Edtharan

True, but monuments to the dead don't actually have to have the dead body in them. There are plenty of statues and even some buildings that are erected in honor of someone who has died. The Taj Mahal is a building errected by the Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan in memory of his favorite wife, Mumtaz Mahal. They used to be burried in Mastabas and the pyramid was usually nearby (there were other periods before and after the pyramid building when the pharoes were burried in tombs else where). So, yes, they might not have been burried in the pyramid, but they were part of the whole tomb structure. In modern cemitaries, you are not burried in hte head stone, but it is part of your burrial.

It explains the stuff we can see and says that there is stuff we can't see (even if we don't understand the properties of it - which is particle physics, not the theory of the big bang). In fact it is the theory of the big bang (along with observation) that gives us the values of 95% of matter is un seen and 75% of energy is unobserved. Even though the changes to the big bang theory occured after the observations indicated that there was missing mass/energy, the theory was still able to accomodate the fact of this missing mass/energy. By re-examining some assumptions made when the Big Bang model was proposed they were able to correct the theory without significant change. The reasons that those assumptions were made was that there was no observed evidence against them untill the observations that indicated that tehre was missing mass/energy. Actually, this is exactly what you were tryaing to say that science didn't do. You have been argueiong that science is dogmatic and esistant to change or anyone trying to say that a theory is wrong (even going so far as to say that they would crusify someone). But this is exactly proving your calims about that wrong. It is proof that science is willing to change if evidence is presented that contradicts theory and assumption.

All the logic in the world means absolutly nothing if evidence contradicts it. Take Zeno's Paradox. Zeno logically proved that an arrow could never hit a turtle. But observed evidence says otherwise. Thereofre even though it was logically proved that an arrow can't hit a turtle we know that it can. This is why evidence is extremely important. This is why science needs observation and experimentation. It does not matter how famous the scientist, how perfect the scientists logic. If evidence contradicts what the scientist think, then the sceintist accepts that they are wrong and tries to understand what is really happening. Have a look at the "Michalson/Morely" experiement. They were convinced that ther was a Luminiferrous Eather that caused Light. They were backed up by decades (even centuries) of Logic, but all their experiemnts said that there was no Luminiferrous Eather, so they looked for some other explaination. Hand me those planks of wood and some nails . Really, do you seriously believe this? If you can actually give evidence that the Big Bang didn't happen then you would earn the Nobel Prize. There would be no question about it, you would have the Nobel prize in several categories. There have been a lot of Nobels given out to scientist because they disproved current thinking. IF you can disprove the Big Bang, you would be an absolute shoe in for the Nobel Prize.

Because the other parameter (distance) varies exactly in proportion to the variation of time. As ytou accelerate, or enter a gravitiational field, Space rotates into time and Time rotates into space. As we are stuck to viewing things in 3 dimensions, we see that the length contracts and Time seems to be slowed down. But it does so in an exact mathematical proportion.

Ok imagine that you ahve a sealed shpere and you want to find out what its insides are made of. Because you can't open it you will have to use indirect methods to determine what it is made from. First, you would probably weigh it. This would tell you how much mass it has. Next, you probably would measure it. This tells you the size of it. These two methods would tell you the average density of the sphere. You might also examine what the outside of the shpere is made of. You might examine a bit of it under a microscope, tap it and listen to it (this can tell you a lot of information, like rigidity by how fast the vibrations travel through it, thickness by the pitch of the vibrations, and so forth). Knowing the size, composition (and therefore the density of the outside container), we know more accurately the density and composition of the inside of the shpere. Now, if you did all this and found that the insides were not very dense, then with knowldege of chemistry you could work out what posible substances or combination of substances it could be. This would not be a guess, but you would have to use mathematics to caclulate what it could be. You could check this by carefully listening yo the vibrations when you tap it. You could identify the vibrations from the caontainer and account for them, then you could examin all the other vibrations and these would be vibrations that had to travel through the insides. Using mathematics again, you could work back from this data and work out what the structure of the insides are. When waves (vibrations are waves) move from one substance to another, they change direction, chage frequency and shape. Looking at these changes can tell you exactly what the substances are (no guessing). Do you kow what. They have done all this with the Earth. We can "weigh" it. The satalites in orbit have a very specific orbit which is dependant on what the mass of the Earth is. We can measure the size of it. Again Satalites in orbit and survayour on the ground can give us this data. We have a good idea of what the crust (the container if you will) of the Earth is made up of as we can go out and dig it up and Earthquakes give us vibrations that we can use to further examine and check out findings on the structure, size and composition of the crust of the Earth. Knowing what the crust is made from we can now adjust the density data to acount for it. ALso, Earth quakes send vibrations through the Earth and this allows us to examine the interals, just like it would have for the sealed sphere. In fact, we use this "Send vibrations through objects" to look a them in all sorts of other situations. Ultrasound machines used by doctors use this exact sdame idea. Having an Ultra Sound to see inside us is no more a geuss at what is in side us as using Earthquakes to see inside the earth is a Guess. The Earthquake "Ultrasound" (actually it is considdered more of an Infrasound with Earthquakes, but the idea is the same) allows us to see inside the Earth. What we see is a Hot Iron Core not a Hydrogen Core (hot, cold or otherwise). Sorry, to call current knowledge about the Earth's core "unproven assumptions" is to call all diagnosis using medical Ultrasounds "unproven assumptions". Even without the data from Earthquakes, ther eis enough opthe evidence to completely rule out any form of Hydrogen Core in the Earth, it is just that with the Earthquake data we know very accurately what the core is made from and it is scientifically rigourous as any medical ultrasound. Yes the Observable fact completly negate any possibility of there being a Hydrogen core to the earth. That is unless you are saying that the theories and technologies that underly medical ultrasounds are also wrong. So either you don't accept that medical ultrasounds work and allow for the possibility of a hydrogen core, or you accept that medical ultrasounds work and that a hydrogen core is an absolute impossibility.

If you take a beam of light, split it and send it back along itself, then it can with interfere constructivly or destructivly. Any wave does this. A time traveler could be described by a quantum wave function and when they go back in time, they could interfer with them selves. This might be constructive interference (like in the case where you give your self a time machine, then go back in time and give your self a time machine) or it can be destructive (like going back in tiem and killing your grandfather, or father, or self). Destructive interference will prevent the second scenario from occurring, but constructive interference will cause the first scenario to always occur (if it occurs at all it can't not occur - call it quantum destiny).

