Edtharan

Or Sodium Chloride?

I think the Grey goo scenario is over-hyped. The main problem I see is: What is powering all these nano robots? They might use solar, but the big problem with that is the nanorobots would not have a very long "battery" life. If you at the nano scale, there is only so much enegy you can store. I think most nano technology will have to be permenemtly attached to some kind of power system external to the "nanobot", or have a power system that is constantly available to them (whatever form that ends up taking). I think the real danger from Nonotechnology, is their toxicity. They are finding that some materials which are pretty much harmless to us in marcosizes can be toxic to us when made into a nanoscale product. Yes, we have been manufacturing at the nano scale for a while now. But I think murulidhara ment manufacturing and devices created with nano materials (but again, we have been useing these for a little while now too).

It is actually advantagoius in an evolutionary sense. If we needed "proof" tha that movement in the grass was a lion and not the wind, then we would all just be so much lion snacks. However, if we can "jump to the conclusion" that is ti a lion nad not the wind, theneven if it is the wind, we haven't lost much. If it is a lion, we have just saved our own life. Also, if we are told that a plant is poisionous, then if we had to find "proof" and eat it (or get someone else to eat it), then we would not likelt survive very long. So accepting what someone tells us (especially in childhood) becomes a good survival instinct. IF we thiink that information will aid our survival, then we are more willing to accept it. The "Appeal to Emotion" is a Logical Fallacy, but it is one of the strongest fallacies and the easiest to make.

Also our eyes are not very good at picking up colours in low light conditions. When looking at a nebula with the naked eye, you are not getting much light so any colours that are there we can't usually see. Many of the "Real Colour" (as opposed to the false colour images), make adjustments for the poor abilities of our eyes and tweak the colours that are there so that we can see them. One way that they can do this is by taking 3 different images. The first with a Red filter, the Second with a Green filter and the Last with a Blue filter. They then re-composite (it used to be photogrammatically, but now days they use digital image manipulation) adjusting the strengths of them to match what our eyes can see, and also changing the ratios between the colours strengths as our eyes don't see all frequencies equally. Basically, they make adjustments so that when we look at the image, it would be as if our eyes were perfect image receivers looking at the nebula through a telescope.

If you read that article it is not talking about that the creation of Matter/Antimatter created the large magnetic fields, but ha the large magnetic fields (from the electro-magnetic waves that make up the photons). Also, the Dynamo effect is well understood. If you have a conducting fluid (and liqud Iron is conductive) and swirl it around and apply a small initial magnetic field (which can disappear later), it will generate a larger magnetic field. Now, because the swirling Iron in the Earth is not just going around in an equatorial direction, but it is also moving up and down (due to convection), it means that the field lines of the magnetic field created from the dynamo can become twisted. This will cause the "poles" to shift over time and even reverse themselves. It will also not create a uniform field, some pats will be weaker and some parts will be stronger, even going so far as to have a "North" part in the South (or south in the north). All these have been measured in the Earth's magnetic field, there is good evidence for the "pole swapping" in the ridge lines as magnetic material is deposited and solidifies. While it is liquid the magnetic material lines up with the Earth's current magnetic poles, and then when it solidify it remains in that state regardless of whether or not the Earth's filed changes. Looking at these deposits along the ridges, we can see times where the Earth's field was in a different position than it is today, and even places where it has reversed. Actually, Earth is not the only solid body in the solar system with a strong magnetic field. Several of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn also show strong magnetic fields. An example is Europa, which is believed to contain a liquid salt water ocean under it's icy crust shows a strong magnetic field (salt water also conducts electricity). Yes, Mercury does not have a strong magnetic filed, but then it doesn't seem to have a liquid conducting core, so this supports the Dynamo theory of the magnetic field as according the the Dynamo theory, a planet (or moon) needs to have a liquid conductive layer to create this field as as Mercury doesn't have this and also doesn't have a strong field it fits the predictions of the theory. The plates don't just keep moving in the same directions. If the convection currents that are driving them weaken or disappear, or if a new current starts up, then this creates a new balance of forces on the plate. this will mean that it could start moving in another direction. Also, plates can break and join up, so the plates we have today don't necessarily mean that these were the same plates we had in the past. What was one land mass might split into two. In fact we have evidence of this occuring at the moment. In Africa there is a place where the plate seems to be splitting apart. It is called the Great Rift Valley. So, because the convection currents inside the Mantle are not static, and change over time, they come and go. They create hot spots, and cold spots. They change direction and generally move. As the Plates are pushed around by these convection currents, this then causes changes in how the plates move too. When a new hot spot forms, then it can weaken the crust, and the forces from mantle can then cause the crust to break and a new rift forms at that point. Actually, I have seen this when making custard. When you boil custard on the stove, it can develop a skin (a crust). Breaking this skin on one place will allow the skin to split further, and the convection currents of the boiling custard underneath can cause the skin to move away form the hole. Over time new skin can form where the hole is. Sorry . My keyboard is mucking up a bit (I think I need a new one) and it didn't register the "Copy" command I gave it when copying you quite and when I pasted it I didn't check to make sure that what I though I copied is what I pasted. But you were right in what I meant to post, thanks.

