pwagen

Is this spam? Because the whole text seems to conclude with "buy my book, I explain everything in it!".

You're wrong on so many levels, it's almost not funny anymore. You keep talking about Krakatoa as though it should have been able to wipe out all life just because an impact allegedly did. As Moontanman said, they're not even comparable. Further, Krakatoa wasn't even that big. Compare it to the eruption that caused the La Garita Caldera, what was once thought to be the biggest explosive eruption in the history of the planet. It yielded the same power as 240,000 megatons of TNT. Might sound like a lot, but the impact that caused the extinction is estimated to have been around 100 terratons. That's an insane difference, so you can cross your Krakatoa off the list of this repeating record. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Garita_Caldera http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_crater You seem to be thinking that scientists say the extinction took place over 11,000 years. It might be because of the language barrier, but that's completely wrong. The 11,000 years is the accuracy we have of when the extinction took place. I don't have the exact number, but let's say they estimate it to have happened 65,000,000 years ago, with an accuracy of 11,000 years. That means it could have happened as early as 65,006,500 years ago, or as late as 64,993,500 years ago. It has NOTHING to do with how long it took, only the accuracy to when we can say it happened. So stop thinking anyone says it took 11,000 years. The world isn't either black or white. There are loads of shades of gray inbetween (50 if I'm not mistaken). The volcanic eruptions that preceded the impact didn't blacken out the world entirely. Nobody is saying that, since that would be silly. Instead, they affected the climate by lowering the temperature by 2 degrees C. This might not sound like a lot, but averaging out all over the planet, the cooling put a lot of stress on the eco-systems. It's not like everything went black and all the plants died. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps The same thing can be said by the impact winter caused by the impact itself. Not only did it create earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, it also covered the surface of the planet with a layer of dust and particles that diminished plant life. The sun would be covered for a long period of time, causing the temperature to fall. But not everything simply died. The environment were stressed, and a lot of the life did die. But seeing as we're here, not everything did. As said before, some species (of both plants and animals) were able to pull through. And after the dust had settled, they managed to get back on their feet. There was no black cloud hiding the sun for hundreds of years! Everything you're saying seems to be stemming from the fact that you simply don't understand the words used to explain things. You need to either get a much better understanding of the English language, or start reading the literature in your own language until you actually understand what's going on. Because you honestly have no clue right now, and you have no idea how wrong you are.

Emphasis mine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_circle#Man-made

So basically, the people who admit to have made crop circles, some of which have photographic evidence of them doing it, are lying?

While I can't help you, as I have no idea what you're talking about, would you mind sharing what all this is until someone who has a clue gets here?

I see your pseudoscience and raise with the perpetrators. http://www.circlemakers.org/exhibit_a.html

So aliens are using ASCII codes? That's amazing, especially since we here on this planet have used a multitude of different alphabets over the course of time. But both we and the aliens are using the Latin alphabet? Amazing!

Reminds me of something... http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/73213-how-to-post-on-science-forums-a-guide-for-quacks/

Basically, enthalpy is the energy (heat) in a system and heat is energy transfer between bodies.

That is SO TRUE!

I wouldn't say their minds evolve. I'm not even sure "mind" is applicable to other species. But let's assume it is. The mind of a dog would develop from birth as it grew older. While a lot of its behavior can be said to be instinct, it'll learn when it's time for feeding, what human commands mean (sit, stand, roll around), learn not to walk outside of the garden unless in a leash. However, the individual dog will always be limited by what nature's given it. Their minds won't "evolve" into being able to speak or do calculus, for example. Don't go too far though, it might turn ugly! http://www.sivatherium.narod.ru/library/Dixon_3/01_en.htm Well, humans as well as most other terrestrial animal we know of, have evolved to a certain environment consisting of breathing oxygen and drinking water. So as long as those criteria are met, why wouldn't they be able to join us in space? After all, we're not evolved for breathing sunlight (to go back to an earlier example), yet we've managed to send people to space. We've sent animals as well, and they seem to have been fine. Neither we nor other animals are likely to evolve to the point where we can live in the vacuum of space. Say we land on another planet in the far off future, will animals be able to adapt to that planet? Sure, if the place is hospitable to begin with, they'll surely evolve to live there, perhaps even branch off into different species given enough time.

