Ozman

These fossils have been typefied as raptors. They preyed on (or is "predated" the word?) --they ate-- something. I think their prey was in the trees or they would not have developed the wing structures. I read the same piece you did, blike, about the first find being "fraud", but the more recent find having undergone extensive testing to rule it out, whether outright fraud or misinterpretation, before anouncing the find. If they were raptors, and they had wings, what was in the trees to serve as prey? Even if the wings were to help them escape, what were they escaping in the trees?

Okay, I still didn't articulate it well enough. I know enough to be dangerous regarding rotational and vibrational molecular spectra (from work with CO2 and and other gas lasers). But I am speculating that there may be interaction between atoms or sub-atomic particles that does not take place in the form of electron exchange, i.e., I'm not asking about molecular spectra. Are there "stresses" that manifest when an atom gets close to another one? Atomic energy / weapon devices run the gamut of known and understood EM spectrum and appear to operate in the predicted fashion. Is there more? Could there be a "non-EM energy" (for lack of a more precise term) that is emitted because of proximity? Or one that always exists, but only manifests itself in proximity of another atom? We wouldn't be able to detect it directly (like tachyons), but, like neutrinos, we may be able to detect and measure the secondary effects. Or (and this is a real stretch) maybe the spectra we see IS the beat frequency, the difference in frequency between two much higher emitted frequencies. And, although it is a stretch, that may lead to an explanation of the single photon-dual slit phenomenon. Perhaps light is merely the wake formed by by the passage of something else. Something moving much faster.

Thanks Rad Ed. I think what you just described is "band gap" phenomena. Something that the folks out at Sandia are pursuing with diligence for practical, planetbound applications. And you hit on the effects of magnetic fields possibly altering spectral emissions. And you mentioned silicon. So here we go... I have long held the hypothesis that a physically small, very intense magnetic field constructed (artificially) around the emitter face of a quantum well or quantum dot laser (becaus e physical size, i.e. proximity, is a limiting factor) would provide a means of "tuning" the emitted energy. The math says, or appears to say, that it will (somebody besides me needs to run the numbers--I don't always agree, even with myself. My mathematical prowess falls off dramatically with anything more complex than simple trig). Constructing an effiecient or even comparatively effective tori around the face of the emitter is in the realm of nanotechnology and something I can not pursue. But I would certainly encourage somebody with the means to do so. Does it happen in stellar bodies? You and I seem to agree that it may. (Yes, it was a leading question. Sorry) Not to pick nits, but you didn't get all of my question or I didn't articulate it well. In a complex system, does the interaction of the particles produce a spectra that is distinct and seperate from the elemental spectra? I don't necessarily mean light in the traditional sense. Obviously, if there is mass, there is attraction and/or repulsion. If magnetic fields affecting the body are intense, then that alters the equation, even if it is only by a minute factor. Does the gravitational field have a similar (or even dissimilar) affect and if so, would that be a possible cause of red shift? (I know, that should be in the cosmology section and I will probably paste it into the Big Bang thread).

Yes. I read that. But I have to question the idea that the elemental differences in the two sections indicate two seperate locations. I think it could be two adjacent (touching) locations, i.e. over the length of the skeleton, that somehow endured different wethering and fossilization. For instance, if the skeleton was of an animal that somehow became entangled, either in foilage, mud, etc. died, and was fossilized, could the covering overburden have been a different elemental makeup. I believe it could. I'm not convinced that the elemental difference is evidence of fraud. I am convinced that some dinos developed wings (take that one as a given). The questions then are: (1) Why did they develop feathers, (2) did they develop flight. To question (1), see my earlier post. To questions (2), the successfull escapees described earlier probably did develop flight. But here is the really important question: what was in the trees serving as prey?

