Moontanman

Great link, interesting to think that each of my key strokes is planned by my brain before i know it. zorro... FTL means Faster Than Light....

New site that contains an interactive tree of life. So far it's just for mammals but other groups are coming soon. http://www.onezoom.org/mammals.htm

God had to create? A reproductive pair? I'd like to see some support of this for sure. oh yeah, exactly what is a sympathetic environment? And who says anything came from nothing?

And you know that how? Elaborate on this please, it sounds nonsensical...

Ummm.... some support for that?

EquisDeXD, it is your responsibility to support your ideas, I do not have to disprove them, so far you have offered no support for the idea that a nuclear explosion could result from natural processes. In fact I suggest you google nuclear weapons to find out why your idea is indeed impossible. That leaves you with few choices to explain the reality of a nuclear explosion. I would actually be willing to think that is better than the assertion that a nuclear explosion occurred naturally....

Show us some evidence that there were radioactive human skeletons.... any place.... you do not understand the process of ground water depositing minerals nor do you have an understanding of radioactive decay and does critical mass ring a bell? In no way is that evidence supporting a nuclear explosion.... in fact you are mistaken in your description of a melt down in that case, in fact it was water flowing through the rocks that allowed the reaction to take place, remove the water and the reaction would stop, the water had nothing to do with cooling, it acted as a moderator. Again, such an explosion of a meteorite would not leave a crater... Neither of these things has anything to do with a natural nuclear explosion being possible.

I remember reading this in Scientific American a few years ago, it does kinda kill fine tuning but doesn't it mean that radioactive decay wouldn't work? No nuclear energy?

You need to support the assertion that magnetosphere has an effect on solar radiation at all much less controls it. Exactly what part of electromagnetic radiation is not affected by magnetic fields do you not understand....

No, the levels are not normal, dinosaur bones are quite radioactive, far higher than the surrounding rocks or area. I couldn't find a link to the India site but since other fields of glass are not due to atomic explosions why would the one you are talking about be assumed to be an atomic explosion other than ratings for the show you watched? Mystery? How is it a mystery? No mechanism for a natural nuclear explosion exists but a natural explanation for the fields of glass does exist. Is the bolded part supported by any evidence or did you just pull it out of thin air? No, the levels are not normal, dinosaur bones are quite radioactive, far higher than the surrounding rocks or area. I couldn't find a link to the India site but since other fields of glass are not due to atomic explosions why would the one you are talking about be assumed to be an atomic explosion other than ratings for the show you watched? Mystery? How is it a mystery? No mechanism for a natural nuclear explosion exists but a natural explanation for the fields of glass does exist. Is the bolded part supported by any evidence or did you just pull it out of thin air? No, the levels are not normal, dinosaur bones are quite radioactive, far higher than the surrounding rocks or area. I couldn't find a link to the India site but since other fields of glass are not due to atomic explosions why would the one you are talking about be assumed to be an atomic explosion other than ratings for the show you watched? Mystery? How is it a mystery? No mechanism for a natural nuclear explosion exists but a natural explanation for the fields of glass does exist. Is the bolded part supported by any evidence or did you just pull it out of thin air? No, the levels are not normal, dinosaur bones are quite radioactive, far higher than the surrounding rocks or area. I couldn't find a link to the India site but since other fields of glass are not due to atomic explosions why would the one you are talking about be assumed to be an atomic explosion other than ratings for the show you watched? Mystery? How is it a mystery? No mechanism for a natural nuclear explosion exists but a natural explanation for the fields of glass does exist. Is the bolded part supported by any evidence or did you just pull it out of thin air? No, the levels are not normal, dinosaur bones are quite radioactive, far higher than the surrounding rocks or area. I couldn't find a link to the India site but since other fields of glass are not due to atomic explosions why would the one you are talking about be assumed to be an atomic explosion other than ratings for the show you watched? Mystery? How is it a mystery? No mechanism for a natural nuclear explosion exists but a natural explanation for the fields of glass does exist. Is the bolded part supported by any evidence or did you just pull it out of thin air? No, the levels are not normal, dinosaur bones are quite radioactive, far higher than the surrounding rocks or area. I couldn't find a link to the India site but since other fields of glass are not due to atomic explosions why would the one you are talking about be assumed to be an atomic explosion other than ratings for the show you watched? Mystery? How is it a mystery? No mechanism for a natural nuclear explosion exists but a natural explanation for the fields of glass does exist. Is the bolded part supported by any evidence or did you just pull it out of thin air?