If you read that article it is not talking about that the creation of Matter/Antimatter created the large magnetic fields, but ha the large magnetic fields (from the electro-magnetic waves that make up the photons). Also, the Dynamo effect is well understood. If you have a conducting fluid (and liqud Iron is conductive) and swirl it around and apply a small initial magnetic field (which can disappear later), it will generate a larger magnetic field. Now, because the swirling Iron in the Earth is not just going around in an equatorial direction, but it is also moving up and down (due to convection), it means that the field lines of the magnetic field created from the dynamo can become twisted. This will cause the "poles" to shift over time and even reverse themselves. It will also not create a uniform field, some pats will be weaker and some parts will be stronger, even going so far as to have a "North" part in the South (or south in the north). All these have been measured in the Earth's magnetic field, there is good evidence for the "pole swapping" in the ridge lines as magnetic material is deposited and solidifies. While it is liquid the magnetic material lines up with the Earth's current magnetic poles, and then when it solidify it remains in that state regardless of whether or not the Earth's filed changes. Looking at these deposits along the ridges, we can see times where the Earth's field was in a different position than it is today, and even places where it has reversed. Actually, Earth is not the only solid body in the solar system with a strong magnetic field. Several of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn also show strong magnetic fields. An example is Europa, which is believed to contain a liquid salt water ocean under it's icy crust shows a strong magnetic field (salt water also conducts electricity). Yes, Mercury does not have a strong magnetic filed, but then it doesn't seem to have a liquid conducting core, so this supports the Dynamo theory of the magnetic field as according the the Dynamo theory, a planet (or moon) needs to have a liquid conductive layer to create this field as as Mercury doesn't have this and also doesn't have a strong field it fits the predictions of the theory. The plates don't just keep moving in the same directions. If the convection currents that are driving them weaken or disappear, or if a new current starts up, then this creates a new balance of forces on the plate. this will mean that it could start moving in another direction. Also, plates can break and join up, so the plates we have today don't necessarily mean that these were the same plates we had in the past. What was one land mass might split into two. In fact we have evidence of this occuring at the moment. In Africa there is a place where the plate seems to be splitting apart. It is called the Great Rift Valley. So, because the convection currents inside the Mantle are not static, and change over time, they come and go. They create hot spots, and cold spots. They change direction and generally move. As the Plates are pushed around by these convection currents, this then causes changes in how the plates move too. When a new hot spot forms, then it can weaken the crust, and the forces from mantle can then cause the crust to break and a new rift forms at that point. Actually, I have seen this when making custard. When you boil custard on the stove, it can develop a skin (a crust). Breaking this skin on one place will allow the skin to split further, and the convection currents of the boiling custard underneath can cause the skin to move away form the hole. Over time new skin can form where the hole is.

What is occuring here is: In light on modern knowledge, people are trying to retroactively interpret what the bible means. Now the Bible says that God is all powerful. That means that there is nothing beyond His ability to do. So, He could input knowledge into the minds of people. In fact many people believe that God does this all the time. Ok, so God can directly give someone information and understanding of that information. This would jot violate free will, as this is just information and understanding. So, God could input the understanding of aeroplanes into the mind of anyone at any time, they might use different words, or whatever, but He could do this. The understanding that He could give to these people would not allow them to mistake a "Plane" for a "Bird". Also, if the writer had this kind of knowledge, then they could easily have written a description of it that would not leave any mistake as to what it is. eg: A device made by people that allows them to fly like a bird. The key words in this are " made by people" and "device". By including these words, then it makes it very clear that what is being talked about is not an animal and that it was made by humans. This would not be beyond the power of an Omnipotent God. So either God chose not to give an understanding of the prophecy, God is not all powerful and could not give an understanding, or God does not exist as stated in the Bible. If either of the last two options are true, then it really puts doubt on the validity of the Bible. If the first it true, then God is actively trying to hide Himself. If God is actively trying to hide Himself, then this raises a lot of Moral and Ethical doubts about God. Well, in the Bible it also says that God is Omniscient, that is knows everything, so He would not need to put "things to create non-believers of him" as He would already know this without putting these things there. Also, if God is actively trying to create non believers, then I question His morality. He punishes non believers by sending them to eternal torture in Hell. Think about this. If God is placing things in the world to trick me into thinking that He doesn't exist, and then torturing me for an infinite amount of time just because I believe His lies. What does that make Him? Would you consider that Ethical? When I was younger, I actually though about becoming a priest. But because of these things that you say that God has placed to make people disbelieve in Him, I could not accept what the Bible said and turned away from religion. So if I don't go to Heaven and therefore get tortured eternally, then it is completely God's fault as He placed the things that made me reject religion. I agree that this is a Science website, but it is also a debate, and this has turned into a debate about the validity of science as compared to the validity of religion. Religion by its self has no place here, but this is not just a purely religious discussion. Science is based on observing patterns. So, even if God is all powerful, there are bound to be patterns (like the deserving going to Heaven and the non deserving going to Hell). Although we can not directly observe this, there are many fields of science that we have to use written words from some observers (or testimonials form observers) and use these to determine the most likely event. In Archaeology this is used quite often to propose a theory (which later has to be tested of course). Now if God is in any way consistent, He creates patterns. Without this consistency, then all His actions would be essentially random and therefore there would be no reason to have faith in Him (fear maybe, but not worship). We are supposed to believe in God and have Faith in God to be allowed to enter Heaven. So this denotes that there must be some pattern to God's behaviour, people are not arbitrarily selected to enter Heaven. So, even if God is all powerful and can break the laws of physics, He must be consistent and through these consistencies we can determine patterns and from these patterns we can formulate "Theories" about His actions. In that it is like science and religion can be analysed with logic. Which makes these kinds of discussions relevant to the pseudo-science part of this forum at least (in my opinion:rolleyes: ).