It's not that bad, is it? The expansion of the universe has been known for like 80 years, so that hasn't changed a whole lot. The details and our knowledge of it has improved though. We now know the expansion is actually accelerating, which at first glance doesn't seem possible. We know about the inflation period, which we wouldn't know back then. So the theories improve all the time, but I wouldn't say new theories take the place of old ones in this case. After all, the basic idea of the Big Bang and an expanding universe haven't changed. As for gut feeling speaking up against these ideas, I can understand where you're coming from. Myself, I had a very hard time understanding something as simple as Einstein's E=mc^2. I accepted it, partly because I trusted scientists knew what they were doing. But also because they built bombs based on the equation, so it obviously worked. This all changed, however, in physics class at one point, when we were learning about it. Out of nowhere it seemed, we suddenly deduced that very equation, and it all made sense to me. So the only advice I can give you if you don't trust the evidence is to learn about it and do the works yourself. If you take the time and dedication to actually try and understand it, I'll guarantee the evidence will add up!

I know nothing of geology (or whatever science would apply here), so I can't really say how it all works. The inner core, however, is apparently solid. Out of curiosity, do you think that, according to your speculations, this is a sign the Earth was constructed? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core Sorry for the broken up quoting below. It's the only way I know how to respond. Their mixed breeds are evolution at work though! That's a problem I've seen with people who don't understand the actual workings of evolution (more on that in a bit). Two parents making a baby IS evolution, whether we're talking about dogs, humans or chipmunks. The offspring gets DNA from both parents and becomes more or less a mix between them. The longer this goes on (generation after generation), the more dissimilar the offspring will be to the original couple. And I hope you agree that this is what we see in both humans and animals. When looking at this specific process, of producing offspring and how the genes are passed on, ask yourself what the difference is between humans and other animals. It's still a passing on of DNA, any way you look at it. New species then evolve by isolation of a group of a specie from another group. For example, take a look at donkeys and horses. They are quite similar, look similar and are pretty closely related. While they're closely related to each other to produce offspring, they're too far related for this offspring to be able to reproduce, in most cases. Given more time, it's likely that donkeys and horses will drift apart so far genetically, that they won't be able to produce offspring. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species There is no such thing as "fully evolve" though. Evolution is an ongoing process without a set goal, so it makes no sense to say that one species is fully evolved, or even more evolved than anything else. Sure, if you move a polar bear and a cheetah to the African steppes, the cheetah is more adapted to the environment. But it's not "more evolved". Neither are humans, although we've happened to evolve to the point where we are extremely adaptable, which is why we've settled more or less everywhere on the planet. You could call that being more evolved, but I doubt it would be an accurate description. Ah, but opposed to adapting to what, exactly? You make it sound as though we could expect a squirrel to evolve to be able to breathe sunlight, allowing it to travel through space without a suit, which isn't what we should expect. Every species adapt to the environment they're living in, or they die out. They don't adapt to environments they have no reason to adapt to, if that makes sense.

But that also depends on the size of the meteorite. Sure, we're bombarded by rocks from space daily, but very few are big enough to do a lot of damage, and even fewer are as big as the one thought to have wiped out the dinosaurs. There have been five or so. Not all are thought to have been caused by meteorites though. That's doesn't prove anything though. A lot of animals went extinct, a lot of animals survived. Obviously the animals that survived managed to adapt to the new living situation. And it seems you think the impact theory says the animals were killed by the impact itself. But that's not the case. While there was a mass extinction in a relatively short time, From what I remember of the theory, debris was flung into the air by the impact, which blocked out the Sun and cooled the planet. It also seems there was an unusually high volcanic activity at the time, which didn't help. In the end, herbivores died from lack of edible plants and carnivores died because their food died out. But all this could have taken a few hundred years, it wasn't instant. I didn't think dinosaurs were classified as birds (or developed flight) until after the event. But looking up on it now, you're very right!