I left a couple of saussaages out on the bench a while ago. One got mold on it and the other didn't. I didn't use pyramids or anything. Besides the Egyptians never believed that the pyramids actually mummyfied things, that is what they had to leave the bodies of their Pharaos in huge pils of salt for several weeks prior to sticking them into the pyramid. In aincient times Salt was extremely valuable (sometimes worth more than gold), so why would they waste all that extremely valuable material if it was not needed? The Pharaohs wern't preserved because of the pyramid, they were preserved because of being dehydrated with salt. Actually some foods, like sausage, has salt in them and the amount can vary between them. So one sausage might have enough salt in it to kill and dehydrate bacteria and mould (stopping it from growing) and another might not have enough to do this. Mould spors might land on one piece of food and not another. There are probably thousands of reasons that one piece of food might get mould on it and another would. The one in the pyramid might have been further form other food and so less likely for any mould on the other food to spread it's spores. The pyramid might have been ina more sheltered spot (well you would put in there so it doesn't get bumped), and so forth. But will the cigaretts still give you cancer? Flavous can change over time. Chemical reaction that normally occur in foods can change their flavours. Acids can break down (react with the surounding chemicals) as acids are reactive (and we use this property of acids for many things). Also with acidic foods (like citrus) they will ripen over time and produce more sugers along with the break down of the acids (making them more sweet and less acidic). So foods change their flavours over time. Not suprising at all. This effect has been know for thousands of years and has never requiered a pyramid before. Beer was a staple of Egyptians. Egyptian Beer has been found in pyramids and Egyptian tombs. And besides, what would it be about beer that would cause it to react badly with pyramids? The thing about cheap wines is that they are cheap for a reason. This is usually because there is a lot of variation within the batches. So you m ight buy one bottle that tastes good, but then another bottle is not very nice. Even with expensive wines. There can be problems with the cork that can cause one bottle to taste bad and another to be quite good. Sometimes abottle could be stored on it's side and anothe bottle might be stored upright. Depending on the wine and the type of cork, this can change the tastes of the wines. Again, thousands of reasons that one bottle could taste differently to the other and many of them much more likely than it was caused by the pyramid. Here is another thing abut taste, our expectations effect what we taste. Try this experiment: Get two pieces of bread, use food colouring to dye one green and leave the other uncoloured. Ask someone to try the breads and tell you if one of them tastes differnet to the other. You will find that people will say the taste of the gree one is differnet to the uncoloured one. Even though they were taken form the same loaf of bread and the food colouring has no taste. Why, becaus ethey expect coloured foods to taste differently to uncoloured foods.

Interestingly not all pyramids were pyramid shaped: See The Bent Pyramid. So if a pyramid doesn't have to be pyramid shaped, then what is so special about the sahpe? When the first Europeans started investigating them, they could not believe that a culture that they considdered inferior could ahve built those structures. This attitude continues today and people still claim things ranging from Aliens to Giants to Strange Hyperadvanced cultures (that disappear without a trace - like Atlantis) to explain them. But that kind of thinking started over 200 years ago and in light of modern archeology we know that none of those explainations are correct. We know that the people of Egypt made the pyramids (not slaves by the actual citizens of Egypt) and we have several ways they might have built them (we can't exactly sure which one, by we are failrly certain that it was one of them). We also know why they were built (they actually wrote that one down so we can be fairly certain that it is the reason). They were built as Tombs. Walk into any graveyard today and you can see the same kind of thinking. Monuments errected in honour of someone. There are building errected over famous peoples tombs all over the world. The Pyramids are no more mysterious than these. They have no other function that them. In controled experiments that have been performed for many years, this effect has not been abel to be attributed to the pyramids. When reaserches have done this, as a control they have left out samples outside the pyramid and have achieved the same effect as the sample inside the pyramid. So either the placment is inconsiquential, or the pyramid is not doing a single thing. Actually, when these experiments have been examined closer, it has been shown that the effect seems to be caused entierly by external environmental effects. For thousands of years people have been drying and preserving foods, not by sticking them under a pyramid, but by leaving them out side! . Ever heard of Sundried Fruit? They doi this with meat too. As for thre Egyptians, they did not use the Pyramis to mummyfy the bodies, they used Natron (mainly salt with some other additives). Salt absorbs the water from the body and dehydrates it. Without water bacterial processes can't get started (and the salt effects bacteria themselves so they also get dehydrated too which kils them). We use the same process with salted meats (and have done so for thousands of years). Of course, when Europeans discovered the pyramids, the practice of mummyfication had long been abandoned and the knowledge of the process was lost from the cultural knowledge (it was only when they learned to read the instructions painted on temples and papyrus did we re-learn how they did it). However, dispite knowing this for around 100 years or so, it still hasn't managed to reach most people (or at least the ignore these facts as tend to debunk their beliefs) and peopel stillm think it was something in the pyramid that actually stopped the corpses from decomposing. The reason that bodins in pyramids didn't decompose was that they were dehydrated by covering them with salt for a few weeks, removing their organs and filling the body cavity with salt. You might say that the Pharaohs were the original "Salty" sea dogs . Without water bacteria can't survive. Without bacteria there is no decomposition (and even with bacteria decomposition doesn't necessarily occur by putrifaction). SO the effects attributed to pyramids, when you look at the origen of those claims, don't need any special properties of the pyramids themselves to acieve it.

But Silicon Dioxide is heaier than Silicon hydrides. I was looking for the lioghtest combination of silicon and hydrogen to show how hard it would be to actually remove such a substance from the atmosphere.