Ok, here is a little experiment for you to try: 1) Grab 2 pieces of paper. 2) Place them flat on a desk next to each other so they are not overlapping. 3) Gently push them together. One of 2 things will occur, either they will be pushed up (like a mountain range), or one will slip under the other (subduction). So, here we have two objects of equal mass, and there is even a solid layer under them (unlike the Earth) so how could one of these pieces of paper slide under the other? Actually, it is quite simple. THe two pieces of paper are not identical, there are slight variations in them (thickness and the edge), also no matter how hard you try, you can not push them with an identical force (maybe you are pushing down on one harder, the positions of your fingers, you might have twisted one, and so on). Like the surface of the Earth, these two pieces of paper will not meet perfectly and so these tiny differences will cause one to be pushed up faster than the other and one will slide underneath. Maybe where two plates meet, one might be a little thicker than the other and so be heavier and so would be more likely to be pushed downwards, maybe there didn't meet perfectly, or that one of the plates shattered slightly, who knows. There are many different reasons that a plate might get pushed down, but all of the are possible. Ok, here is where it gets a little complex (so bear with me). We know that the Earth has a molten core. Vibrations created by Earth quakes travel through the core of the Earth and can be detected by highly sensitive equipment. When these vibrations pass through a solid, then they travel faster, when they pass through a liquid, they travel slower. Also, the density of the material changes the way these vibrations behave. So, using this they can analyse what the centre of the Earth is made of and whether it is a liquid or solid. It turns out that it has a Inner Core of solid Iron and then a Outer Core of liquid Iron. Now, when you heat something up it generally expands, and when you cool it it contracts. So if you have the same amount of mass and you heat it up it becomes less dense and if you cool it down it becomes more dense. With me so far. I know it is coming fast, but there is a lot of things to cover. Ok, so as the liquid Iron in the Outer Core cools, it becomes more dense and sinks. Now, when this Iron cools, the heat can't just disappear, it has to go somewhere. As one part of the Iron cools and sinks, the heat is moved to an other part of the Outer Core. As this part heats up, it will become less dense and rise up. This is convection and it is a well known phenomena. This heat from the Core is transferred to the Mantle, and it also experiences convection. As a part that is heated up is melted and it becomes less dense and so rises. At the surface, this rock release it's heat and cools. At the very surface it completely solidifies (we call these rocks and minerals), but not all of it, most just cools and slowly sinks down into the mantle again to be heated up from the heat released by the Core. So you have some parts of the Mantle moving outwards (up) and some sinking inwards (down). As the liquid mantle moves from a point where it was moving up to where it was moving down, it will drag on any crust (solidified mantle) and drag in in that direction. This is such an easy phenomena to see. Just get a pool and anything that can float. If you move the water underneath the floating object, without touching the object yourself, you can make it move. This is because the water is dragging on the floating object, just like the liquid mantle is dragging on the crust. So the convection currents in the mantle are causing forces on the crust. Now, if there is a place where the crust is a little bit thinner, and either side of it there is a force to drag the crust away from this thin bit, the crust can tear. This is how a rift forms, as the crust splits, this liquid mantle (Magma) can rise up and fill the gap. However, where the opposite happens, where there is a downwards movement of the liquid mantle, this dragging will cause the crust to be pushed together. And, just like the paper, it will either go up (into mountains) or down. If it goes down, then the heat inside the mantle can cause it to melt and then we have another break in the crust where it is being pulled towards the break and downwards into the mantle. One half of the break will usually end up on top and the other will be pushed under (remember the pieces of paper). We now have a subduction zone. He even tries to "explain" how there is enough energy to do this by stating that it is because of "plasma". However, we know (approximately) what the centre of the Earth is made from due to studies from Earthquakes. The way the vibrations from the earth quakes propagate through the Earth, can tell us what it is made from. What we do know is that there is no plasma (ionised gas) in the centre of the Earth. Yes, if all you look at are the ridges, then it will look like the Earth is expanding. However, their shape would be the same if the Earth was expanding, or with tectonics. It is all the subduction zones that invalidate the "Expansion" theory because if the crust can be subducted, then the rate that the crust is being produced at the ridges would have to be far greater than what is measured. The rate of production would have to exceed the rate of subduction (which it doesn't). I generally try to keep an open mind, but when you have evidence to the contrary (the fact that there is subduction zones and the rate of subduction equals the rate of production at the ridges), then it is hard to keep my mind that open. If there was evidence that was in favour of Expansion and disproved tectonics, then I would be more willing to believe it. However, all the evidence presented (dinosaur size actually disproves expansion) either disproves expansion or doesn't disprove tectonics (eg: Sea floor age, shape of the ridges, and so on). As for the Dinosaurs, if the Earth was smaller and matter can be produced (I covered why), then the Earth must have been more dense. This means that the surface gravity must have been stronger than now. From the fossils we can measure the bone sizes, and therefore determine their strength. Remember, gravity drops by the Inverse Square of the distance between the objects. So if you half the radius of the Earth, then the gravity will go up 4 times. Some of the heaviest dinosaurs would have weighed over 100 (possible over 200) tones in today's gravity. If you were to multiply this by 4, then they would have weighed 400 to 800 tons a piece. The bones of the Dinosaurs would have shattered under this load. And during mating, they would have had a lot of the weight of another dinosaur on top of them! . No, if the Earth were smaller, then the Dinosaurs would have been impossible with the physiology (bones) that they had. The fact that the dinosaurs were as big as they were with the bone structures and sizes they had means that the Earth could not have been smaller in the past. Not if the dinosaurs didn't walk around with their legs shattered. . I would hope that you do stick around. I am willing to help you understand why the Earth can't have expanded (just to make my point of view clear ). If you can present evidence that disproves the Tectonic theory and supports the Expansion theory, then I will consider it possible. The reason we want a mechanism for it, is if you don't provide one, then the "goal posts" can be shifted if one mechanisms is disproved. In science, you try to disprove something. If it can't be disproved, then it can progress to being more accepted. To demonstrate: Proposition: Unicorns exist. No matter how hard I look, I can't find Unicorns, but it might be that they are just really good at hiding. So, do Unicorns exist or not? Well, this proposition doesn't help as someone can always just claim that they are really hard to find. Or we could use this: Proposition: Unicorns don't exist. As soon as someone finds a unicorn this proposition is disproved and we can be certain that Unicorns do exist. It allows us to answer the question. If you look at this in the light of the Expanding Earth theory, by not stating how it occurs, you can keep saying that: "Unicorns are good at hiding" and no resolution can occur.

