Jump to content

michel123456

Pseudoscientist
  • Posts

    6258
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by michel123456

  1. Right. I wonder what we were arguing about. (I have to admit that I didn't get what you meant by "all things being equal" but now i got it) So let's remind the OP Replace the word "Earth" with "planet" and is that so wrong?
  2. I remeber also how a traditional bread oven is made: it is an oven (like a pizza oven), a small dome made of bricks, in which the fire is ignited. when the oven is ready, the fire is taken out and the fresh dough is place to be heated by the bricks. What you need to do, instead of putting the bread in, is to turn the walls of the oven inside out in order to radiate the heat outside.
  3. You are doing a perfect job here Swansont. IMHO your avatar is to blame. I'll tell you how it looks from the outside: That is "don't take it personnaly" from a good gangster movie, just before the killer pulls the trigger. So you pretend now that you are not James Bond? "My name is Bond"
  4. From here? You mean Here, this Forum?
  5. If you are using charcoal in your barbecue, the fire can remain latent for hours. You'll need a chemney and get problems when moving into a closed space. The other way round is to enclose hermetically the fire immediately after cooking. You will get heat by radiation, but your barbecue-recipient will be under pressure. After cooling, you'll need a valve to make the air in, because it will be almost impossible to open simply by removing the cover. ------------------------- You need to invent a portable version of a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masonry_heater. In more recent applications, like electrical storage heaters , they use refractory bricks (fire bricks). ------------------------ edited Here is another stove, a traditional belgian "poele de Louvain". From bottom to up: _four metallic legs upon ceramic or glass "shoes" for insulation _a chamber with drawer for dust _a spherical chamber in ceramic (same material as brick) which is the container for the burning coal. _a horizontal plate. The plate is hollow (it is the chemney) and full of fire bricks. The plate is used for cooking. this one has also a lateral drawer, I suppose an oven. _a chemney (build-in the back plate, hidden in the wall). Your device would be the upper part (the sphere). You still need the chemney. Note: the sphere gets really impressive because with a good fire, it gets completely red and radiates heat & light like a little sun.
  6. If you are using charcoal in your barbecue, the fire can remain latent for hours. You'll need a chemney and get problems when moving into a closed space. The other way round is to enclose hermetically the fire immediately after cooking. You will get heat by radiation, but your barbecue-recipient will be under pressure. After cooling, you'll need a valve to make the air in, because it will be almost impossible to open simply by removing the cover. ------------------------- You need to invent a portable version of a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masonry_heater. In more recent applications, like electrical storage heaters , they use refractory bricks (fire bricks).
  7. Here is a concise presentation of Ptolemy's Table of Chords. -------------------- From the Μεγιστη This is a table from the Ptolemy's Almagest as translated in Arabic. The picture is stolen from a presentation in greek page 39, I was not able to find the original picture. (maybe copyright issue?)
  8. When saying "gravitational pull" it is ment the force at the surface. Taken that Earth's mass has not changed in the last 4 billion years and taken that weight at the surface is function of the amount of mass and to the squared distance (following Newton's law of universal gravitation)* the other way to make the "gravitational pull" change at the surface is to increase the distance. * IOW a larger Earth (with the same mass) would have a smaller "gravitational pull". And one could say that a larger Earth (with the same mass) could be expected to have larger life forms, contrarily to Moontanman's assertion.
  9. IMO we are getting out of tracks. The prior question is wether gravity has an influence over size of living forms. Moontanman argues it has an influence IIRC. He says which I characterize a blind stupid statement, giving the childish example of Antoine's lightman. In response, Moontanman says I am siliness personified, which statement does not give an answer to the prior question. Could anyone here give an insight?
  10. I have read what you wrote repeatedly. The example of what you say is Antoine's allumeur de reverbere: it is a small planet with a large organism. And it is absurd.
  11. Now I bet Marat will try.
  12. That would be for the lounge. Don't be scared, you are not the only one I sympathize here. there are some few I don't sympathize, but that's my very personal opinion, and I change opinion on people very easily. Not to compare with my scientific views where I am profoundly stubborn. Well, going to the extremes, like in Antoine's story, suggests that the Galileo's cube square law is not the only law. I hope it is evident that Galileo's law does not forbid Antoine's description. We can send an astronaut walking upon an asteroid (like in the Armagedon movie) but we don't expect to encounter that much life form to have evoluted upon it, only viruses or bacteria at most. So, why don't we expect to find elephant-like animals upon asteroids: _because there is no atmosphere, because there is no water, because blah blah blah, at the end because there is not enough gravity. But then, IMHO, there must be some other law that dictates the maximum size of living form upon a planet, and that "other law" must be related to gravity. That's my reasoning. Now, as you said somewhere IIRC, nothing says that we have had enough time to develop like dinosaurs did, and that evolution will eventually drive mammals (including ourselves) to gigantism. King-Kong would be a description of a future situation. That is not a less wild speculation.
