SmallIsPower

The hot spots are burning at several thousand degrees K, judging from the color, , correspondinding to the black body temperatures of burning thermite, or its hotter burning thermate. Additionally, much of the heat is coming from something molten (most likely metal), as opposed to combusting wood, paper etc. Bearing that in mind, now take a look at the second video on this thread.

I agree with a Social Science forum, because there is so much philospohical nonsense going under the guise of "Social Science". People get PhDs based on philosophy, conjecture etc., and the field goes nowhere, yet could eventually be a very positive pursuit in the future. This site has enough hard core skeptics that we actually might be able to find the few diamonds in the rough.

Actually, Cap't, it would be even easier than that, because some of Wikis existing entires could be kept, and linked to from Wiki and ExperWiki.

Deleted

There is a difference between the Universe and the Observable Universe. The Observable Universe is limited by the distance light could have traveled since the Big Bang (space can move faster than light, don't ask me why, but plenty of people who say they're experts say so). If, and this seems very unlikely to me, the space just beyond the Observable Universe is less dense than normal, it would appear that the Universe's accelaration is expanding.

I admit it, I listen to Art Bell sometimes, he's often good for a laugh. Wrong science and Psudoscience can be very entertaining, so I thought we could share a few laughs here with our favorites: 1)[size4] God doesn't play dice with the Universe![/size] -Einstein 2) Art Bell, insisting that he'd generated zeropoint energy through a 1000 foot antena generated zeropoint energy, because he noticed a voltage difference, browbeat phycisist Michu Kaku, into saying that the voltage difference might be zeopoint energy. (It's created by the earth's magnetic field, because the core is iron and spins.) 3) Metatron's posts on this site.

I'd hadn't thought of conflict among large groups, but that would be deveatating, possibly nuclear winter, even extinction. Here's a scary possibility: African nuclear powers, dealing with the collapse of the Gulf Stream which carries heat from Africa to Europe. Africa broils, the Pentagon is accused of "weather control", and African countries feel they have nothing to lose by nuking America.

Economics is based on supply equaling demand, technology has always increased production (supply), so supply side economics is bogus... Low demand equals guilded ages or Depressions.

Why doesn't it suprise me that the many world's hypothesis has ZERO votes here? Maybe it's because people who subscribe to it here, end up getting thrown into the Pseudoscience Ghetto?

Unfortunately, in poor economies, the birth rate goes through the roof http://www.indexmundi.com/g/correlation.aspx?v1=67&v2=25&y=2003 So if we go downhill as a result of resource depletion, we're likely to have another baby boom, which will keep the population artificially inflated for a while(decades? 1 or 2 generations?) causing more resource depletion causing a larger oscillation.

In order to maximize brain size, human babies come out as big as possible, making birth more painful for women than other species, I wonder if baculum-less men are the result of some change in women, maybe so they wouldn't need reinforcement.

More on water memory: This guy's got an mit email address and claims to be a prof: http://www.watercluster.com He claims that water molecules form different polihedra with pentagonal and hexagonal clusters.

Maybe water has a memory.... http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3817

I'll bet they have a reality show about us: The Galaxy's dumbest Civilizations At least we're good for a laugh.

If there was ever a good purpose for genetic modification it would be to engineer creatures to: Sequester more CO2 Clean up ecosystems so that carbon sequestering orginisms can thrive

I'd rather be coerced through sex than violence.

from bascules first link: There has been some emphasis that the notion of planting trees will make a significant difference to the carbon loading in the atmosphere. To be able to absorb the excess annual loading of 3 Gt would mean that about 15 Gt of extra trees would need to be grown each year and this would do nothing for the carbon already added as a result of human activity. Some of this would be returned in the short term as a result of rotting leaves. What exactly does this mean? The General Sherman tree in the Sequoia National Park in California is estimated to weigh a little over 6 kt; it would therefore require an extra annual growth equivalent to 2,500,000 such trees, just to sequester the excess carbon dioxide we are adding to the atmosphere each year, and we would have to repeat this feat every year. The General Sherman Tree has a diameter of 36 feet Let's assume it's root structure has a diameter of 100 feet, or a radius of 50 feet A=pi*r*r =7500 sq ft 3000 GSTs = 1 sq mile 2,500,000 GST's = 800 sq mi Earth's Surface Area = 4pi*r*r 800,000,000 sq mi Earth's landmass = 240,000,000 sq mi Also from the first link Of course, sequoia trees are not ideal for this, and smaller fast-growing species, such as willows, pines, hazel etc. would be more suitable. Ecoli, can you see how cutting a few trees can add lots of CO2?

I'm sure with all the category 4 & 5, and 27 tropical strorms, and hurricanes, it's the worst on record. Global warrming is going to create stronger winds and storms, and probably drop more rain at a time in a spot, so there's less elsewhere. Anybody familiar with Pacific Decadanal Oscillations? Apparently they have something to do with rain.

Anthropomorhic forcings, not an increase in CO2, but cutting down forests that sequester CO2.

Life exists in extreme environments

Here's the drought map for the US. For comparison, look at the archive for previous years. I'll admit it isn't scientific, but the first few years {that the archive was in existance} the US was alot wetter.

No complex number exists. x/x = 1 unless x=0, then it's undefined. x*x = 1 if x = 1 or x=-1 if x = 1 , x+x =2 if x= -1, x+x=-2 There is a 4 dimensional number system called quarternions, and another called hypercomplex that it might exist in, but I don't feel like doing the calculations.

The map on page 2 of http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/pubs/Seager_etal_QJ_2002.pdf says the temperature of the Pacific Northwest is 12 degreesC above what we can expect and Western Europe is 24 degrees above what could be expected in January. First could those nubers be right, or are they missing a decimal point? Second if they are OK, the heating of Europe is twice the heating of the Northwest, I doubt it's the geography of the Rockies causing this cange.