A thread only a few days old answers this question: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72570-how-can-galaxies-exist-with-the-expansion-of-space/ Try gluing coins to your balloons. You'll see the universe (balloon) expands on the big scale, but galaxies (coins) stick together locally due to gravity. I've actually heard it's a crappy analogy, but I can't remember why it was said so. However, to very basically show how the universe expands, it could probably be worse.

Personally, I like when ideas are thought up outside the box. So sure, Earth being constructed is an interesting thought. But then you have to ask something in the lines of "What do the evidence say? Are there any evidence that even suggest that this might be an idea worth pursuing?". It's not enough to just say "We can't disprove the possibility that there's a teapot orbiting Uranus". Are there any evidence suggesting there's something orbiting Uranus at all (except for moons)? Is there a chance someone threw a teapot in Uranus' direction some time ago? If not, it's probably not worth spending time and effort on the idea. It's the same with the Earth being artificially constructed by aliens. Do we have any signs of this? Not that I know of. Have we found the blueprints or tools left by the constructors? I doubt it. Are our current understandings of how the Solar System formed inadequate to explain what we're seeing today? They seem good enough. So we really have no reason, at the present time, to assume the planet might have been constructed. That means, until new evidence surface or old evidence are reinterpreted, the idea is probably more science fiction than science.

From the Dinosaur Wikipedia page: "The discovery that birds are a type of dinosaur showed that dinosaurs in general are not, in fact, extinct as is commonly stated.[123] However, all non-avian dinosaurs as well as many groups of birds did suddenly become extinct approximately 66 million years ago. Many other groups of animals also became extinct at this time, including ammonites (nautilus-like mollusks), mosasaurs, plesiosaurs, pterosaurs, and many groups of mammals." So, not only dinosaurs, but lots of other groups. This is probably a problem with the language barrier, and I apologize if this isn't what you meant. But "precis to within 11,000 years", in this case, means that they can say the event happened within that time-span. So it could have happened 5,500 years before the date they found, or it could have happened 5,500 years after, or anytime in between those dates. There were most likely no flying dinosaurs. http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/questions/faq/Flying.shtml Birds evolved, as you say, from theropods, but they couldn't actually fly until way after the mass extinction took place. As for why some animals went extinct and some didn't, it probably had to do with why a lot of species have gone extinct over the years - they couldn't adapt to their new environment. And on that note... Food availability could play a big role. A big animal needs more food to sustain itself, while a small animal can get by with the bits and pieces it can find in a bad food situation. Also, your idea seems to have the same "problems" as the impact theory - why some animals rather than any other. The question is, can we find evidence it happened? Are the rock layers from that time radiated to show the Sun was more active around that time, and radiated the planet? Can we find evidence the magnetic poles changed?

The thing is, we can clearly see evolution in other species, perhaps even better than in our own. Just look at all the different kinds of dogs we've managed to evolve. Everything from a Great Dane to a Chihuahua coming from what was originally wolves. How is that not evidence evolution exists in other species?

Really? Please clarify which Nobel prize you're talking about, and why they got it.

I don't have any question (at least not right now), but this sounds pretty awesome. I hope it works out great!

Why would evolution only apply to humans, again? I must have missed the part where you explained that.

You give 4 sources for the 49.5 degrees. None of them says the Earth is leaning that much. One of them talks about the effects of such a shift, but that's as close as it gets. I looked through your sources for all of your claims, and, amusingly, none of them support your theories. Coupled with your thread on evolution, I can only agree that you're not being serious, and any discussion would be utterly pointless.

Shame, I was almost done going through all the sources for the Earth leaning 49 degrees. But I guess that's pointless now (if there ever was a point).

I think you'll find that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, which is what they're actually seeing. Which Nobel prize, specifically, was given to someone who showed the universe's expansion is decelerating? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe

First, find out what 103.44 (positive) is in binary. After that, it seems to be the simple matter of inverting the digits and adding one. So 3 to -3 would be 0011 -> 1100 -> 1101, for example. http://www.cs.cornell.edu/~tomf/notes/cps104/twoscomp.html#twotwo