Is it possible to have a flowing current of positive particles? Hydrogen ions are basically protons, can protons flow in a current?

I thought Hillary always wears pants suits...

This is false, Venus has an atmosphere nearly 100 times as dense as Earth's and yet Venus has no magnetosphere. How about some support for that assertion, if it is true why does Venus have such a high greenhouse effect? Venus has no plants, no ozone and no water vapor.... yet again your link has nothing to say about what we are talking about... I don't understand your argument, the greenhouse effect is established science, without the greenhouse effect the temperature on the earth would vary by a couple hundred C from day to night. You seem to be fixated on the idea that global warming is not caused by the effects of humans. this thread is not about that, the greenhouse effect is real, where or not the greenhouse effect is affected by human activities is not part of this thread.

It's not about what anyone prefers, it's just difficult to read with all that stuff between the letters. I still see no reason to expect a magnetic field to affect the greenhouse effect of an atmosphere, a magnetic field does not affect Electromagnetic radiation. The main thing i wanted to do was try and predict the greenhouse effect of a particular atmosphere, I figured out that i could affect the specific heat capacity of the atmosphere by varying the gasses in that atmosphere but I can't figure out how that relates specifically to greenhouse effect in a way that would allow me to predict the actual temperature increase caused by that atmosphere...

Can you support your assertion that a magnetosphere is necessary for a greenhouse effect to take place? How about losing all the odd fonts and such, makes it difficult to read. The purpose of this thread is to find out if the greenhouse effect can be predicted by the atmosphere of a planet. It has nothing to do with global warming on the Earth or the validity of global warming on the earth.

I suggest you read the OP one more time and then you can be embarrased...

All across the US laws forbidding Gay marriage in one or another have been passed. In my state the state constitution was actually changed to restrict marriage to not only a man and a woman but opposite sex relationships which are not officially married are no longer valid as well. http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/North_Carolina_Same-Sex_Marriage,_Amendment_1_(May_2012) This means that domestic partnerships or a civil union between a man and a woman are also illegal...

Many creatures have both male and female sexual organs, some switch back and forth between male and female over the course of their lives some creatures are asexual and few are only one sex, female, with no males. Are you talking about asexual? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction

You are aware that the Ancient Greeks thought love between a man and a young boy was the norm? Women couldn't vote and were denigrated to property?

Is it possible to calculate the greenhouse effect of an atmosphere? Consider the Earth except with 10 times the air pressure, would the greenhouse effect be 10 times as much? Is there a way to figure out a good approximation of the greenhouse effect? The greenhouse effect of the Earths atmosphere raises the temp 36C I am trying to use this site Planet Designer to calculate a planet 3 AU from the Earths sun that would be inhabitable. I am looking at an atmosphere of about 150 psi at the surface. I need close to 300C in greenhouse effect to do this. So far I have found out that adding helium to the planets atmosphere lowers it's specific heat capacity, i would assume that this would lower the greenhouse effect? I have figured out how to change the value of specific heat capacity and assuming a greenhouse effect of 150C I get a typical surface temp of 22.9C but the 150C number is just an assumption. I can't figure out how to predict the greenhouse effect of the planets atmosphere.

Foam suggests an organic impurity in your water. Industrial water in good condition is not a particularly specific description. Do you measure the parameters of your intake water? What sort of industry does this water come from? Is foaming a new problem or an old one? A foam fractionator could remove the foam easily enough, especially if the impurity is organic. I reread your post and realized I am not sure a fractionator that large exists...

I always play it at the least resolution it will allow. Sometimes it helps most of the time it doesn't. Most of it has to do with my 10 yo computer I am sure.

The main difference is that religious morals are based on a book written 2500 years ago and suggest some pretty mean things like killing homosexuals and adulterers, genocide, and slavery are moral Secular morals assert that harming others is bad and is based on our social behavior as social animals. other social animals have morals, they are not the morals we have but they are morals but morals based on the different needs of that species. I disagree with the bolded line above. all across the US Religious views are being used to take rights away from those who do not believe the same way.

Smoothness of stream, quite a big difference too...