If there were no subduction zones, then this would be true. But, there are known subduction zones around the Earth (Where the Indian plate meets the Eurasian plate - and it is forming the Himalayas as it does so, The Nazca plate and the South American plate and it is forming the Andes, The Pacific plate and the North American plate -Japan and the pacific rim, and so forth). There are plenty of measured subduction zones around the world that completely invalidates his claim. The fact that the crust gets subducted means that you can have one part of the crust at a rift producing more crust, and in another part it can be subducting and removing crust. The result of which is whatever is on that crust will slide away from the rift and towards the subduction zone. That is exactly what plate tectonics is. You don't need to then have an expanding Earth to explain it. If there was an expanding Earth, and we had subduction zones, then you would expect that the rate of plate production would have to be much higher than the rate of subduction. However, measurements taken at these zones do not show that the crust is being produced fast enough to overwhelm the rate of subduction. The rate of subduction matches the rate of production. This means that the surface of the Earth is "Expanding" at the same rate that it is "Shrinking", thus no net expansion is possible. If no net expansion is occuring, then the Earth can not be Expanding. He paint the tectonic theory as a ridiculous picture (without really explaining why it is ridiculous) as an argument against it. This is a logical fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule . Just because he can make it appear ridiculous does not mean that it is. In fact it is just as easy to make his arguments (expanding earth) appear just as ridiculous (Party Balloon anyone?). But notice that no one here has use those kinds of arguments against the Expanding Earth theory. We have shown though other means that it is ridiculous, but we have not made the argument against it: that we can make it appear ridiculous that it must therefore be false. Umm, the reason that there is less of them now is that they have gone into making all the planets... And the reason that there was 21 comets in the Shoemaker-Levi 9 comet that struck Jupiter was because the mass of Jupiter broke the comet into all those pieces due to the tidal forces. Also, that Comet was not an Asteroid. Asteroids are made of mainly Iron and Silicon, Comets are made of Ices, some of which are very volatile and will evaporate as the heat from the sun warms it. Comets can be considered as a loosely bound (but very large) snow ball that has pockets of rapidly expanding gas due to it begin evaporated ices) that is trying to burst out from it. No wonder that the comet shattered into 21 pieces. Actually, some asteroids are not much more than loosely bound gravel. These tend to shatter when they approach a planet (or anything with strong gravity), and fragment into the gravel. We see these as meteor showers and such. So, just because this guy is cherry picking his data (solid meteorites) does not mean that there is not other types. And these other types violate his claims. Again proving him wrong. He is right in that most Meteorites (that is meteors that reach the ground) are mostly solid iron, but the reason that they can reach the ground is because they are solid. All that not so solid space junk does not reach the ground, but just because it doesn't reach the ground does not mean that it is not up there. But, all that aside, how does he go from 21 comets hitting Jupiter to "they were bigger in the past"? Is it just me or is this a really big Non-Sequetur? Man he builds a great Strawman. First, the rocks that make up the surface of the Earth can be recycled, they can be pushed under other crusts and then brought back to the surface (volcanoes), also the lands can be twisted and folded. In fact, if this weren't the case, then all the granite rocks on the surface of the Earth would have to be 4.5 billion years old. But the are not. This proves that either new granite is produced, or that it gets recycled. This means that not all the Granite that is on the surface today had to be there 4.5 billion years ago. In fact, Granite can form from Basalt given the right circumstances (temperature and pressures) and it is well know to do so. So, it is possible that there was no granite 4.5 billion years ago, and all of it was produced later as part of the normal geological processes. The Surface of the Earth did not have to "be coated completely by a 2 – 4 mile crust of light granitic rock". Which completely blows his "Strawman" argument out of the water. Now, even if the Earth was covered with Granites, the movement of the plates would push parts of this Granites together (raising them up as mountains, and subduction would drag some of it underneath the crust to be "recycled" as magma or metamorphosed into other forms of rock. And this explains why granite does not cover the entire surface of the Earth (we have lost some through subduction and the rest has been mashed together in the form of continents). Yes, it can't just get subducted beneath Basaltic rocks as it is too light, but it can be subducted beneath other granitic rocks and this can push it far enough down to melt. Once it is melted, convection currents can then take it deeper into the Earth. So even though it can't be subducted directly beneath Basaltic rock, it can be subducted beneath granitic rock and then melted and drawn deeper into the Earth. Well so much for his conclusions then. Granite can be subducted. Seriously, really? First: In pair production you create a pair of particles. One of which is Matter, the other is Anti Matter. If Antimatter cones into contact with matter, then it will annihilate, destroying the Antimatter and the Matter it comes into contact with releasing energy. Now if this is going on in the centre of the Earth, then we either should see a lot of antimatter flying away form Earth (and would have to explain how it gets the energy to do so where as the matter does not), or the amount of Matter being produced would equal the amount of Antimatter and then the Antimatter and Matter would be annihilated back into energy (thus no increase of matter). Second: It takes a lot of energy for Pair production. E=MC^2 The amount of Energy required fro pair production is equal to the Mass of the Matter multiplied by the Speed of Light squared. And remember, if you are using pair production, you have to make 2 particles (both matter and antimatter). Lets do a back of the envelope calculation: Let us assume that the Earth has twice the volume (hence the mass) that it had at some point in the past. Today it is about 5.9736×10^24 kg (well use 6X10^24 as this is a back of the envelope calculation). So this would mean that half the mass was around 3X10^24 kg. We need to account for the same amount in an increase Now, as the Earth is made up of Matter rather than Antimatter (if it was made up of even a small portion of antimatter then there would literally be an "Earth Shattering Ka-boom"), we will need to produce twice this 3X10^24kg, giving us a total of 6X10^24kg of matter needing to be produced. Hang on, this means that there must have been an equal amount of matter to the current mass of the Earth produced to allow the Earth to double it's size. Ok, I'll let that slide for now as we are interested in the amount of energy involved. Ok, so we have worked out that we need 6X10^24kg of mass to be produced. So we multiply this by the square of the speed of light (300,000km/s X 300,000km/s = 90,000,000,000 km/s). This gives us a value of: 540,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules! Holy batman!

