zapatos

Maybe so, but is that really a problem? What percentagoe of those trees are grown as a crop for the purpose of making paper pulp? If the tree is grown as a crop then harvesting it is no more damaging than harvesting sweet corn. CO2 is simply recycled. Since reforestation is common in much of the world where non-crop trees are harvested for paper pulp, what is the net loss of biomass due to harvesting trees for paper manufacture? Simply pointing out that 35% of harvested trees are used for paper manufacture gives us no indiation that a problem even exists, much less what the extent of the problem may be.

As far as M31 is concerned, that galaxy is still visible because it is in our local group and is therefore not subject to expansion from our perspective. Generally speaking, the first place I'd look for an explanation is in your calculations. You are indicating that 13.7 billion years is enough time. This would seem to indicate that you have some idea of their acceleration rate, distance, etc. Perhaps if you supplied the method you used to determine that they should be out of sight by now we could determine if that is the source of the explanation. It might be possible that you did not include in your calculation early inflation, expansion rate, acceleration rate, how long acceleration has been occurring, distances to other galaxies, light that is in transit toward us (and still arriving) that was generated prior to the galaxy's recession rate exceeding c, etc.

Why do you find this satisfying? Do you mean that you find this to be the most likely scenario? Did you find support from religious texts that this may be the case?

You continue to equate my questioning how soon alternatives can replace fossil fuels, with denying that fossil fuels are a limited resource. The two are not equivalent. When I ask how soon alternatives can replace oil, telling me how fast oil is being depleted is not a useful answer. The two do not necessarily go hand in hand. If oil was being depleted by 2% per year, that would not allow me to conlude that alternatives were growing at a comparable replacement rate. It might turn out to be that way, but it might also be more or less.

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

Ok. So when you said there is plenty of evidence, you meant there is plenty of evidence but you just will not or cannot provide it. Got it. Ok. So "oil production going up since 2009" is not at odds with your statement that "Oil production in the US has been on the decline for some time now". Got it. Excellent. Thanks. This is just the kind of information I was hoping to see.

I realize a good estimate would be tough to come by, but are you aware of any projections (that seem reasonable to you) of when the US might obtain that volume of energy from solar?

Fine. Then let's talk about this factual statement of yours: If this is a factual statement, please provide that evidence. Don't provide evidence that oil is being depleted, everyone already knows that and it is moot. And don't provide evidence that Spain get 12% of their electricity from solar. Neither one supports your statement of fact that "alternatives can and will replace fossil fuels in the near future". Is this another one of your facts? According to index mundi, oil production has been on the rise in the US since 2009, and according to this But that is neither here nor there. This also does not address the role alternatives will fill in the future. Again, not relevant. Moving the goalposts. 'Overtake in a couple of generations' is not the same as "alternatives can and will replace fossil fuels in the near future". Strawman. I never said it would. I never claimed you did. The idea of efficiency did not come up until this post. Irrelevant. No one is arguing that fossil fuels are not limited. Irrelevant. No one is arguing that we don't have to accept alternatives. That statement is a huge problem and exemplary of this whole discussion. You are drawing conclusions with insufficient data. I even told you what data was missing and you still ignored it. Irrelevant. Appeal to emotion. Strawman. I am not, and never said I was, ignoring the inevitable.

The dishonest misdirection in your posts is getting old. You cannot support assertions such as: "It is possible to run on hydro-electric alone" with statements such as: "burning so much fossil fuel will add way too much CO2" If you want to argue that pollution is bad, go right ahead, although I don't think many people are going to take the opposite position. But if you are going to make positive assertions, please be prepared to back them up or admit you are wrong. Hand waving is not going to fool too many people into not noticing that you are moving the goalposts. Your whole argument can be summarized as "I can prove there is a solution by proving there is a problem". Not all problems have solutions, or at least not complete solutions. Claiming I am too ignorant to understand does not prove your point either. You have provided zero evidence that alternatives energy sources will be able to replace current energy sources, and you have not provided anything other than your opinion regarding a date when alternative energy sources will have replaced current energy sources. Pointing out that funding for alternative energy sources occurs everday, does not bolster your position that "There is plenty of evidence that alternatives can and will replace fossil fuels in the near future". Similarly, simply putting money in the bank everday does not allow me to claim I will die a millionaire. I would also need to project how much I am saving each day and how long I expect to live.

Yes, you can generate electricity from the fan so that some of the energy can be converted into electrical energy. But why would you want to?