It seems that many people who see images of these fossils and say something to the effect "Did dinosaurs really fly?" are comepletely missing the point. Obviously these dinos had feathers structured into something that resembled wings. Four of them in this case. That part is unique (as far as I inow) among vertebates unless you include the gliding / flying squirrells. They were raptors. They needed the wings either to (a) steal their prey food or (b) escape the parents of the prey they just snatched

... I can talk to this one. All the replys so far have been generally accurate, but... First: Permits, etc. The federal authority for laser systems (where the beam never leaves a building or other completely enclosed space) is the FDA. Law reference is Title 10, United Staes Code, Ithink its chapter 14. It breaks down to this: unless you intend to sell it to somebody, transfer it to somebody, or use it on somebody (or their pets), the folks at FDA don't care if you build it or run it. They do care HOW you run it, and there are guidelines. If you employ others to operate the laser or to work in a situation where there is potential exposure, the FDA has specific guidelines they are more than happy to call to the attention of OSHA. Some States (Florida, Texas, and California for sure-there is a web site with links, I just can't find the URL right now) have their own regs. It takes some money, but CO2 is still the most practical and cost effective as an ameteur laser project for cutting steel. It takes good mirrors-make them yourself. Estimate 100 to two hundred hours to grind, figure, and test each of them. If you try to cool them with liquid, they'll need a different beginning figure. Then pay somebody to coat them for you. And always check the results before you mount them. Scientific American used to sell a book: Ameteur Telescope Making, Book One. It has everthing you need to learn to make good mirrors for a CO2. Static gases cavity design won't give you much but a hard time. Figure on a near-atmospheric pressure, and moving the gas mix quickly. Moving it accross the cavity vice along its length is a good idea. Consider a TEA excitation scheme as the easiest to fabricate and one of the more difficult to love. If you don't know what any of that is, then you really need to look it up. It doesn't HAVE to be a pulsed laser, but there are a couple big advantages: (1) the the material expelled (ablated) by the beam can be fully ejected from the cut area before the next pulse arrives. With a CW instead of pulsed, that ablated material forms a plume between the beam and the material, messing up the carefully calculated and meticulously crafted laser beam -to-working surface interaction. (2) Pulse structure vice CW also allows the gas mix to "relax". Not in the atomic theory sense, but in a turbulent, inert fluid interacting with high energy electrical discharge sense. You don't HAVE to wash the work space with inert gas, but you really, really want to do that. Just a tank of CO2 won't get you there as an active medium. You also need a tank of something to mix with it. Several different mixes have been demoed. A three gas mix (you can make a primative manifold using stainless pipe and valves salvaged from a defunct restaurant someplace) is the highest efficiency. Several papers from the mid-to-late seventies have good source data. There is a danger to eyesight with almost ANY laser. With High Power CO2, at 1KW, there is a slight danger of cutting off your leg, or maybe most of a finger (I have all mine). A company used to build 2kw, CW CO2's in Orlando. They tested the raw beam alignment (no focusing optics so it was over an inch across) by placing a block of 2 inch thick lexan in front of it. The burn left behind in two seconds or so exposure was nearly all the way through if the alignment was good and the flames shot out a couple feet. what was left behind was a three dimensional picture of the "mode structure" of the beam. Lots of laser safety info on the web-the best safety equipment anywhere is a clear head. Now, Brad, back to your original question What is the minimum required power of a laser (in standard wavelength ~650nm) to cut through steel quickly? In addition how much power would be required to run this laser? Which kind of laser would be best? (ie HeNe, CO2, etc) I'm kind of interested in building a "poor man's laser" but as with everything "if it's worth doing it's worth overdoing." Thanks. 650 nm is a "de facto" standard wavelength for things like supermarket scanners, weapon aimers, pocket pointers. It is that wavelength because it is (a) cheap to produce laser diodes in that wavelength, (b) it is visible. For cutting steel, you want power (energy/time) sufficient to melt the steel, then you want a puff of inert gas to push that bit of molten steel off the work surface, and then you move the beam incrementally before the next pulse of light, regardless of what the wavelength is. CO2's most efficient spectra is 10.6 microns, thats 10,600 nm. How much POWER to run it? Good question. Smart question. The efficiency of a TEA CO2 like I described here MIGHT get up to around 7 or 8 percent wall plug efficiency if the alingment and gas mix is really, really good. So don't plug it into a source that can't give it around fifteen thousand to twenty thousand watts. Actually, I have built a lot more (hundreds) Nd:YAG lasers than the one CO2. Not cheap. Not a good ameteur project. But they make pretty cuts in most materials. But plasma is still better for steel. I saw a used plasma bed for sale on the web for around $7K, no PC included. You could build just the CO2laser, no moving bed, etc. for maybe $3K and a thousand hours. Your call.