This is a bad use of the word "Relative". It borders on the Equivocation (link wikipedia) logical fallacy. But relativity is part of this universe, so is God subject to the laws of this universe? If He is, then how did He create it? And, if He had to create it within the laws of this universe, then why can't we just use the laws of this universe and apply Occam's Razor and eliminate God?

You are right, there is more going on in an organism than just what the genome describes. But that just adds to the sample space. Even if we just consider the interactions between DNA, with all organisms that have a genome size 100,00 base pairs to 1,000,000 base pairs (as the length of the DNA is also a variable which multiplies the number of potential organisms), then I would doubt that even if you were to use all the atoms in the universe (that are needed to construct the DNA strands - let alone the organisms that the DNA would produce) that you could actually constgruct all of them. If this is so, and there is not enough matter to even build the DNA for these oganisms, that means that the universe would not be able to explore all variations. Mathematically we can describe them, but it would be physically impossible for all of them to exist. If you open up the amount length of DNA strands to include up to the maximum known (not even the theoretical maximum), then even considering the age of the universe (and it's potential age), then it is quite possible that it would be physically impossible for the universe to explore all potential DNA configurations for organisms. Where as there might be a theoretical/mathematical cap, there might therefore not be a physical cap. Evolution might be physically open ended, but be mathematically closed.

Combinatronics Ok, first, are you are talking about the evolution of animals (rather than a quantum system)? Assuming that you are talking about biological evolution: The genome of an animal is made up of 4 different types of Bases (cytosine, guanine, adenine, thymine or C,G,A & T). Now with 4 bases, a genome 2 bases long can have one of 16 different combinations (4^2). For a genome 3 bases long the number of combination becomes 64 (4^3). For 4 base pairs it rises to 256 (4^4). Now an organism can have several million base pairs (4^several million ). Now, not every combination will produce a viable organism, but there is enough that the number is still astronomically huge.

"There is one born every minute" P.T. Barnum

Well the explanation is Gravity. When you compress a gas, it heats up. When gas heats up it expands. So, gravity compresses the gas of Jupiter. It heats up and expands (increases pressure and resists further compression). Slowly this heat is radiated away (the inferred radiation) and Jupiter cools a bit. Gravity can then compress the gas further and it heats up again. The temperatures of the Gas giants can easily be explained by very well known phenomena. A Refrigerator works by expanding gas (expanding a gas cools it down), this gas then is colder than the inside of the fridge and so it absorbs some of it's temperature. Then they compress this gas and it heats up, they do this at the back of the fridge along with a heat sink. This compression causes the gas to heat up above the temperature of the room, so it looses this heat to to the environment outside the fridge. They pump the gas back into the fridge and expand it again, and so on. The pressures that Jupiter exert are far greater than the pressures inside a fridge heat exchanger, yet we can get quite a large temperature difference. Also, Jupiter is many ties the size of Earth and made of gas (mostly). The amount of Heat energy given off by Jupiter can easily be accommodated by Gaseous compression. None of those are necessarily geological phenomena. they could be caused by asteroids, disturbances in the Earth's atmosphere, interference from nearby lights, and so on. Just because the Moon is supposed to be geologically dead, does not mean that there is not other cause than the Moon must be geologically alive. A volcano, or evidence of current active plate tectonics would be definite evidence, but lights, dust, and so on, are not even associated with geological activity here on Earth, why then on the Moon? Nope. The edges are rotating faster than expected if it was only due to visible matter, but this extra speed means that the Galaxies would not loose their coherence. Actually, the spiral shape of Galaxies