These didn't really offer any data regarding evidence that alternatives can and will replace fossil fuels in the near future. This one indicates that "one of the most advanced countries in the development of solar energy, and it is one of the European countries with the most hours of sunshine... committed to achieving a target of 12 percent of primary energy from renewable energy by 2010". If one of the 'most advanced' in solar is up to 12% I don't find that this bolsters your argument that "alternatives can and will replace fossil fuels in the near future". Roughly the same capacity as Spain. Again, I don't find that this bolsters your argument that "alternatives can and will replace fossil fuels in the near future". Are you saying that nuclear is a renewable resource? Can you explain that please? Bottom line is that based on how I would define 'near future', I see no evidence that alternatives can and will replace fossil fuels in the near future. Perhaps if you could give an approximate date when you expect alternatives to replace fossil fuels? Nice. An actual projection from your link: Do you think that "could provide all global energy needs by 2090" supports your assertion that "fracking is already obsolete"?

Excellent! Can you point me to some please?

I'll take that as a 'no'.

When I asked you to back up your statement that "With new forms of alternative energy sources [regeneration, kinetic along with wind, solar, hydro, and geo-thermal] fracking is already obsolete", what I was looking for was something along the lines of an estimate of current energy capacity of the alternatives you mentioned versus the current energy capacity of natural gas. Do you have any evidence that suggests the alternatives you mention can replace natural gas right now or in the very near future?

To what extent are large aquifers fouled (or potentially fouled) by fracking? Where I live we get our drinking water from the Missouri River and from a smaller river which does not have a reputation for being particularly clean. Our drinking water on the other hand is first rate. Is the potential damage from fracking something that could make an aquifer unusable, or is the issue strictly economical, in that if the water is fouled it will have to be cleaned prior to use? Can you back that up please? I find it hard to believe that the alternative energy sources you mention could come anywhere near replacing natural gas anytime soon.

How long ago exactly? How long does it take for a galaxy in 'accelerating expansion' to vanish from our sight?

I don't see how or why there is an exact maximum velocity either. But rather than making up a reason which is pure speculation, with zero evidence to support it, I choose to stop at "I don't see how or why...". Speculate all you want, but try not to believe your speculations unless you have some evidence. Physical constants are not evidence of a coded simulation. They are evidence that there are physical constants.

I know you believe you understand what you think I said about that thing we were going to talk about in order to find agreement but I'm not sure you realize or are even capable of accepting that what you heard about what I said is not really the thing I meant for you to believe but simply to accept as a possibility regarding the types of things I am sometimes known to say. No one knows why the speed of light is c. Physics can describe the properties of the universe but it cannot explain why it has the properties it does. Philosophy or religion may tell you why a physical constant is as we preceive it, but they will not be able to back it up with physical evidence. It is not very plausible that we are living in a programmed simulation of the universe. There is no evidence of it. Until we have evidence we could also ask how plausible it is that everyone is in on a big joke being played on you, and in reality you are king of the solar system, but we don't want you to know yet. At this time, both possibilities seem just as plausible.

I am very happy right now. With the volume that the right speaks with it often seemed as if the whole country was going backwards. I am pleased beyond words that America has shown tonight that rhetoric and religion will not overcome rational thought and compassion. Congratulations to the USA and to people everywhere who hoped for this outcome.

Moontanman will of course speak for himself, but when he said 'horsefeathers' he was simply saying he disagreed with the notion that you 'look gay'. I agree with him. There are some people who I think 'look gay' (although they may not be; I don't actually ask them) but you are not one of them. Please don't be personally offended by the differing viewpoints in this thread. No one is making any judgements, they are simply looking at the evidence objectively and making their argument for what they believe to be true. I believe anyone here will be happy to change his position if he sees convincing evidence to disprove his position.

Sounds to me like you are full of wait for details please

100% A dormant volcano is expected to erupt again. If it doesn't erupt again then it was mislabeled, and should have been catergorized as extinct.

I think another way to look at it is that for a distant galaxy to be forever visible, it must be within our supercluster. If it is not, it will eventually cross the horizon. Unless of course the Hubble Constant continues to change over time and eventually splits apart our supercluster, cluster, galaxy, etc.

rigney, that quote was on the first page of this thread and we finished our conversation about it over three weeks ago. Are you running out of people to antagonize and starting over at the beginning?

Also try to quit stressing about it and consider this a trial. Plan on taking it several times. You'll likely get a better score if you try several times.