Okay, my bad. My alzheimer's kicked in and it was the treatment (contraversial treatment, I have to add) by vanFlandern at UM/ARMY Research Lab, not at NRL. My apologies to all. http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html There is a dissenting treatment at http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2002-08/msg0043393.html It's by Chris Hillman.

Here's where I'm going with that question. Yes, hydrogen or any other element has its own distinctive spectral emission. We can repeatedly demonstrate the effects and even turn them to useful purposes. But when we look at stars, we are not looking a a single atom or a single element. We are looking at (observing for puposes of research) a very complex and dynamic system of matter and energy. We then compare the emissions of that star to the emissions of very simple models and reach a conclusion, write it down, and submit it for scientific review. Has noone ever questioned that there may be beat frequencies or other phenomena that would give the same appearance as it being a giant puddle of excited gases? Please don't misinterpret; I'm not disagreeing with the generally accepted theories. I'm just confused that we rarely are willing to readily entertain alternative theories once a conclusion has been reached by one researcher and others concur in a refereed debate. Posit: Is it even possible that two elements with distinct and different spectra could, as a system, produce a third set of spectra because of the interactions of the originals? Yes, I'm asking about wave and/or particle interaction to produce a sympathetic/ constructive interference situation. I'm not asking this in terms of free space mixing, but in the middle--actually, at the surface-- of star stuff.???

Thanks, Rad Ed, I feel validated. Any theory that would adequately describe all the matter energy relationships in a body as complex as a star would be beyond human comprehension. I think that's why I'm not a scientist. Little bits and pieces at a time (single atom chunks) can be explained to the point of accepting a theory. But that still doesn't answer my question: How confident are we that the spectral data of an element gathered on Earth is applicable to the study of stellar spectra? If "we" are completely confident, and unwilling to entertain the possibility of there being a disconnect between the two, then doesn't that fly in the face of scientific method?

I don't have that link handy here, at home. I may have saved it at work.

Thanks, Jikiri (sorry had it wrong, it's not Meson). And I don't want to shortchange your comment about not putting all the eggs in the Big Bang Basket. I agree that when there is a well developed, alternative theory that can be used to make verifiable predictions and that meets all the other criteria to be widely accepted by the scientific community, Hubble's conclusion may have its own version of the flat Earth society. But that is the very purpose of this thread, to explore the other theories and to consider how they might be demonstrated, or what key pieces of information would either uphold or dispell that theory. Thanks for posting.

You mean the paper out of the Naval Research Labs or the more recent one?

Okay, that's one. And it's worth some treatment. One recent astronmical obsservation (and paper) studied the light from a distant star at the instant it was opaqued by Jupiter. The purpose was to try to "observe and measure" the speed of gravity. The conclusion was that gravity and light have identical speeds. This is in great contrast to the conclusion at the end of a paper by a scientist at the Naval Observatory. He concluded that the speed of gravity was AT LEAST twenty times greater than the speed of light. His treatment of the subject made a lot of sense to this layman. Recommended reading. The recent observation used terran telescopes to look at a piece of sky so small that the best analogy I can come up with is this: They were trying to see the expression on the face of the angel that was dancing on the head of a pin twenty three miles away. I guess I'm saying that I'm not convinced that gravity and light are in lock-step. So, yes, there may be a plausible explanation in the interactions of gravity and light. Does the gravity of the emitting body affect the light frequency, the spectral emissions, of the same body? The intuitive answer is yes. I can't do the math to demonstrate it what that effect might be at the two vastly different interpretations of the speed of gravity, but that is the question that must be resolved before you could build a good gravity-light interaction explanation of the red shift.

"Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue."--Winston Churchill. Dr. Hubble reasoned that the "red shift" observed in the spectra of stars, that was more pronounced the greater the distance to that star, meant that the universe was expanding. Okay, I am convinced that if the universe were expanding at the rate calculated, we on Earth would observe that shift in frequency. In other words, I contend that we (Dr. Hubble) observed a phenomenon and built a theory that fits. I am not convinced that that is the only plausible explanation of the shift Any other theories? I would like to build this thread around that. I have a philosophical difference with putting all the eggs of the red-shift phenomenon into the Big Bang Basket.

If you subscribe to the most popular intrepretation of quantum physics, the number of dimensions and the number of universes is infinite. I say, IF you subscribe.....