Keeping in mind that there is no actual evidence that wormholes exist (they are only a possible solution to the equations of relitivity). Yes, under cirten circumstances it might be possible (that is if worm holes exist, there are no curently unknown laws of physics that prevent it and the mathematics we have for reletivity are correct). You have to set up the worm holes in a very specific way (not just any worm hole will do). Onje you create a worm hole it will have two "mouths" (Call then "A" and "B"). Accelerate one mouth (lets say "A") away at near the speed of light (note that you have to acclerate it, just having a constant velocity will not make this effect occur) and then stop it (decelerate it) and then accelerate it back (and stop it again - there have been 4 stages of acceleration to the "A" mouth of the worm hole). According to reletivity, one object (in this case Mouth "A" of the wormhole) that is accelerated in such a manner will experience time slower than something that wasn't accelerated like that (in our case this will be moth "B"). Now because the mouths of the worm hole are linked, if you go into one, then you will come out the other, but the "Age" of the mouths will be the same. This means that if you go into the older "B" mouth, then you will come out from the "A" mouth of the same age. You will travel into the Future. BUt if you go into the younger "A" mouth, then you will come out of the "B" mouth when it was the same age as the "A" mouth you entered. You will travel backwards in time. You could keep looping around, going into the "A" mouth and leaving through the "B" mouth again and again, each time going back a bit further in time. However, you can not go back further than when the whole thing was set up. This limit also answers the question of why no Timer Travlers have been seen visiting us. We don't ahve one of these set up, so they can't come back to this time.

It was the scientists that were being attacked for proposing that the Earth was round and was not at the centre of the Universe. It was the religious establishment at the time that was doing the killing. There is a big difference between how that religious establishment and modern science operates. You are building a massive strawman argument here. Actually, there is believed to be an iron core in jupiter (iirc about the size of Earth - but it is believed to be solid). So this line argument is compltely disproved. Jupiter is much bigger than the Earth and the pressures at the core are also much greater. Also, Jupiter is massive enough to have gravity strong enough to hold onto hydrogen. Yes that right: Bleow a certain mass limit a planet is unable to retain Hydrogen at all. This includes through it's formation. The lower the gravity, the faster it will loose any "primeval" hydrogen. Well, lets look at gravity anf angular momnetum. Gravity will pull material in towards the centre of the planet. As this material moves towards the centre the faster it spinss. The mass of Jupiter means that whatever mass it has pulled in, will be more compressed, so the ratio of mass distrabution in Jupiter will be tighter than it is with Earth. If we assume an equal amount of mass distribution to start with (for both planets before they formed), then as Jupiter has more mass closer to the centre, then it will be spinning faster. So there is absolutly no problem with the current situation. There is no need to postulate a Hydrogen core for Earth as observation matches curent theory. Well the heat that is mealting the mantle is coming from the boundary between the solid iron/nickle inner core and the liquid iron/nickle outer core. How does this work? Well inside the Earth Heat has nowhere to go except towards the surface. However, when you heat up fluids they rise to the surface because the hot fluids are less dense than cold fluids. So in the liquid outer core, and hot iron will rise outwards from the centre and any colder iron will sink towards the centre. Now, when a fluid changes state from liquid to solid, it releases a lot of energy (heat). But because this will be happening at the surface of the inner core, it has nowhere else to go. It releases the heat into the surrounding liquid outer core heating it up! This hot liquid nickle/iron fluid will rise and colder material will sink in to replace it. As the hot liquid nickle/iron liquid meets the inner mantle, it releases some of it's heat, which is enough to melt the material of the mantle and the cooler Nickle/Iron fluid sinks towards the inner core again. And so the cycle continues. What is also important, is this same process occures within the mantle which raises the hot liquid mantle up towards the crust. However, the crust is still thin enough that some of this hot liquid mantle can melt it's way up through it and we see that as volcanoes. So "How else could melted rock be created excepting by oxidation of hydrides escaping into the crust from the mantle?", By applying Thermodynamics and Hydrodynamics and having a Hot Iron core. Does that answer your question? It is not the existance of Lava that is under question, but the method which by it is produced. The fact is that Lava by itsself does not prove your claims as there are other known processes (as I described above) that allow for the production of Lavas. These processes fit withing all known laws of physics and are possible within the environment of a planet's core (like Earth). The processes originate thousands of killometers underneith the volcanos, but because the heat has nowhere else to go but Up, then this raises the material up to the volcano (and actually causes the volcano to be created). You are forgetting that there is an Inner and Outer core. The Inner core is solid and the Outer core is liquid. How do the pressures stop the solid inner core from existing? ALso, Iron is a much more rigid material than Hydrogen, so if the pressures are too much for Iron, then it also must be too much for Hydrogen. I don't know what you mean by "Horizontal Gravity". DO you mean that this is the gravitational force exerted by the mass of the Earth that lies to the side of any particular point within the Earth? Or is it some new concept introduced as an explaintion of how this could occur. If it is just looking at the mass that is on either side of a location within the Earth, then there is no net force. This is becaus the mass on one side will be the same as the mass on the other side. So the gravitational pull from one side will be the same as the pother side and there will be no net force experienced and so no Horizontal gravity. If however, it is a new concept introduced, then you first have to show that there is and actual new force before using it as an explaination. I can't say: Unicorn horns exist because if Unicorns exist they have horns. This does not prove that Unicorn Horns exist. Thus you couldn't say: "The Earth has a hydrogen core because if horizontal gravity exists then it allows for hydrogen to accumulate in the Earth's core". Unless you can show that Horizontal gravity does exist (and as I have said it has to be a completely new and prviously unobserved phenomina as gravity from masses to the sides of a loction within the Earth will be canceled out and have not net force) you can't use it as an explaination of why yout claims are true. Well, if you understand fusion at all, then you will know that when elements fuse they release energy. However, the type of atom effects how much energy is released. Hydrogen releases the most energy in fusion, adn the heavier the element is the less energy