is not down to the "Rotation" of the stars, but is more like a compression wave travelling through the stars and dust. As this compression wave passes through a gas cloud it triggers star formation (hence it appears brighter - along with the slightly higher density of stars). The magnetic fields of the planets are not because they are like giant bar magnets (which do loose their strength over time). Instead, they are like a Dynamo. The motion of conducting fluid (in the case of Earth is it liquid iron) with a small magnetic field will set up a dynamo which creates a massively strong magnetic field. In Jupiter this conducting fluid is compressed metallic hydrogen (if you compress hydrogen enough it acts like a metal and is conductive). There is enough of a Dynamo reaction in Jupiter for it to create the biggest structure in the entire solar system, that of it's magnetic field. Jupiter's Magnetic field is far lager than even the Sun's magnetic field (go Jupiter ). If a comet is on an orbit that crosses Earth, then it will leave a debris trail along that orbit. Every time that Earth crosses this debris trail, we get a meteor shower. So it is no surprise that we experience that meteor shower once a year. However, the Earth crosses several such debris trails each year, and so we experience several such meteor showers each year. Now, why don't we just sweep up all the debris that are in our orbit? Well that debris is also in an orbit and it is the same orbit as the comet was/is. If the comet's orbit was 75 years long (Haley's Comet as an example - some comets have orbits of thousands of years), then we would expect to have a period of around 75 years between the first pass and when we encountered that same location again. It would take a very long time to sweep it all up. Let's examine those long period comets, the ones that take thousands of years to complete. Ok, so we know that some comets take thousands of years to complete one orbit. Also, as they make their orbit, they can break up. This break up is the origin of the debris in their orbits, that we see as annual meteor showers. The more orbits a comet does, the more debris we would expect to see in it's orbit. If we can look at how much debris a comet leaves each orbit, then we can roughly work out how long that comet has been orbiting. Right? Well, this has been done. Some of those comet have been orbiting for thousands of times (or more). But with an orbit of a few thousand years, this would mean a the comet has been orbiting for few million years (1000 X 1000 = 1,000,000), this means that the earth can not be as young as the Bible claims. So if the Bible is wrong about this, we need to look to other evidence as for the age of the solar system. No those comets have just proved that the solar system can not be as young as the bible claims. It is wrong. It can not be trusted in these matters. It is also self contradictory too. EG: God is all knowing. God tests Abraham faith. Question, if God is all knowing, why then was Abraham tested? He already knew the result of the test before He gave it to Abraham. God is all powerful (that is there is nothing that God could not do is He chose to do so). God is benevolent and loving. God punishes eternally for our sins, when He has the capacity to forgive us of them regardless of our beliefs. Either He is A) Not all powerful and is unable to do so, or B) God likes to see us tortured for an eternity without a chance of redemption even though He has the ability to stop it. I would not consider that the actions of a Loving person (more like a psychopath). The Bible makes these claims about God, and then through the actions of God, they are violated. They are self contradictory. So, either God does not exist as the Bible states, or the Bible is wrong about God. Based on the content of the Bible,God comes across as a Psychopath: Kill you first born son or I will torture you eternally. Then just before he does it: Stop! It was all a test! A mass murderer - for his own mistakes (all powerful remember): Noah's flood (hey I wonder what the animal rights people would say to that - the animals didn't have any sin, but they were killed along with everything else - and I think we can get Him on ecological destruction, he drowned the entire planet. Racism: Favouring the Jews and helping them in wars against other nations. The list goes on... The "Love me or I'll torture you" is not a good reason to love someone.

