump there it is" or was! The point is the neutronium didn't do much damage when it hit the earth, it acted like the earth wasn't even there. So if a black hole would just go straight through would a neutron star a few miles in diameter do the same thing?

is there an anti-matter black hole in the universe?

While it would be foolish to say absolutely not, it would seem that if what we currently understand about the universe is true then an anti-matter black hole would be improbable to say the least.

Hi,

 

Three questions:

 

1. Can a person in a sound proof air tight room with no windows tell the difference between 1 gee produced because:

 

a. the room is on Earth

b. the room is under constant acceleration

 

I'm thinking about it.

 

c. the room is being subjected to centrifugal force?

 

A coin will not spin when you are undergoing centrifugal force.

 

2. Aren't all three due to bending space/time?

 

NO

 

3. Aren't gravitons involved in all of the above?

 

No

Spin a coin, a spinning coin will not act properly if you spin it inside an object rotating for the effect of gravity. A spinning coin will not stand up on it's axis in side a space craft spinning for gravity.

Arthur C Clark used to idea of a black hole as a propulsion in his later space Odyssey books. I don't think he took into account hawking radiation.

What about the theorized hawking radiation? this states that the mass of a black hole decreases through this process. Causing it to eventually evaporate.

 

The evaporation is so slow in a large black hole it takes many billions of years for it to evaporate. A tiny black evaporates much faster than large one and a tiny black hole would give off huge amounts of gamma rays and like a continuous nuclear explosion and finally as it evaporated down to less than enough mass to maintain it's event horizon it would explode in a huge explosion of energy, much like a multi-million megaton nuclear explosion.

 

also are there any ideas involving an anti-light particle. I know about destructive/constructive interference involving waves, but light shows wave properties and particle properties. Could it possibly have an anti-particle?

 

The photon is it's own anti-particle.

In my book (almost done!) a small one is created as a primer then larger and larger ones are 'captured'.

How small? How do you deal with the intense gamma ray output?

Not my photo shop work but it is cool. Like most power sources where you have to convert on type of energy into another wouldn't creating a black hole take much more energy than you could get out of it?

I believe that the only solid evidence for the existence for any types of such membranes is in our very faces every day: Human Beings. The provide ample proof of the existence of 'p-branes'! By the way, didn't anybody 'get it' when that moniker first appeared?

I hardly have facial hair at all and I have shaved since i was 25, that's 30 years and I still have very little facial hair.

Pretty much, although of course it doesn't "suck" any more than a regular object of that mass.

 

 

 

Oh, it can indeed interact with other objects. Gravitationally, such as the slingshot effect. However, an impact with a "solid" object is an electromagnetic interaction. This is the cause of the "pushing" that results, as atoms get pushed out of the way. A black hole will not be pushing things.

 

It would be kind of like shooting a bunch of neutrinos at something.

 

 

 

Yeah, I did mention the tidal forces would be nasty.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

Nope, if a black hole the mass of an asteroid were to collide with Earth, it would leave a small hole about an atom wide through the earth. Odds are we wouldn't notice.

Houston, you have a problem

A black hole with the mass of an asteroid would radiate huge amounts of radiation. The radiation would sterilize the earth, the smaller a black hole is the faster it evaporates a tiny black hole would radiate energy mostly in the form of gamma rays.

Well since it is believed that black holes release radiation, because they separate anti-particle and particle pairs. When the black hole absorbs an anti-particle pair it is believed that it decreases its mass, like adding a negative 1 to a positive 10.

 

I think they would annihilate each other. But another problem is how would they ever approach each other. It seems that you are assuming that an anti-matter black hole could even form, but how? they have negative mass don't they? Even if anti-matter was formed into a singularity it would be a collection of negative mass. Negative mass does not create gravity does it?

Antimatter does not have negative mass, therefore the hypothetical antimatter black hole would not have negative mass and would indeed attract a matter black hole.

To quote Jean-Luc Picard, "anything is possible". I always though the implicit idea was that "however, some things are improbable".

Mass is mass, i can see no special problems with a black hole traveling at relativistic speeds