it releases. It works out that with Iron, it no longer releases enough energy to sustain fusion. This any attempt at fusion with Iron will not be able to sustain a fusion reaction without outside energy being put into the system. So as stars fuse elements, this process stops around Iron. However, if a star goes supernova, then enough energy can be put into it to fuse Iron into the heavier elements. But this means that the Heavier elements will be much rarer than Iron. So you have lots of Iron and lighter elements, and very few heavier elements. There would not be enough heavier elements to make up a core for a planet, but there would be enough Iron. So yes there are probably lots of heavy elemtns within the core of Earth, however, compared to the amount of Iron they don't really make up much of the volume. And as for how these elemnts can occur within the crust, well if you have ever water into oil (water being more dense than oil) you will see that sometimes bubble of water can be trapped within the oil, even though the water is more dense. Turbulance and other aspces of fluid dynamics can allow for this. No! This is completely wrong! Cetrifugal forces would cause the lighter element to the inside. It is gravity that would force the lighter elemnets to the outside. If centrifugal forces were strong enough to allow Hydrogen to exist within the centre of the Earth, then they wouold have been strong enough to fling the rest of the matter of Earth into space! The only way a planet can form is if Gravity dominates centrifugal forces, but this means that the heavier elements will end up in the centre, not the lighter ones including Hydrogen. On this alone we can rule out any possibility of Hydrogen being in the centre of the Earth because of planet formation (which means you need a way to produce hydrogen within the Earth, but it will also still have that core of Iron). Interperetation are not Assumptions. Interperetation must use logic and known scientific theories to reach conclusions. you are making another Strawman argument here. :confused: So a strawman used as an Ad Hominin... So accoring to you all scientists are selfserving, greedy, corrupt individuals that are only out to work their own agenda. What if that agenda is to work out what the Earth is really made of? This would be the agenda" of the vast majority of scientists. Science is all about pushing the bounds of current knowledge. It is this aspect that has given us the modern world. Science is not dogmatic, it is the exact opposite of it. It chalenges the dogma and forces it to prove its self again and again and agin without rest. A scientific theory is only valuable if it can be tested (if it can't it is not a scientific theory). So you can see that your Strawman of "the current dogma" is a massive strawman. Sure, there will be some individuals that cling to dogma, it is human nature, but the vast majority of scientists don't. They love overturning established dogma. And yes, science may seem resitant to change, but it is not. The reason that it can seem resitant to change is that you have to show evidence of your hypothisis. Science has this in palce so that you can't just make stuff up if it sounds good. Science isn't interestind in having theories that "sound good", or "fit with common sense". Science is about trying to find out how the Universe really works, and that means challenging every concept, including new one posed by other people. It is the need to challenge everything that some people take as an attack against them and then they claim that science is dogmatic. Because sciecne didn't accept their hypothisis that "sounded good" to them. The "I see this as self evidence, therefore it must be true" is not a good arguemnt that what you think is "self evident" is really true. "It's true because I say it's true" is not evidence. Well most asteroids have a large Iron content. Earth formed from the accretion of many such asteroids (billion of billions of them ) When they collided they melted. Sure when it was small the gravity would not have been enough to seperate out the elemnets, but over time it would have become larger and gravity would ahve been sufficient to begin this seperation process, and as throughout this time there would have been many more asteroid collisions it would have kept the proto Earth melted and allowed the elements to seperate. So this Iron did not come form granit melt! Granite is the leftover "crud" from when the planet was molten during it's formation. It wasn't that the Iorn "setteled out" from the other stuff, but the other stuff rose to the surface (which as you admit has enough gravity to do the job) So I woudl say that you don't understand because you have just demonstrated a lack of understanding (or cherry picking the data to fit your claims). Yes it does. It comes form the break down of water due to UV radiation, and there are some small amound of Hydrogen trapped within the earth. Hydrogen is the most common element in the Universe, and yet, there is a suprisingly small amount to be found here on the Earth. Whether or not Hydrogen can excape this way depends on it's molecular weight. So a hydrogen atom has a molecular weight of 1. Actually it would exist as a molecule of 2 hydrogen atoms so we will call it a weight of 2. Oxygen would have a molecular weight of 32 (An oxygen molecule has 2 oxygen atoms in it). So what would be the result of a collision between them: P=MV For this we will assume that they are both going at 1m/s For the Oxygen moving and the Hydrogen stationary: P=32amu*1m/s=32amu/m/s So the Hydrogen would end up traveling: V=P/M 32amu/m/s / 2amu = 16m/s Now lets look atif the Hydrogen was moving and the Oxygen was stationary: P=2amu * 1m/s = 2amu/m/s Which gives the Oxygen a velocity of: V=P/M 2amu/m/s / 32amu = 0.0625m/s If a molecule has enough mass, then collisions with the atmosphere will (on average) not be enough to cause the molecule to reach escape velocity (11km/s). If the molecule does not reach escape velocity, then it will fall back into the atmosphere. But Silicon is a common element so lets have a look at that: Silicon has a valency of 4 so this means that 4 hydrogens could potentially react with it (note this is the lightest solution for silicon and hydrogen). This would give it a molecular weight of 32. Well this is the same as an Oxygen molecular weight so we can just use the results of that. We know that Oxygen doesn't easily excape into space (or we would have a hard time breathing ), so if this was a product of the reaction, then it would not easily leave Earth. We should see lots of Silicon/Hydrogen molecules hanging around. But we don't. Pretty much all the Hydrogen we can find is as part of Water (and we have already acounted for the amount of Hydrogen production from water by UV light). So as you can see, if there were enough Hydrogen within the Earth reacting to produce the Lava we see, then we should clearly see much more of it on the surface. But as I said, the amount of hydrogen found on the surface of the Earth is quite small (water included) Considdering it costitute the vast majority of the matter that makes up the Universe. So if there is a lot of Hydrogen reacting with the Mantle and producing Lava (that is the Hydrogen must be forming chemical bonds with the surounding rocks to produce the heat necessary), then where is it all? I too am willing to considder alternatives, but this does not mean that I instantly believe ayn alternative that comes along. Like scientists, I requier that any alternative must still be physically possible.

