Acme

This is a science forum and I gave the latest scientific study information that answers your question(s). I have little regard for how you consider them and no regard for the fact that you have not read them. That is to say, your passing judgment on that which you are ignorant of is a logical fallacy.

I get the distinct impression you read none of the links I gave. So much for wanting to be enlightened. As to pavelcherepan's post, the popular science story link I gave on Venus links to the study it is based on. While they do use an albedo value in their work, it is not the determining factor for the lack of oceans on Venus, rather it is the distance to the Sun and how quickly the planetary crust cools to a solid. Both Earth & Venus likely had a similar steamy atmosphere early on after formation. Emergence of two types of terrestrial planet on solidification of magma ocean

It should be obvious this is spam. Get a clue. Many flowers change color naturally as they age, e.g. many trilliums start out white and slowly change to a dark purple.

The latest evidence is that Mars had oceans, however the solar wind stripped away its atmosphere. No atmosphere, no rain, no oceans. Revealed: How Mars Lost Its Atmosphere New NASA research says Mars once had a large ocean Strong water isotopic anomalies in the martian atmosphere: Probing current and ancient reservoirs As Studiot said, Venus is too close to the Sun to ever have had an ocean. Venus Too Close To Sun Ever To Have Hosted Oceans & Life, New Study Suggests . A close proximity to the Sun is not an overriding factor in having oceans, as Ganymede evidences. Jupiter's Moon Ganymede Has a Salty Ocean with More Water than Earth

Shouldn't the topic of fallen angels be in religion?

For one thing, piggybacking obviously ridiculous ideas onto my words is of no merit, and for a second thing it has been made clear here that what I intended is of no merit whatsoever anyway. Then there is the absence of merit in my stupid idea that scholarly investigation and critical thinking belong on a science forum. I am positively gleeful at the turn of things and how so many folks such as yourself have shown me the error of my ways.

"it isn't as bad as that" vs "I find it frustrating" = contradiction. Baseless opinion = worthless to the discussion.

Oh? But your first post here (#58) says: So not only have you made contradictory statements, your 'evidence' is the type of baseless opinion -i.e. faith- mentioned by Hypervalent. All-in-all the facts in the matter of Ten oz's OP question were answered within the first page or two and the rest of the 20+ pages after is just so much repetition of those facts & faithful fluff and its rebuttal.

Hydroplate theory Clearly pseudoscience.

Well, if using an avatar to calm is not a message -a picture worth a thousand words and all- then what is it? Can you legitimately presume we don't look like you? I asked you a bunch of questions and you answered one that I didn't ask. This is why we don't reveal ourselves to you. I am serious about humor. An anecdote if I may. I live in the Pacific Northwest just spitting distance from the Cascade mountain range and [alleged] home to sasquatches. I have mined there, gathered blueberries there, gathered mushrooms there, hiked there, & target practiced there to name a few activities. For a bit of a change I took a small group in to hunt for a sasquatch. Now in many of the stories of sightings, the [alleged] sasquatchy throws rocks, sticks, and/or pinecones into camps or at cabins. They never attack people, just tease them. Now to me, if these alleged critters are as intelligent as they are alleged, this behavior shows a senses of humor. That is, they get a kick out of scaring the snot out of the mere humans. So when we went out into the forest -complete with infra-red video camera and monitor and two-way radios- I instructed the group to be as boisterous and mocking as they could rather than trying to be sneaky. We drank, we sang, we called out fat mama sasquatch jabs, we stayed put, and in every way made ourselves conspicuous so as to lure a bigfoot to engage us with a rejoinder. I snapped this pic of a young male as he ambled off after chucking some mudballs at our stewpot. A good time was had by all.

Yes Mike; I am intimately familiar with myth. In the vulgar vernacular, I don't give a rat's ass what they believe or have believed other than as historical and psychological curiosities. Which brings up the interesting question of higher intelligence and their taboos, whether word-ish or otherwise. Do higher intelligences swear? Is there some threshold above which nothing is taboo and everything is funny? Would belief be taboo? Would ignorance be taboo? Would showing the face or some ankle be taboo? Perhaps they would sooner stick a needle in their eye than answer a question from one of us. Perhaps asking them a question is an unpardonable insult. . PS I see now you have edited your post and removed my post that you quoted and replied to -apparently. Proofread Mike. Look over your post before hitting submit. Higher intelligences would.

That's it? Interesting!? Not laughing-my-ass-off funny? Interesting indeed. Humor I'm good with, but not faces. It is painfully uncomfortable for me to look people in the face and my facial recognition sucks. I have been scanning a family photo archive for the last few months and I have to rely on others to tell me who folks are even after having seen dozens of photos of them. Part of the appeal for me in communicating at a forum is that it's just the words. Well, except for those who feel compelled to put their real ugly -or not- mugs in their profile. Please don't. Babies show facial recognition responses at a very early age, or so I have read. I want to hear what folks have to say/write, not see their head-bobs, smirks, eye-rolls and other such attempts to sway. As far as such body language goes for higher intelligences, we would be shooting in the dark to presume we could garner any meaning from it. As to recognizing your own face, I imagine it's difficult because you are used to seeing it primarily in a looking glass. Please stop interjecting your speculative religious clap-trap into every thread. Bunch of goddamn nonsense.

According to some sources, a torus planet could form naturally. Not sure how 'flat' they could be though. See this thread: >> Torus planets

Humor in radio? In computer links? Are you kidding? To quote from the Deteriorata: "You are a fluke of the Universe. You have no right to be here, and whether you hear it or not, the Universe is laughing behind your back".

Why Skin Wrinkles When Wet

Acknowledged. I did not mean to imply otherwise; my bad for the ambiguity.

An answer based on psychological studies per the OP.

I see little point in giving example after example of the 'insanity' of political conservatives. The issue I introduced in the OP is why they behave the way they do and what can be done about it.

I don't know what Sensei had in mind, but you can make a saltwater battery. One of the grandkids had a little robot that ran on one. Aluminum Can, Saltwater and Charcoal Battery

Well, the general is court-marshaled but I have information to share on your point. All plants develop their stems and leaves in patterns of Fibonacci numbers. This phenomena is called phyllotaxis. It turns out this does tell us something about the world. As the Fibonacci sequence is a countably infinite set, we have some connection to the OP in this.

Quite on point with my last post, though you may have missed it. Humor is a hallmark of human intelligence and so it's no stretch to imagine a higher intelligence will have a well developed sense of humor. Perhaps you should ask them if they walked to Earth or took their lunch.

You're welcome Ronald. Maybe you can find a used unit either working or in need of some repair for less than a new one. You can also find Dometic manuals online in PDF form with schematics and troubleshooting info.

Introspection is sometimes a bit of a stretch for me, but am I doing this right? source

You should call this 'getting high'. No one here is going to help you with that.

Well Mig, I didn't cite the graph. As to references, they are at the bottom of the article page. . I don't understand the reticence to search for answers oneself. This is the work cited for the graph: The oxygenation of the atmosphere and oceans Brother Moontan, by all means add your own references as you please.