Moontanman

The amount of air or oxygen in soils is hugely variable, in swamps it's practically zero, in dry deserts soils are quite porous, being somewhat of an amateur horticulturalist I am intimately acquainted with many different plants from underwater plants to cacti to trees and plants that grow completely with out soil. I can say with some experience that water plants that are provided with oxygenated roots will grow root systems far bigger than their anoxic controls. This is true even with trees...

If you want to see plants that grow with no oxygen around the roots I suggest you visit a swamp, cypress and water tupelo trees to just name two grow in deep mud with so little oxygen they produce hydrogen sulfide, it doesn't keep the trees from growing..

Here is a link to the latest information. http://www.space.com/17628-warp-drive-possible-interstellar-spaceflight.html

I understand NASA is looking into it, I'll try to look up the papers, even if it doesn't work for FTL, which is where the radiation problems come in it would be fantastic to simply explore the solar system, 10% of the speed of light would be quite an improvement..

Yeah I'm a complete nerd...

I'm not sure that electricity is an accurate way to define the exchange of positive ions between neurons.

In a mood today...

Of course they can, but that is not really a siphon, it's a pump..

Because siphons do not go "up hill"...

The Q Evolved from lesser beings millions of years ago...

Evidently raw pumpkin is pretty good as well....

Obviously a Demon did this? You do realize you are on a science site... RIGHT.... ? You seem to lack critical thinking, just because you saw something doesn't mean it was real, and when you see something that is impossible it's not necessarily real, your mind can play games on you in many ways. This video attempts to explain critical thinking... I suggest you watch it, the entire series would in fact be a good idea...

There appears to be some disagreement on this, I'm not sure which side to go with... http://www.rense.com/general25/vore.htm

A planet around a dim red star, possibly in orbit of a gas giant around that star might be extraordinarily long lived, orbital resonances might keep the core molten long after the radioactive elements have decayed but while it might be 100,000,000,000 years it would not be forever...

There lots of different hypothesis, the main thing to remember is that bacteria were not the first life, bacteria are advanced life forms, the first life was far more simple that bacteria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Still, why would you say they couldn't find enough food, ever been to the tropics? Even where I live in the subtropics vegetation is quite lush. Water is close as the nearest river, just like other large animals they would live near a source of water, lush vegetation is generally near a source of water... As Sam suggested if they are gigantotherms they would eat and drink less than their size would suggest...

I agree, the environment wasn't as different during the time of the dinosaurs as many think. An animal that eats small animals would do so even if the small animals were different than they are used to. I am leaning toward disease being a significant factor as well... It's important to note that many if not all small theropods were covered in feathers, this would seem to indicate they could live in temperate environments as well. Makes the idea of them living in our time a bit more realistic.

I'm not sure what you mean, sources of water? All large animals would need that mammals included, I don't see plants being anymore lush then than now, is there reason to think so?

This could be an important development in the UFO phenomena. I can't read the entire article but it looks interesting.. These lights have been both filmed and photographed.

Sam, you do realize that dinosaurs were as removed from reptiles as are mammals? Both evolved from "reptiles" and many mammals are not exactly "hot Blooded" I do see your point, it is thought that dinosaurs may have been more diverse as far as body temps are concerned than we commonly think of as mammals. "Reptile" is no longer considered as an accurate descriptive term. Possibly if we want to get serious in this discussion we should be saying anapsids, diapsids and synapsids all of these groups evolved from para reptiles as well as many animals that simply didn't make the "cut" I am well aware that Jurassic park was a Hollywood fantasy, I am basing my assertions on paleontology not movies. Dinosaurs were as to birds as bats are to mammals both evolved from para "reptiles". Most of them had feathers, even sauropods are thought to have had fuzzy feathers similar to baby chickens by some paleontologists, probably not as adult but the young. The hollow neck bones and air sacs are indicative of bird like breathing and a high metabolism, young sauropods were probably more endothermic than gigantothermic and even today there are endothermic "reptiles" even fish, endothermy is not an off on thing and even insects have some limited endotherms. Theropods were almost certainly endotherms much like birds and also had the signature air sacs hollow bones and more efficient breathing than mammals. Sauropods evolved from far more bird like dinosaurs which survived the great dying because of both endothermy and other bird like features. Also dinosaurs lived inside the arctic and anarctic circles which also suggests they were endotherms. Still no such thing as a brontosaurus, apatosaurus is the correct name. Sam, I started out intending to defend mammals now i find myself on the other side, typical when you start out with a presupposition and look into it deeper.

So since i can at least provide some evidence of my stance and you can't you'll just take your ball and go home? I suggested you give me some idea of the side issues, I think I addressed the major parts, I am not asserting anything but facts and speculating from those facts, so far all you seem to want to do is talk about sauropods eating what ever...

No we must have cross posted. What side issues? Not entirely accurate, I am thinking about how well they would or would not compete with each other, I used the idea that dinosaurs were indeed superior to mammals. Dinosaurs took over dominance from early mammals due to low oxygen levels and the superiority of dinosaur breathing, one of the links I provided asserts this. There were large predatory animals way before dinosaurs, anapsids were common large animals that are now only survived by turtles, the early mammal like reptiles like dimetrodon and many other para reptiles could not compete with the dinosaurs who lived through the "great dying" of the Permian due to their superior breathing apparatus among other things. Dinosaurs didn't evolve until around 230 million years ago, they took over from the other para reptiles like the mammal like reptiles after the great dying. The first dinosaurs were small insignificant creatures but they inherited the world and dominated it for 150 million years... Hollow bones and air sacs also contributed to the gigantism of dinosaurs, crocodiles which survived the KT boundary and are also archosaurs do not share the breathing apparatus and hollow bones of dinosaurs and could not compete with the evolving mammals for land niches. The fixation on whether they could or could not eat modern vegetation has little bearing since modern vegetation had taken over the planet many millions of years before the dinosaurs became extinct so they most certainly could eat modern vegetation..