Moontanman

You base the last statement on a LOT of assumptions. Nobody really knows the true implications of global warming. If we do not know that how do you know that things will be better? What makes you think you know so much about something we barely understand?

 

I never said things will be better, all we can know is they will be different. Just because the changes might be bad for humans doesn't mean the earth is going to die or that the ecology cannot adapt. I think the data shows we know a lot more than you seem to understand.

 

As it stands we may not be able to stop global warming but we should try because there is no information about how the world will end up as a result because of it. For example, a run-away greenhouse effect could lead the Earth to end up like Venus.

 

Again I never said we shouldn't try to slow down out own climate inputs, I think it is just as disingenuous to say the Earth will end up like Venus as it is to say global warming is false. I've seen no studies what so ever that suggest the Earth becoming like Venus due to human inputs.

My problem with global warming is the idea so so human orientated. Every thing seems to center around keeping the planet just like it is or was or should be or some other rather arbitrary idea.

The Earth changes, are we at least one of the engines of the current change? Almost certainly. Could there be other factors involved? Almost certainly. Will the Earth and it's ecology survive global warming? Almost certainly. Would it be better for the Earth to change slower? Almost certainly.

If the evidence we have is any indication much of the history of complex life on Earth has been on a much warmer earth than we see now. Will humans get the shitty end of the stick from climate change? Almost certainly. We will have to adapt, maybe actually do some things different, make choices that are less than self centered, or maybe even make choices that even more self centered.

One thing is sure, change is coming, at this point who done it, isn't as important as how do we make sure humanity survives, grows, and learns from what is happening.

If we had deepspace spacecraft what would they look like,

.

Ah something like this?

This is pretty much what you asked for, you may as well take the warp drive too.

I wanna be a centaur, is that science fictiony enough?

I liked bubbling CO2 through arragonite.

I checked out the site, interesting the tank of the month was a 34 gallon nano reef, I saw several 2.5 gallons "reefs" nothing like what you are claiming and not near sucessfull as you seem to be. I guess you are the best of them all?

Merged post follows:

Lot so very nice Nano reefs, lots more detail about keeping them, if you had been a bit more forth coming maybe we could have avoided this conversation but I still see no .5 gallon reefs.

dang man you get all mad im back at work now, have to be short again but I'll gear it up tonite. thanks for responding

 

Not mad dude, I never take this stuff personally.

 

So we are back to square one, my video and all the pics are fake right> the coralline, the glass growth, the micro table top, it's all fake you still say. what about the 8-9 years of web postings I've made under my pseudonym, are those all fake too, and the reefs.org nanos forum which I moderate is all fake jeeze I also did the Kennedy job too and the bogus moonwalk, clearly my photoshopping and video editing was and is still able to trick the masses.

 

None of is proof and you know it.

 

Out of the volumes I've typed, just tell me this cuz I have to be brief until 6 pm. You agreed 2.5 gallon tanks work, so where is the cutoff point in your observation that a smaller tank will not work, and what exactly causes the death. This really is beating a dead horse man, but I got a little energy left.

 

Oh contrare, a 2.5 gallon tank only works over the short term I never said it would be a stable self contained reef. You are the one making claims about tiny self contained reefs, even freshwater isn't self contained. I mentioned an eight square foot bottomed tank not a 2.5 gallon tank. I've kept the small reef tanks they require an extraordinary amount of effort compared to say a 70 gallon tank and are much more expensive both in $ per gallon and actual cost.

 

 

Lets poll the public, you all think Im faking? making up all this junk and spending all this money and wasting all this time just to make Mr. Moon mad? Or, do new things always get met with hesitation aka spanish inquisition...can someone other than moon please write a sensible detraction to any specific thing I've said in all these pages, hit me with your best shot please so I can win this guy as my buddy

 

Popular vote will never be proof, you upset me only because I do not like to see people mislead into thinking a tiny reef is easy. I am not mad, i have not attacked you personally, i think you are just misleading us, i hope by just not giving us all the pertinent details. often when something comes easy to someone, and I am guilty of this as well, it is easy to forget the details of how it was done. I want you to sit back and think about all the details of what it really takes to set up and keep a tiny reef. I think you'll realize you are leaving some stuff out. If I thought you were intentionally lying I would be pissed off. If you don't think my problems with your ideas and pics are reasonable I'll leave you alone to twist in the water current by yourself.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

First off i lost all my stuff almost ten years ago, financial meltdowns are bad but even then i never was one to take pics of my tanks. I had them on display around town and in my house. I don't see how a pic can be proof of what you say. i am still active in the reef tank community mostly as a consultant mainly because I genuinely cannot afford the expense of reef aquariums any more. if you don't like my critique of your methods then outline what you do by doing more than just making claims. How do you start out? how do you do what you do? Showing pics of what you do is as useless as me saying I call down UFOs and offering pics of unusual lights in the sky as proof. You claim to be so well known well guess what so am I my name is not moon or Moontanman it is Michael Hissom. I have been influencing Marine aquaria for more than 40 years. I've set up several pet shops and I had a live coral propagation business going 20 years ago. I honestly don't know if I'm all over the net or not. I know I've spent most of the last ten to fifteen years keeping and breeding fish native to the southern USA. Getting points for my posts are not important to me but being honest tis. You post exactly how you do what you do and I'll post what I do, i admit a preference for very large aquariums but that is just me. I remember very well the old days when coral was impossible and coral grew so slow (maybe an inch a century or something equally silly) Oh yes, light was the evil enemy to a marine aquarium and everything had to be sterile as the moon to work. Adding something from the ocean without sterilizing it was so stupid. We've come a long way since the early 70's if you can rewrite the ideas yet again then do it by actually giving us the details not just by making claims and showing pics.