It is free for people in America only. As I am in Australia I can't watch it (or at least that is what the web site says).

Maybe you conclusions are correct for the TV show, but remember that TV show was heavily edited to make it entertaining. Their first concerns were not scientific accuracy (or even the accuracy of the scientists behaviours). Their first concerns were to make the show entertaining. Conflict is entertaining. It is at the core of all drama. Basing your oppinions of evolution on the presentation of a TV show is very likely to steer you completely wrong. It is quite likely that the producers of the TV show exagerated the conflict and presented it like they were really having a go at each other. Remember, Nova is a TV show primarily in the business of Entertainment (if they can get some educational things in there then that is a bonus). But lets look at this in a different light: Some people who believe that the bible should be taken litterally, and ther are some people who, although they believe just as strongly in God, believe the Bible is alergorical. There can be some fierce debates over this (wars were actually fought over this exact issue). So because of this, does this mean that the Bible must be false? This is the conclusion you are reaching about Evolution. Just because ther is doem debate over it, does this mean that it must therefore be wrong? You will note that the scientists are debating, not over whether Evolution exists, but how it applied in that circumstance. They are debating over two different methods that birds could have evolved from dinosaurs. However, for either method to apply Evolution must exist. Either way you cut it all those scietist agree that birds evolved from Dinosaurs. It is only exactly how it happened that is in dispute, not the fact that it happened. I will admit that I haven't seen the episode of Nova that you are talking about (or at least I don't remember seeing it). But I do know of both sides of that debate (the "ground-up" or "tree-down" origin of flight). The really important thing you need to know is that both could have happened. There could (and most likely) were several species of dinosaur that were evolving feathers (not for flight but for other reasons) and both groups could ahve come to flight in their own way. Which one survived to become birds we might never know, but both are possible and both could have happened at the same time. If they had occurred at the saem time, then there will be confusion in the fossils because there will be fossils that support both options. The only way to resolve it would be if there was some structure that was unique to one species (specifically the one that evolved into birds) that still remains in birds today. This is called "Parallel Evolution" and is a well documented phenomina (not only that it was predicted and then confirmed by observation). It is hard to do an experiemnt with evolution. Evolution requiers random mutations (along with non random selection). This makes it practically impossible to repeat an observation (that one creature can evolve into another). However! You can look at an organism and compare it to another and then try to work out what an organism that could be a common decendant to them might look like (remember those random mutations, they mean we can't always be exactly sure of the fine details). However, when the fossil record turns up something that is like a common ancestor, then it supports the "theory" that both organisms share a common ancestor. This theory is not a geuss. It is a conclusion reached by looking at closely related organisms (one that we know have decened from each other like dogs and wolves), and detailed studdies of their anatomies. It also look at observations on how fossils change over time. Sure looking back at Dinosaur fossils this way has a lot of gaps and so is not very useful for this baseline observation and data. However, there are fossils that are much more recent and are complete enough for us to use to track changes over time. The Horse is one, so are Whales, Manatees, and a host of other recent fossils. Form these we can get a sense of how animals can change due to mutations. More recently genetics has given us a better insight into how mutations effect organisms and to what extent these could show up in the fossil record. Putting all this together there is only one inescapable conclusion: Evolution happens. Even if we disagree on the finer points. So is evolution based on "Drawing conclusions from limited data." Yes, in the broard sense, but (and it is a big one) by rejecting claims that do not fit what is known and analysing the claims and data presented we can reduce the margin of error significally. Also as time goes on we are filling in these gaps and they are confirming much of what was hypothesised. Evolution as it stands today is not complete. But it matches all the data, so it is the best we have. Any future theory must explain what evolution explains, so that future theory will likely just be a refinement of evolutionary theory (and still probably called evolutionary theory). Science is not just "Testing". Testing is just the stage when you try to disprove an existing theory. Peer review is actually a form of "Testing". If you have made a mistiake in your logic, then peer review will test that you have all your logic correct. Part of Testing is working out what experiment to do. SO here we have two different Theories about the origin of Bird flight: Ground Up or Tree Down. The discussion that are being engaged in at the moment (including what that Nova program was supposedly documenting) is what indicators will we find that support either theory. Yes, there has been no testing, but if testing had been done then we would not have this disagreement over the two theories, we would know which one didn't match the data. What you are seeing is Science in action! . Yes! Believe it or not, science is not an instaintainious process. It takes time and sometimes it take a lot of time. In the case of fossils we have to wait untill someone finds one, so it can take a long time and may neveer be resolved at all in the case that no fossil is ever found that conclusivly answers the question. this is why such debates and disagreements are needed. The force the other parties to search for as many things as possible that will either confirm or disprove their theory or the other scientists. Hang on, did I understand this correctly? Are you saying that the people on this Nova program were not scientists? And are you claiming that because these non scientists were not doing science, then this disproves evolution?

Dispute, and argument are necessary for the scientific method. The scientific method works because one Scientis proposes an explaination of a regular phenomina and other try to disprove that explaination (please note that I am deliberately avoiding the term "Theory" as many non scientists do not use the word in the same way that scientists do - "theory" is a technical term in science and does not mean "a guess"). You are at once criticising scientists becauase they are engaging in this aspect of the scientific method (and calling it unscientific), and then simultainiously claiming that they should better follow the scientific method. It is a bit like saying: "I want you to walk, but you can't move your feet." You are saying: "I want you to use the scientific method, but you can't attempt to disprove someone else's therory." Science works like this: One scientist says: "I think it works this way" and another scientist saying "I think it works this other way". they they get together and argue about it and build an experiemnt that can see which scientist is more correct. Debate and argument is essential! Yes, sometimes conclusions are not directly or immediately testable. So scientists will discuss and argue about the toipc looking for mistakes in the other's explainations (theory). They will analyse not only the conclusions, but the data and observations that the scientists used to reach those conclusions. They will also look for bias in the scientists (it is not an attempt to discredit the scientist, but an attempt to eliminate wishfull thinking and other common errors). FOr this you claim that they are questioning the other's motives, and not following the scientific method. Well, in absences of being able to have a direct and immediate experiment to test a theory, this is the only method open to them. However, what can happen is that in the future experiments able to test the theory become available (due to advances in technology - due to science and the scientific method) and then the issue can be resolved. But do not mistake the (sometimes passionate) debate and disagreement as the scientist not using the scientific method. Let me say again: The scientific method uses debate and disagreement to aid its advancement. So if scientists are in disagreement, then you can rest assured that science is being done.

