EdEarl

The page from Wikipedia (link below) has two graphs one of paleo CO2 levels and one of paleo O2 levels. From casual inspection, the O2 and CO2 levels do not appear to be inversely proportional. Do you know of any similar graphs that would be easier to compare. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#History_of_the_atmosphere

"The Doppler effect (or Doppler shift), named after the Austrian physicist Christian Doppler, who proposed it in 1842 in Prague, is the change in frequency of a wave (or other periodic event) for an observer moving relative to its source. It is commonly heard when a vehicle sounding a siren or horn approaches, passes, and recedes from an observer. The received frequency is higher (compared to the emitted frequency) during the approach, it is identical at the instant of passing by, and it is lower during the recession." From the Wikipedia page on Doppler Effect. Note: higher frequency during approach (distance changing), and lower during recession (also distance changing).

I am not an expert. The Wikipedia page about the Higgs was updated to say CERN had found a Higgs like particle the same day it was found. I assume by someone at CERN. The following link explains the current status. My understanding is that they are still uncertain whether they found the Higgs boson or not, but the tests they have completed are consistent with it being a Higgs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#Current_status_of_the_125_GeV_particle

I understand a lot of oxygen is sequestered in iron compounds, too. Are there natural processes that release large amounts of oxygen from limestone? Iron compounds? I think there is a process for released, burned methane hydrate to become methane hydrate again.True or False? I am trying to understand varioius processes that could change atmospheric O2 levels by 40%.

Does atmospheric oxygen, including O2, CO2, NO, NO2, etc., sometimes become sequesterd in solids or liquids in significant amounts (e.g., >1%) for long periods of time (e.g, > 1 yr). For example, if much of the methane hydrate entered the atmosphere, would the additional water from burning that methane significantly decrease atmospheric oxygen.

Doppler effect only occurs if the distance between sound source and listener is changing.

"A thermometer on the sunny side (of the International Space Station) would reach something like 250 degrees F (121 C), while a thermometer on the dark side would plunge to something ike minus 250 degrees F (-157 C)." From: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_temperature_outside_the_international_space_station

I do not know why a circle would be relevant. Explain?

I do not know where you live, Georgi, but I agree with you about education reform Here in the USA, there are many problems with school systems, and they sometimes appear to be getting worse rather than better. On the other hand, an educational revolution is occurring outside school systems, because the internet provides access to information. See TED Talks by Sugata Mitra and Salman Khan. Sugata Mitra showed that children self organize into groups of about 30 to study when given only one computer and access to information...no teacher. Salmon Khan started KhanAcademy.org, which is used by millions of students and tens of thousands of teachers. And, many more things are being done. Who knows what will eventually happen?

I understand that CO2 levels control global temperature or at least strongly correlate. However, my question was about O2 amounts in the atmosphere. Conversion of CO2 into O2 and sequestered C cannot account for a 40% increase in O2, because the CO2 levels are only 400 ppm (.0.04%) today, and the most CO2 in history I have ever heard reported is 1000 ppm. Sorry about not making that clear before.

ty. I learned something. Fission and radioactive decay are similar but different, and fission releases much more energy.

Frequency and wavelength are inversely proportional for all kinds of waves, including ocean, sound and light.

Without fission radioactivity in the Earth's core, there would be no volcanos and no earthquakes. However, the surface of Earth is warmed a little by the Sun but would not be as cold as Mars surface. A few feet under the surface of the Earth, the temperature is about 70F, regardless of surface temperature. However, as one goes deeper, the temperature increases. A few thousand feet down the temperature can kill.

The universe is 99.99...9% empty. And, whatever isn't empty, spontaneously created from nothing almost 14 billion years ago in the BB, which wasn't a bang; rather, it was the expansion of an infinitely small point, which is expanding into infinity. I think the best answer to "What is mass?" and "What is the definition of mass." is that it is a quality of matter. However, we really do not know what matter and energy are. The theory of everything is incomplete...maybe not even started. Moreover, I am confused about whether this thread should be in physics, phylosophy, or speculation.

The atmosphere is currently about 78%N, 21%O, 1%Ar, and 0.04%CO2. If O is 40% higher, then it would be about 29%O. Assume we can ignore the miniscule amounts of Ar and CO2, then what happened? 1. The total O increased, and total N remaining the same, meaning the atmosphere was thicker with increased pressure? 2. The total O remained the same, and total N reduced, meaning the atmosphere was thinner with decreased pressure? 3. The total O increased and total N decreased, meaning thickness and pressure remained about the same. If 1. where did the O come from? If 2. where did the N go? If 3. then the answers to the above two questions answer this condition.

I believe sulfur is available in garden centers. Saltpeter can be made from available material, as it was originally in China and elsewhere.

When we were about 13, my cousin and I did that. Filled up a bottle with the powder from many black-cats, ran a thin wire thru the bottle, connected it to a train transformer, and put the bottle in a wash tub filled with water. We put the tub assembly outside the back door, ran an extension cord inside the house to the transformer, and turned it on. The explosion nearly knocked the bottom out of the tub and sent it flying into the air a couple of meters. The tub was ruined. Of course, our parents weren't happy about our adventure, We were lucky not to do more damage or hurt ourselves. But the fun was worth the grief.

I am an ignorant American, who has difficulty with English and knows no other spoken language. Although, I have developed code in a dozen different programming languages.

tyvm You are more optimistic about our legal system than I. IMO, some things they do well and others they ignore, unless citizens force them to pay attention.

There are two main reasons people believe the things they do. 1) They are taught the things they believe. 2) They use their brain to decide for themselves the things they believe. Either of these methods can result in a person believing either science or otherwise. Marks was an athiest; thus, he tended to believe science rather than religion and myth. Socialists???

Scientists have been working to understand the brain for quite some time, and their discoveries are impressive. I recently posted Hierarchical Temporal Memory in Science News, and the youtube link by Jeff Hawkins has some info relevant to this discussion. Other researchers have been able to link directly to a neuron, and believe they can eventually connect a fiber optic cable to many neurons. Moreover, they can genetically alter neurons to fluoresce when a neuron fires, and make neurons fire when stimulated by light. See: Watching a Rat Brain Think about Running IMO we will not be able to dump the information learned over many years, nor load the brain very very fast instead of learning as we do now. I can only work as fast as we currently think, observe, and feel, as Jeff Hawkins said.

Living is dangerous and freedom is not free. We should be careful to protect our freedoms, such as freedom of speech. Making laws to ban disseminating information, such as bomb making, diminishes our freedom of speech. We need to carefully balance the benefits and costs, before we make laws that infringe on our freedom. What is the chance of any one of us being killed by a bomb? Would banning bomb making info from the internet really reduce our chance of being killed by a bomb, if so, how much? What are the bad effects of making a law to ban information. What would its benefits be? Is such a law enforceable? If it is enforceable, what would it cost? Could we spend the money in a better way? Etc.

This is old news, but my search did not find any hits. IMO this is the most exciting development in artificial general intelligence (AGi) ever. It may be the software breakthru necessary for AGI, and they are working on special hardware. See the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_temporal_memory https://www.groksolutions.com/ Search youtube for more videos by jeff hawkins.

Yes, mainly science. E.g., been checking on biodiesel produced from algae and artificial general intellegence today.