  13. I sympathize you so much i don't want to argue with you. Here is how I see things: Do you know St Exupery's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Prince? At some chapter, the little prince goes visiting a strange planet, very small and with a single inhabitant, the "allumeur de reverbere". The ligt-man says "good morning" and "good night" each 3 seconds, because his minuscule planet turns so quickly. It is evident that the scenario is unreal. The man is too big for this planet. Why? Is there a relationship between the size of a planet and the size of the living beings? Do small creatures live on a small planet and big creatures live on a big planet? Intuition says yes. That's it: if animals are big, they must have lived onto a bigger planet. I follow intuition, but intuition may be wrong. There is no support to this. Only a children book written by a french pilot in the 1940's. Now you can shoot.
  14. I will not engage supporting Mr Stojanowski's ideas. But "that the laws of physics was different 250 million years ago" is somehow inaccurate. Members can read through the links and make an opinion by themselves. There are several explanations about gigantism. I don't know if there is any scientific consensus on the question.
  15. IMHO the question about the profound nature of time & space will remain as long as there is no reference to empirical reality. Scientists may understand everything through mathematics, but if they don't translate the result in corresponding experience, the knowledge remains "unexplained" or incomprehensible. Some scientists argue that beyond some level things are too complicated to be translated in layman language. They are surely right. But I cannot believe space & time are so complicated. I strongly believe the answer will flow one day like clear water, and pupils of 6 years of age will understand what space & time are, while their parents will remain perplexed on how is it possible to have been a so deep mystery for humanity for so long.
  16. I am surprised Marat. To me the "who's talking" is extremely important. I have not the same discourse towards a retired person or a teenager. When I don't know who is on the other side, I have a third kind of discourse. But that's me. I don't find this forum is rude at all. I have the experience of less moderated Forum where it is really difficult not to get insulted any 2 posts. And just because this Forum has a paternalistic kind of military way of living (no offense intended), I like to put negative points to minimize the positive points other friends have put to posts I don't estimate particuraly. Not very seriously. I vote positive where I like. Lately I also used positive vote for balancing a IMHO unjustified negative reputation. That was somehow more serious and that is the source of the OP.
  17. If the center of mass of the object is exactly at the center of the CD, it won't fly out. Isn't it? ----------------- edit "Don't disturb my circles". Do you know who said that?
  18. Related to the + and - vote for posts on this Forum. I have seen well formulated posts from fellow members being negatively voted on a regular basis. There is no bad wording, no attacks, no insults. resulting in some members with astonishing negative reputation, although always polite. One may disagree with one's ideas but Why do you vote negative?
  19. Very interesting description of the same thing once as distance and once as time. FYI following Edward T. Hall in his "The Hidden Dimension (1966)" and IIRC (I read this book in 1979!) the deer does not calculate inconsciously any time or distance. The deer litteraly extrapolates its being to this distance. He "is" larger than its own body. We experience the same thing when someone comes too close to us, speaking from a one inch distance from our face for example. (I hope this will not send the thread on wrong tracks)
  20. So half of the OP statement is correct. For the other half there is this John Stojanowski on the net with his theory. Interesting speculation.
  21. The certain usefull insight would be to show how useless patterns can be found everywhere.
  22. the source is about Gigantoraptor see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6750005.stm the picture in the article under Growth spurt. You are right that there were also small dinosaurs, and that the time span is enormous, most probably they did not live all together and in the same place. they may have been exceptions, like the largest animal ever, the blue whale, traveling in our oceans today. But the question is not the average size. Where big is possible, little is possible too: if you can build the Empire State Building, you can build a single storey house too. I don't know if you have seen in full size a real skeleton of dinosaur. There are some at Brussels in the Royal Belgian Institute of Science where the famous iguanodons of Bernissart are exposed. They are really impressively out of scale. Diplodocus is the most huge. IMHO there is no doubt about gigantism in this early period of time. There is an interesting article here from Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society where gigantism is explained in evolutionists terms. The question about gigantism is not even posed, it is considered as a fact. ------------------ edit This paper from UBC/EOS suggests the reason for gigantism is a change of level of oxygen in early Earth's athmosphere. Again, gigantism is not under question.
  23. Right Chris. Lets see the first part: "animals are smaller today"
  24. You can have a look here: http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/bases.html
×
×
  • 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.