Ok, lets look at the cetrifugal (really centripital) forces and compare them to gravity. Now, if the Earth formed from a collection of dust and gasses (like current theory and observations indicate), then for this to occure, then gravity must be greater than the centrpitial (centrifugal) force. If the centripital force was greater, then it would have prevented the gas and dust from clumping. But, as we know a spinning object rotates faster as you make it smaller (the angual momentum has to be conserved). This is seen with iceskaters. However, if at any point in this process the centripital forces equals the gravitational force, this contraction will halt (as the forces balance out the inward pull of gravity will be exactly matched by the outward "push" from the rotation. But if the centripital forces ever exceed the gravitational forces, then the whole thing will start to expand (fly away from each other). However,as it expands, the centripital forces will be reduced and gravity might take over again. So we have 3 scenarios here. 1) Gravity is Stronger than the centripital forces and the whole thing collapse. This would make the heavier elements move towards the centre. This is the scenario accepted by current scientific theory. 2) Gravity and Centripital forces exactly cancel. The result of which is that there would be an even distribution of elemnts. As the forces cancel, we can assume that it would be like micro gravity. In fact, this is exactly the situation needed to maintain a stable orbit around the Earth. If this was the situation, then we would not be experiencing any gravity on the surface of the Earth. 3) Centripital Forces exceed the Gravitational Force. In this scenario lighter elements would move towards the centre and the Heavier elements would move towards the outside. This is the scenario of the Hydrogen core proposition. However, Centripital forces exceed Gravity. This means that we would be flung out, the Pull of gravity would have to be less than the the Centripital Forces (or we would be in scenario 2 which doesn't allow for a Hydrogen core). We would not be on the surface of the Earth, but instead be flung off it. Actually you can examine this in your car (get someone else to drive, don't try this is you are the driver ) with a really simple experiment. 1) Get a Helium filled balloon and Makr it with a "He" (for Helium). 2) Get a Balloon and fill it up with air and Makr it with "Air". You will notice that the Helium balloon will float and the air filled one will sink. 3) Attach the balloons by string to the inside of the car (in the back seats for saftey so it doesn't disturb the driver). 4) Watch the balloons as the driver goes around corners. When the car goes around corners, the He balloon will move away from wher the forces seem to be pushing you (in this case the centripital force) where as the Air filled balloon will move in the same direction as the force. The reason for this is density. As you go around a corner in a car, all the atoms within that car experience the same forces, includeing the ones in the air inside the car. Because it is inertia that is causeing the percieved outwards push, the heavier atoms and molecules will be "pushed" harder and end up onthe outside. Where as the lighter one will not be able to mvoe into the area occupied by the heavier one. As Helium is lighter than Air, it ca't move towards the outside and so is forced towards the inside. The Air filled balloon is heavier (as Air + the Runnber of the balloon is heavier than just Air it's self) will be pushed towards the outside. Now with the Earth there are only 2 forces we are considdering here. Centripital forces caused by rotation and Gravity. Because of this, there are only 3 possible scenarios (as I stated above) and only one of them provides a stable structure, that is the one where Gravity dominates (which leads to a iron core rather than a hydrogen core). So even if the Earth rotated fast enough in the past to be a "disk shape", at some point gravity must have exceeded the centripital force or the surface of the Earth would either be flung off before life had even the chance to start (and therefore we wouldn't be here), or there would be an exact ballance between Gravity and the Centripital forces and the surface of the Earth would essentially be "in orbit" around it's self (and with no gravity to hold an atmosphere we would have trouble breathing, not to mention that jumping would send us flying off into interplanetary space ). Actually, if the Earht is a sphere now and was disk like in the past, then Gravity must have dominated or it would not have been able to go from a Disk to a sphere at all as the disk represents a ballance between forces and to shift it from one to the other requiers some kind of imballance (gravity dominating - and if gravity dominates we end up with an iron core). Sorry, none of your post actually has any supporting evidence for an Earth with a Hydrogen core. The laws of physics (arrived at through observation and testing) just don't permit it to occur (and if you are going to abandon the laws of physics, then that is a whole something else). The Universe just does not work that way.

Not it is not an assuption. Based on the known mass and size of the Earth (and therefore it's density) we can determine quite accurately what the density of the Earth is. As we know the density, then we can work out what posible substances make up the core (Nickel and Iron). Looking at the Sismic data we can determine whether the insides of the Earth are liquid or solid (which turns out that there is a liquid outer core). So, we know that the core is mostly made up of liquid iron. We also know the metling point of iron (whichis really hot) and how this metling point is effected by pressure (it increases with pressure). So based on these Observations, we know that for a liquid iron core to exist, the temperatures must be very high. It is not an assuption at all. It has been inferred through observation and (extensivly tested and confirmed) theory. So when the correct scientif method is applied to new data and old ideas are thrown out because they don't match the observations. This is psudo science? In science if observational data contradicts a theory, then that theory is revised or if the new data shows that the theory is completely wrong, it is thrown out. What occured was that one theory about the Earth's core was presented based on the data that they had at the time. When new data was aquiered that showed that the theory was wrong, they revised the theory. First you want science to change to accept your theory because you think you have data that contredict the current theory, but then you present evidence where science has done this in the past, and then you criticise it for doing so! So do you or doe you not want science to change in light of new observational data?

What you must remember is that a TV show has only around 1 hour, but the scientists involved in these theories have spent lifetimes gathering data, analising it, and developing their explainations. Trying to condense all thiat into a 60 munite show that is intended to entertain the watchers first is going to have to leave something out. Just because a TV show can't explain an extremely complex and involved idea along with centruies of collected data in 60 minutes does not mean that the concepts the show was trying to get across is necessarily wrong or incomplete (or just geussed at). If there is a fossilised feather, then you can conclude that there were feathers around. The scientists, when they look at the "bare details frozen in rock", the are doing no more than this. Of course they are looking at much more than just "feathers". If a fossil has a bone structure (with feathers) that is the same (or similar) to the wing and other flight structures (the keel bone and the wish bone) of flighted birds, then you can conclude that flight was possible (as the keel bone is large because that is where the muscles that power the wings are attached to). So if you find a fossil that has a large keel bone, wish bone and feathers, but has a reptilian head and tail, then this would be something that is not quite a bird (it has feathers) and is not quite a reptile. It would infact be something inbetween. A missing link if you will. Well they have several fossils like this (Archaeopteryx is one). Remember, even if all they had was a single fossil, it is absolute proof that that organism actually existsed. And they have several of them covering several differnet species (some closer to being a reptile and some closer to being a bird). This is just a barely disguised "God of the Gaps" argument (actually it is just an attempt to create support for it). When scientist showed that the skeletal structure of several dinosaur species (the Therapods) were very similar to that of Birds, creationists jumped up and said: "But where is the fossil that is half way between Dinosaurs and Birds!". Scientists agreed and said that if their theories are correct then there will be a species that existed that is not quite a dinosaur and not quite a bird. Well a few years later the Archaeopteryx fossil was discovered and this Observation supported the scientits theories (and gave the answer tha tthe creationists were asking for). But now the creationists are asking for fossils somewhere between Archaeopteryx and Dinosaurs (or Birds). It is the same God of the Gaps argument all over again. Where will the God of the Gaps stop? The fossil record is incomplete. Not all animals get fossilised. In fact fossilisation is extremely rare, so not all species get even 1 fossil to their name. The original arguemnt by creationists has been answered. We have fossils that show a link between Dinosaurs and Birds. What we don't have is the set of fossils that allow us to create a flip book showing exactly how dinosaurs actually achieved flight. But we do know it occured because of Archaeopteryx. When the creationists ask: "But show us the fossil of the creature that shows how Dinosaurs achieved flight", what they are really asking is: "Show us the fossil that lies exactly halfway between Dinosurs and Archaeopteryx". Inother words there is a gap, so God must have filled it. Now that was the God of the Gaps dismissed on Scietific ground, how about Religious grounds? Well, for you to claim that God did or Did not do something is skirting around blasphemy. In effect, you are passing Judgement on God. Doesn't it say in the Bible: "Judge not least you will be Judged yourself?" And passing that judgement on God would be seen as blasphemy. But, let us assume that you are right and that God did create everything as it is. Why then did God decide to place fossil that would make us doubt His word. It can't be because he is testing our faith, He is supposed to be all knowing so he already knows our faith and so he would not need to test it. God is also supposed to be benevolent and love us. But by placing fossils it casts doubt on His existance and leads many to reject Him as false. But He punishes us for this rejection (with ETERNAL torture ). Does that sound like someone who loves you? What if this was another person that did this to you. What if they deliberatly planted evidence that would lead you into one action, and then when you took that action they tortured you for taking that action? Would you considder that person to love you, would you considder them benevolent?