Ok, you have made this claim.

All I can do is swear to you they are self contained

This is simply Bullshit, a 1000 gallon aquarium of any type much less a reef tank is not self contained. The oceans of the earth are not self contained over geological time spans. A .5 gallon reef tank is simply not capable of being self contained in any realistic definition of the term. There are no processes that could be contained in such a small container that could allow it to be "self contained"

Now having said that there are coral like animals (I say coral like because you seem to want to use the word to describe any of the many and often unrelated organisms that people see and call coral) That are pretty tough, I have collected via scuba diving a great many colonial organisms, when I first started out there were no "coral like organisms" available any other way. I've collected them from under bridges near sewage outflows and even in freshwater. Yes there are freshwater colonial organisms.

I think your post is disingenuous because you have failed to point out that the organisms you are culturing are not exactly the classic coral reef organisms most people think of when they think coral reef.

Please stop saying I don't know because I haven't tried, I was having live coral heads shipped from Hawaii to me 40 years ago, I personally pioneered both live rock and metal halide lighting on reef tanks. I've kept reef organisms in glass globes and even and old 1500 watt light bulb. One real rule is the smaller that container the more outside support you need and the shorter the lifespan of the container. I think i could probably set up an aquarium with an eight square foot bottom area that would be stable for decades with enough outside support. But there are things that build up that cannot be recycled in the scale of personal aquaria that would mean that eventually the tank would have to be taken down and redone. your tiny tanks would require such a tear down every few weeks at least at my best estimate.

next the very idea of using frozen food to feed such a small container is fatally flawed. Frozen food means the inner contents of the cells of the organism is being bled out into the water, rising takes away much of it but not all. Only live food is suitable for tiny containers. rotifiers are my choice for polyps, copepods for larger animals and yes i do culture all of them.

Take away your assertion these containers are easy or do not require huge amounts of maintenance and outside support and I'll quit twisting your nipples but if you keep on I'll twist them off Displaying a tank full of Coraline algae and star polyps is not proof of or even reason to believe you can set up a self contained .5 gallon reef aquarium.

All of the tanks you show could be and most probably are simply tiny displays that were once connected to a larger system and if not reconnected will die just like a huge coral head would die off in a small aquarium. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on most of it but the assertion this is a self contained reef tank sis just not in the realm of possibility and that not because i haven't tried it.

There are so many problems here, the heat from your lights would drive up the temps in such a tiny container, aeration would result in problems both with and with out it. I am still active in reefs and just because someone makes claims on the net doesn't make it true. The pic of the tiny tank in your car is so strange, was it air tight? why isn't it pressing down in the seat like something was full of water should? i see so many things that scream illusion. If you can really keep a "pico" reef that is self contained and stable long term then you my friend have really done something, I have some friends at NASA that would be interested in seeing your processes I am sure.

Ok, what do you feed them?

What is your light source?

What are the chemical parameters?

What trace elements to do you add

Exactly what species are being kept in each of the different sizes of bowls

I want to believe you i really do but i can just look at your pics and see many things that prove to me you are being misleading. 40 years of experience being on the cutting edge of both aquarium husbandry and coral propagation gives you deep instincts and what you are claiming looks to me like what it looks like for someone to claim faster than light information transfer does to a real physicist. You need to show why what you claim works, just showing the tanks and making claims really doesn't provide evidence of anything and I can see scenarios of who to do what you are claiming but not the way you claim. Getting view counts on something that is misleading is disturbing

How big is the sump associated with these "tanks" how big is the refugium" How much water is being held outside the tank and recirculated into it? When a coral extends threads to digest the coral next to it all the skimming in the world will not prevent it. Your tanks are too small to actually support the populations they show with a huge outside support system. I could grow coral In a test tube if I had a huge outside support system.

Yeah, for about 15 minutes, in most of the containers you've shown the individual polyps are too close to not kill each other, if you knew even a minimal amount about coral you would know this. The bio load on these tiny tanks is far to small for them to last more than a few weeks, in most days would be a stretch. I've been doing this for about 40 years, yes I'm made temporary displays much like you show but they are not long term habitats nor do they honestly represent what can be done with out a tremendous amount of outside resources being available. Be honest show what it really takes to maintain such a tiny environment.

Look closely, Moontanman. He's holding the ruler much, much closer to the camera than the tank. You can get an idea of the scale by looking at the tank stand the stuff around it (looks like a good 75 gallon to me).