Again, I didn't have a full understanding of what was proposed, but AFAIK: The result of this "entanglement" meant that the resulting area of our universe (and presumably in the other universe too) was made "colder" (have less energy) so less matter "condensed" out (although some obviously did).

Is far as I understood, it wasn't that the dark patch was another universe, but it was a location where another universe was entangled with ours.

It is more that it is "In the light of easily obtained knowledge (high school science), how could anyone believe in an expanding Earth?" I'll admit, that if one does not have this knowledge, then it is possible to believe in an expanding Earth. But, you could say this about anything. If you have no knowledge to the contrary, then you can believe in anything. If you didn't have eyes, you could believe that they sky is pink at midday. You have no way to know otherwise, so it is possible to believe that the sky is pink. But, if you have evidence to the contrary (ie: eyes), then to believe the sky is pink at midday is foolish. So, bringing up the fact that in the past people have not had the knowledge to determine which theory is (more) correct, does not mean anything about what modern thinking is about. Remember, the people who used to think that the Earth had expanded years ago dismissed the idea that the Earth Expanded because of the evidence. This evidence still exists.

I am not ridiculing the idea of an expanding Earth, just the expanding Earth that guy presents. He contradicts himself (he says that the continents can't twist, and yet to make the continents fit he has to twist them). Yes and now we know better. And yet, this guy is still trying to peddle something that has been completely discredited. I did consider it. That was why I was involved in the discussion on the other forum. I was willing to enter into a debate, looking at the evidence on both sides and then make my on conclusions. I posted about what I thought of it and why I thought it wouldn't work (because I looked at the evidence presented in the video and from what I have learned of geology). If what I posted ridiculed it, then it was because that in the light of current knowledge, and that to make it work you have to violate your own arguments against tectonic activity, to propose something like an Expanding Earth under these circumstances is pretty ridiculous.

To be more precise, light doesn't slow down in water, it travels at the same speed, but because it keeps getting absorbed and re-emitted, the overall effect is that it takes longer to move through water than a vacuum.