Actually the Mass of the Earth is irrelevent when considdering it's orbit around the Sun (as the extra force from the mass of the Earth is exactly mached by the inertia of that same mass). However, if the Mass of the Earht weas different then it would effect the orbits of the Moon and Satalites around the Earth. For the satalites in the GPS system, we have to know their orbits extremely accurately. Therefore we need to know very prcicely the Mass of the Earth. To have the orbitial periods for the satalites we have means that the Earth must have a certain mass, and undern known physics, the only way this can be achieved is if we have a core of a certain size made of iron. If the core was made of metalic hydrogen, then it would be a different mass, or if that hydrogen was a gass, it would also be a different mass which would mean that the orbits of the satalites would be different. There is a really good reason for this: The current scientific "Dogma" was derived from observation. So essentiually what you are saying is that current observations match past observations. That is in no way suprising at all . The current "Dogma" is just a (mathematical) descrition of those past observations. The very fact that the mathematical descritions of those past observations allow us to predict current (and future) observations is simply just conformation that those descriptions are accurate. For all you know maybe, but based on observation (orbit of the moon and satalites, chemistry and how atoms combine and the forces involed): There is no way that the centre of the Earth can be made of Hydrogen (as far as science knows). Here are the aguments straight up: 1) The orbits of the Moon and Satalites place a strict limit on the Mass of the Earth. If the Mass of the Earth was different, then the orbital periods would also be different. So working backwards from the Observed orbital periods, you can determin the exact mass of the Earth. 2) Chemistry and Atomic Physics (how atoms behave in certain conditions) means we can work out how various elements will behave in situations like at the centre of the Earth. We can calculate densities at various temperatures and pressures and also work out the Mass that these would have. We have machiens that can create massive pressures (diamond anvils, laser traps, etc) and temperatures so we know how these elements behave in these circumstances. 3) Sizemic data allows us to work out what materials are actually within the Earth. As vibrations caused by earthquakes travel through the Earth (they not only travel on the surface but also travel through the core too), we can measure how long these waves take to travel (giving us a density measurement) and how they are distorted (giving us data about what the material actually is and whether it is a solid, liquid or gas). Useing the information from (2) and (3) we can quite accurately work out what the centre of the Earth is made from as well as the Density and structure (Solid, Liquid or Gas). Using the Information from (1) we can also place a limit as to what the mass of the whole thing and it can act like a double check of our conclusions form (2) and (3). All three together means that the core of the Earth must consist of a solid iron inner core surounded by a liqud iron outer core followed by a semiliquid mantle and finally a solid crust. For the Observations made in (1), (2) and (3), this is the only way it can be.

The only stupid questions are the ones asked to annoy others, so this is not a stupid question at all. Ok, lets think about the term "Centre of Mass". Actually, it reall shouold be called the centre of the mass distribution, or the Average centre of mass. You are thinking of the geometrical centre. Think of the centre of mass like the balance point. If you were to place the whole system on a needle point, at which spot would the whole thing balance? This would be the centre of mass. Imagine a seesaw with an adult on the end and a child on the other end. To balance the seesaw we would need to put the support close to the adult. This would also be the centre of mass of the adult + child + seesaw system. Actually it is a bit more complex than being just like this seesaw. The seesaw is only looking at the centre of mass in just 1 dimension (the one between the adult and the child along the length of the seesaw. To find the true centre of mass you have to do so in 3 dimensions. But it is no harder than the seesaw example, it is just that you have to do it 3 times instead of just once. If you are swinging a weight on a piece of string around your head, then the centre of mass of that system (You + weight + string) would be quite close to you. When the Olymipcs roll around, have a look a the Hammer throwing. These Hammers weigh quite a bit and as the Thrower swings it around, they must swing it around the centre of mass (otherwise either them or the hammer or both would go spiralling off). Because the Hammer is so heavy (massive) it centeew of mass lies a littel bit outside the Throwers body and you can see them actually moving around theis centre of mass. I hope this helps.

Wehn I was at collage (years ago) I got into a conversation with a friend who was a creationist. They were going on about this "Missingl link" thing. They kept saying that there was not "intermediate" fossils proving that dinosaurs evolved into birds. When I brought up the Archaeopteryx as the "missing link", then then said that just made the problem for evolution wors as now they had to produce the missing liks for the two more gaps. If you think aobut it, it is a bit like Zeno's Paradox. The idea behind this is that if you fire an arrow at a tortise, then the arrow must first cover half the distance to the tortise and in that time the tortise has move on a bit, then it must cover half that distance and the tortise move on further, and so on. There is alwayse a "Half" distance the arrow has to cover giving the tortise more time to move and so can never reach the tortise. It is the same problem with the "God fo the Gaps" argument. You will alsways be able to argue that there is a gap in the fossil record that needs to be explained. This kind of argument can not be used to prove one side or the other, which means that anybody using it to prove their side of the debate is really just throwing a red herring (logical fallacy) at you. They are trying to distract you from the actual issue at hand.