I knew it had to be some sort of illusion, a 15 gallon tank has a similar length to height ratio as a 75 gallon tank as well. The 70/75 gallon tank is one of my favorites to grow coral in due to it's surface area to depth ratio. The 48" by 24" by 24" 120 is a good tank too.

BTW I really wish people wouldn't do BS like this. It gives people who want to set up aquaria a very false idea of what is possible or even desirable.

I grow live coral, I've been doing so for more than 30 years. That pic is total BS, photo shop at the very least. Yes there are what are known as Nano reefs but they generally hold at least 2.5 gallons of water contain only couple species of coral, usually soft coral. The container pictured could not possibly hold more than 1/2 gallon as depicted. Every polyp depicted in the photo is way out of proportion to their actual sizes. If I had to guess I would say that is a photoshoped pic of at least a 15 gallon container.

Alpha particles are not very penetrating, they are large slow moving particles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_particle

Because of their charge and large mass, alpha particles are easily absorbed by materials, and they can travel only a few centimeters in air. They can be absorbed by tissue paper or the outer layers of human skin (about 40 micrometers, equivalent to a few cells deep).

Merged post follows:

how do they work

Very well thank you!

So... in some universe I've already done the dishes?

 

rusty

No, in this universe there is another you who did the dishes. There are not enough different possibilities for everything to happen. Some things are more likely, the most likely things happen over and over. If the universe is truly infinite then everything that happens happens elsewhere exactly the same an infinite number of times.

I do have an issue with nudity under some circumstances. Like fat people or ugly people.

Hmmm, is it because really fat people can hide their genitals with no clothes or that ugly is so subjective?

Does cannabis permanently effect the brain? Maybe we are looking at this from the wrong perspective. Does anything we come contact with not effect us in some permanent way? The real question here asks does cannabis effect us in some way that is worse than some other thing or so bad it will significantly inhibit us in some manner. The list of things that effect us in some "bad" way is so long to really get a grip all things must be compared to each other for the questions to make sense.

see these links for info on vacuum energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

How are nuclear power plants and nuclear bombs related?

They both use energy released from the nucleus of the atom. Often they they use the same radioactive elements to make power. Nuclear power plants can use thorium and other isotopes of elements that nuclear weapons cannot but they essentially make power the same way, from the splitting of atoms.

If only the worst thing a child ever saw was a naked adult how much easier it would be to raise a child. I honestly do not see why seeing a naked adult is a bad thing. Blood and gore is a nightly thing on the news not to mention supposedly entertainment TV shows. I would much rather my children see nudity and sex than death and destruction. At the very least they will eventually see and deal with sex and nudity but death and destruction they could live with out, I know i could.

They may as well come and get me now! I seldom if ever wear clothes inside my house. I hate wearing clothes! I have a privacy fence around my yard and I often go outside nude. I go to nude beaches and have been known to go to nudist camps and clubs. No one, no matter what their age, is going to be scared for life due to seeing someone naked (well disgusted maybe in my case but not scared) the whole idea of nudity being some sort of horrendous thing to protect the innocent from is worse than any possible actual exposure to nudity! We see death, blood, and gore all the time on TV but seeing someone naked is going to some how destroy someones mind? Give me a break!

For the content of this post assume intelligence on a human scale at least but not necessarily the same or even similar technology.

Sh3rlock, let me know when you get the links read. With all the folding, subduction, and erosion of the last 65 million years, to assume the hydrocarbons we are using now were just sitting around waiting for us to find them 65 million years ago is a stretch even if we didn't see oil seeping the surface all over the planet.

I don't think that the oil we see now is a good reason to assume no inteligent dinosaurs. I am sure there are plenty of other good reasons but this dog won't hunt.

I'm not sure that is exactly obvious, has oil just been sitting underground since having been made at some arbitrary time? Geological processes have destroyed much oil and created even more. The same would have to be true for coal as well. Even if they are abiotic you would have to assume that geological processes destroy far more oil and gas than we have used in the past few hundred years. Oil bubbles to the surface naturally all over the globe and is consumed by bacteria.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090219101658.htm

http://blog.taragana.com/n/ocean-bubbling-up-half-its-oil-reserves-from-seafloor-11495/

Since these processes have been going on far longer than we have been around you would have to assume that much of the worlds oil over time has just seeped to the surface and been consumed by bacteria. Over many millions of years this would have consumed far more oil than we have consumed. Coal is also exposed the surface naturally and is swept away by erosion. To think that hydrocarbons were totally sequestered until humans found them is an unreasonable assumption.

they have an explanation for everything! I remember that episode now, a day late and a dollar short of course.

I am not trying to prove ID here I just wanted to show how ID would make a universe much different than the one we see. One of the claims of ID is that the universe was created for us, for our use, but from our stand point the universes is not very user friendly. If you compare the universe we see to universes really created by intelligent design IE Star Trek, Star Wars, BSG, Star Gate, or any one of dozens of intelligently designed virtual universes ours is obviously either not ID'ed or the ID'er is not particularly fond of us.