I would be jumping off you towards the edge of the rink. I am not jumping off the rink. The rink has no friction, but that is only important because it will mean that even the slightest jump off you will push both me and you towards opposite edges of the rink (I just wanted to take the surface we were sitting on out of the equation). "For every Action there is an Equal and opposite reaction." When you push something, it pushes you back with an equal and opposite force. With the Medicine ball and the ice rink, you throw the ball in one direction, and the medicine ball pushes you with an equal and opposite force. That is why it goes one way and you go the opposite way. Therefore if I jump off you, I give you a push in one direction (with my feet instead of my arms like with the medicine ball), and an equal an opposite force is directed at me. But, why don't you go flying off just by standing on the ground (not ice) and throwing a medicine ball. Well you do. When you throw a medicine ball while standing on the ground (not ice), you give a force to the ball and it pushes back with an equal and opposite force. However, as you are standing on the ground, there is a bit of friction. You will also have placed your feet so that you can use that friction to remain where you are on the ground (try throwing a medicine ball while standing with your feet together , you will likely stagger backwards). Because of the friction with the ground, the force of the ball is transferred through you to the Earth, which then moves in the opposite direction to which you threw the ball. When the ball lands. The friction with the ground slows it down. The friction is providing a force that will reduce the speed of the ball. But equal and opposite again. As the Earth pushes on the ball to slow it down, the ball pushes on the Earth in an equal and opposite direction. Just say we threw the ball Eastwards. Then the equal and opposite force on us is in a Westwards direction. Because of friction between out feet and the ground and our stance is positioned to take advantage of that, the Westwards force is transferred through us an into the Earth, giving it a push in the Westwards direction (actually this transference of force uses this equal and opposite force thing as well - but I am just focusing on the ball and the Earth). Now when the Ball lands, the friction with the Earth allows the ball to give a push to the Earth in an Eastwards direction. And the Earth Pushes on the Ball in a Westwards direction. Notice that the Earth was first pushed in a Westwards Direction, and then in an Eastwards direction. Not only that, the two pushes were the same strength. So the Earth does not gain any extra speed from it. So back to Spider Man: When SM jumps off the block of masonry, he gives it a push in one direction. The masonry, because of the equal and opposite force, pushes on SM. SM goes off in one direction and the masonry goes of the exactly the opposite direction. About the only thing you can say he is "pushing off" of is Inertia. It is the fact that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If SM pushes the block away from him (by jumping) then the block pushes back on SM. Because there is nothing stopping the block or SM from moving in any direction, they separate from each other with the block moving in one direction and SM moving in exactly the opposite direction. Because the masonry has a much larger mass than SM, it has a larger inertia. This means that the force that SM puts on the block will not make it move very fast. However, because SM has a lower mass, the same amount of force will make him move much faster than the more massive block. Also, remember. they made that shot with computer generated special effects. There is no reason that the animation has to follow the real laws of physics any more than a Bugs Bunny cartoon has to.

The speed of light is stated in Km/s (kilometres per second), and is approximately 300,000km/s (you can Google a more accurate answer quite easily). This would make it roughly 1,080,000,000 km/h (imagine the speeding ticket you would get for that ). Which means that a light year is approximately 9,467,280,000,000 km.

Stromatolites have been know about for many years. They have been turning up in fossils in the flints used in flint lock guns. In Western Australia there is even a bay where there are literally thousands of them. It is not a new discover at all. Just because you haven't heard of it before and now you have does not mean that it is a new discovery. Watch the series "Life on Earth" by David Attenborough, he covers the Stromatolites in one of the episodes. The bacteria in the Stromatolites produce a material that glues the individual bacteria together. Because it is a kind of glue, this also traps particles of dirt and rock too. In a way, they form a bit like the plaque on your teeth. Both are produced by bacteria. In the case of Stromatolites, however, they also pick up junk from around them (like dirt and rock).

When SM pushes off the falling wall, the wall will move faster in one direction and SM will move in the opposite direction. Imagine we are on an Ice-skating rink (and we had super ice that offered no friction - its for the sake of the example ok ) and we were stuck in the middle. If I were to"jump" off you towards one side of the rink, I would go flying off in that direction. However, you would go flying off in the opposite direction. If instead of another person, it was a chunk of masonry, then because of it's mass, it would not move very fast, however, I would get nearly my full jump speed, as I am lighter (Acceleration=Force/Mass). We can ignore the fact that the block of masonry is falling in the case of SM as the other forces are in equilibrium (the pull of gravity is exactly matched by the air resistance). As Spider Man jumps up, he will push the masonry downwards. When you jump off the ground, you do the same thing to the Earth. However, it is so massive that others don't really feel it. And when you fall back towards the ground, your gravity pulls the Earth towards you a bit, just as the Earth pulls you towards it. When you work out the maths, you will find that the amount you pushed the Earth when jumping is exactly matched by the amount your personal gravitational field pulls the Earth towards you.

The chances of finding something like that, even if it did exist, would be next to zero. Stone buildings only 1,000 years old are still hard to find (sometimes all they are are a discolouration of the dirt and rocks). Imagine finding something that was 65,000 times (or more) older. However, if we did find even a small "building" it would be one of the most amazing pieces of archaeology to ever be discovered. It would rank up there with finding intelligent life on another world.

Unfortunately, Pluto has been dethroned. It is no longer considered a planet (I think that Dwarf Planet is an unofficial title now give to it). It was because many of these Kuiper Belt objects, like Sedna and Quaoar and that they didn't match the current definition of a planet properly (but were too similar to Pluto), that either we had to change what a Planet is (and that would have made the Moon a planet - it is bigger than some of these Kuiper Belt objects that would have been labelled planets), or declassify Pluto as a planet. And so Pluto was dethroned. It is no longer considered a planet.