Well if you had the centre of mass below the location where the replusion is taking place, then it would not flip as easy. But, when someone got on, then this would effectivly raise the centre of mass and the board would flip. An onboard computer that could vary the replusion force between the onboard magnet and the rink (electro magnets, or even just changing the angle of them?) could allow for an automatic stability control system. As a hypothetical (for safty reasons), could a neuclear battery (maybe a heat exchanger system warmed by radioactive decay) generate enough electricity to power a series of electro magnets (or even type of vectored thrust engine)?

What you need is a way of storing a lot of energy in a small space. then you need to create something that can transfer this stored energy into kinetic energy in a reaction mass (most likely a gas of some type, whether exhaust as in a jet or rocket engine or air as in a propller). The amount of thrust you get from pushing this reaction mass will need to exceed the force of gravity pulling down The Board, the Rider, The Engine and the Fuel. You will also need to have some means of forward motion (it could jsut be your legs ) and some method of stabilization (attitude control thrusters). I would also recomend a computer system to provide the stabilization as it can react far faster than a human. You might think aobut the stabilization systems on the Segway scooter as a good starting spot. However, this stabilization computer will also take up weight (more thrust, fuel and more powerful engines needed, which in turn require more thrust, fuel and engine power). In other words, you have a lot of technical chalenges.

It is because of the way that science works. First comes Observation: This is when some regular phenomina is seen. Next is Hypothisys: This is when people (scientists) start trying to explain what is going on in the observed regular phenomina. Then there is Theory: this is when the hypothisis are tested and one or more are shown to describe the phenomina and make testable predictions about them. They give a working model for the phenomina and related phenomina. This is where most of our understanding about the Universe is. Theory doesn't mean "a good/educated geuess" as it does in every day speach (and this is why a lot of people try to us ethe non technical term as an argument against something described by the technical term). Finally we come to Law: This is just a collective noun (group name) for all the Theories that have no compeating theories and have lasted through years and years (there is not specific time but it is usually many decades) of testing without needing revision. This is why there are no recent "Laws" as they take many decades (sometimes hunderds of years) to undergo the thorough testing needed. All "Laws", however are still theories in that if someone produces an observation (and undergoes all of what I just described above) that contradict the "Law" then the Law will then have to be revised. All those hurdels that an observation has to undergo to be accepted is not because scientist are opposed to change, or worried about being prooved wrong. It is a quality control mechanism that filters out descritions of the Universe that don't actually describe what the Universe is like. A scientist can becomes famous simple because their idea was proved wrong as in the case of Michelson and Morely and the Ether (they believed that the Ether existed and performed an experiment to attempt to prove it's existance, but the experiment was a complete failure in that it conclusivle proved that the Ether dind't actually exist - and that is what they are famous for, proving that their theory was wrong ).

Electrons and other particles don't actually exist as solid little balls flying around in space. Many people think of these things like very tiny marbles. They are not like that at all. All our experiences throughout our lifetimes do not have anything similar to what they really are. The clostest (and still quite wrong) is a Cotton Ball. Here is how weird it is: Imagine you have a cotton ball that expands (gets bigger) at the speed of light. Then when anything (usually photons/light) interacts with that cotton ball, then there the cotton ball "collapse" into a small cotton ball at the point where they interact. As I siad, weird... Again, this is only an analogy (that is a story using thing we have experienced to explain, although not necessarily extremely accurate, something we don't quite understand) and is not exactly how it really works. Now certain thing can effect that cotton ball's shape (other cotton balls for one, even if they don't actually interact and collapse down). One of which is being constrained by electric attraction. If we have a cotton ball that is supposed to be like an electron, and another that is like a proton, then the two will be electrically attracted. There are also other forces that repell them (stop them occuping the same space - like other electron cotton balls, and suprisingly even it's self). If the speed of the electron cotton ball and it's proximity to the proton cotton ball and the net results of the other forces are just ballanced, then the electron cotton ball is trapped around the proton cotton ball in what we call a shell. The repulsion between various electron cotton balls and their attraction to the proton cotton balls means that only a certain number can occupy certain "shells" in the atom. Now remember how I was talking about how these cotton balls spread out as time goes on, well because they are constrained to the "shell" by the various forces acting on it, the shape of the spreading out can only be within that shell. So, untill something (usually photons/light) interacts with the electron cotton ball, it spreads itself aout around the shell. This is the "cloud" that they are talking aobut. The electron (cotton ball) is not orbiting the proton (cotton balls) like a planet, but is spreading itself our around it like a cotton ball would if you streched it out (and then squashed it into shape). Now, as I was explaining erlier, when those cotton balls interact with something (scientist call this observation, but it doesn't actually require someone actually looking at it), they collapse down into the small version. If we look a the volume that such an effect would encompase if it were visible to the eye, then the number of potential interactions is massive. So the likely hood of such an effect being large enough to be visible to the naked eye is so remote that even if the Universe existed for a billion times the length it has already, then you would still not expect it to have occured with any piece of matter in the entire universe. Inother words, it might randomly occur, but don't count on it. However... It is posible for certain situations to occur that will greatly increase the chances of such an event occurring. These situations are the experiements that scientists are doing with quantum mechanics. The functioning of many modern devices actually rely on creating this kind of effect in a large scale. Take something so common that most of us wouldn't look at it twice: The Laser. You have one in your CD or DVD player, you might even have one on a key chain (I do ). This requiers a very special situation where all the electsons in the material used to create the laser (most that you will encounter are made from soild crystals of silicon dioxide with a few other atoms specifically selected so that it behaves the way it is supposed to) act as if they are the same electron. That is their "cotton ball clouds" overlap without interacting. To make the laser work, you need to then introduce somthing that interacts with the electrons and causes a very specific cascade of interactions. They usually use light as the thing that they use to start the interaction cascade, and this give the LASER it's name: Light Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radiation. So yes, such things are visible in the everyday world and they do exist in man made stuff.

Charge (in terms of a battery) is the amount of energy contained by the imbalance between the two sides of the battery. One side is trying to draw electrons to it (the positive or "+" side) and the other is trying to push electrons away form it (the negative or "-" side).