Moontanman

Golly gee whiz Light Storm I wonder why? This is not the religious forum, this is science forum, simply saying a deity did it explains nothing. Take it to the religious forum.... Can you back any of this up with evidence light storm?

Very nice light storm, way to inject some of your male bovine excrement into a totally non related thread. Yes it describes how much the ocean levels would rise but the "global warming is not true" part of the link is suspect and so is the description of how high the ocean would get if the ice caps melted. A somewhat less biased if not more accurate answer can be found here... 80 meters is the figure they give. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

No, all you have done is make claims that are contrary to the laws of physics, you made the strange claims, it's up to you to support it with more than "I said so"

It needs to be said, don't launch water balloons at anyone or try to catch them, my nephew tried to catch one about the size of a cantaloupe and it knocked him unconscious, swelled the side of his face badly and closed one eye. a mass of water flying through the air is very nearly as dangerous as a solid object.

I know that is the current theory... sorry I couldn't help myself..... so much male bovine excrement is touted here i didn't think mine would be all that bad but it smelled pretty much the same Thanks Ophiolite, your post reminded me of the stuff i did learn in school, my bad....

Iggy and every one else, i guess i am just not capable of wrapping my mind around the concept that there cannot be a time frame consistent with everyone in the universe, some sort of universal time = T with time as we experience it being a subjective time = t caused by the distortion matter and speed. I understand that gravity and speed slow time down but to me that indicates that such distortion is a local phenomena and that instant communication is just that "Instant" if i called Australia with instant communication i would not expect to see a reply before i sent it, but is that what you are saying or does this only apply to distant objects?

Ok, I am the OP and I totally understand that current theory forbids any FTL effects that could transfer information (or matter for that matter ) So I will try to explain what I am asking, I'll have to use a few Science fiction terms, for want of better words, to describe some of this. Swansont is quite correct in his summation of the idea of instantaneous communication, if current theory is correct it's not worth thinking about. BUT if it was discovered I'll bet anyone here $50 to a donut that someone will be able to include it as a subset of the knowledge we already have... be that as it may i am not asserting such a thing will ever be possible, or that it should be possible. I am genuinely curious about what the effects of "Instant" communication would be. I'm not talking about "subspace signals" or some sort of tachyons or anything that takes time to reach it's destination. I am talking about an effect that if two such "Instant radios" were tuned to each other there would be no time elapsed between pressing the key on one and the key depressing on the other (I am thinking of the old Morse code transmitters used back in the 1860s to communicate across the US.) Those transmitters of course used electricity which is slower than light by quite a bit. But back to my madness, if five such "radios" were on five different places, the nearest star, Andromeda, Magellanic clouds, USA and Australia. The signal would not have a travel time, if all the "radios" were tuned to the same signal all would receive the signal at the precise same time. Any return signal would also be received with no travel time, would this cause paradoxes or would it just appear to be paradoxes if we look at it from the point of view of arriving light signals? BTW a signal, to be sure, suggests travel time but I don't know a better word to describe what i am thinking of.

Radioactivity was a case of contradicting everything we thought we knew and observed about matter but what i want to know is that if such communications was possible, if we must lets say it is still within what we already know some how but was missed. Would being able to contact anyplace with no lag time really result in anything different in our current methods of communication except no lag time? Would being able to transmit to the moon with no lag time really cause things to happen we would think of as weird or unusual? Or would talking to some one on mars not be any different than talking to some one next door. Would everyday cause and effect be disrupted somehow?

Two guys almost caught by a dinosaur!

I am honestly not sure what you are asking but if you are asking why all the continents seem to fit together like a jig saw puzzle, it's due to continental drift which is caused by plate tectonics.

When radioactivity was discovered it was not part of any new physical laws, it resulted in new laws being written. I am not trying to predict or support FTL communication, i was just wondering if such a discovery would change or how it would change our daily lives. I am quite sure current laws would have to be amended at the very least but what would such a discovery really allow? I have heard all sorts of causality problems that would occur but would they be real enough to actually change our perception of reality on a personal man of the street way. Radioactivity did but it took many years for the changes to filter down and once the cause of radioactivity was discovered those changes held together and were not just arbitrary stuff someone thought up. If it became possible to communicate with zero time lag would how we live really change significantly? Or would it just result in being able to "for instance" report a super nova before we could detect it with visible light? On shorter distance scales i see no reason to expect any changes, if the time lag between new york and Australia became zero would we really notice?

Can you back that up with anything but claims? You are suggesting we over turn the laws of physics, at least give us some justification of what you say because it is not true, you cannot, in any way supported by natural processes, move the mass of the Earth around to make the surface gravity stronger or weaker unless you change the diameter of the earth.

Didn't the discovery of radioactivity defy the known physical laws of the time? Did that discovery justify any answer they wanted? Why would the discovery of instantaneous communication justify any answer i want?

It is indeed my experience with pH and the effects it has on aquatic life that shows me that pH was no doubt part of the problem but not a very large part of it. There are habitats, large important habatats i might add, that shift their pH from 8 to 6 or so twice daily and they are rich with life forms comparable to coral reefs. Fish and most marine organisms are quite tolerant of pH changes. Even marine coral which i have considerable experience with do not just die when the pH changes and unless the ("quick", indeed the speed needs to be defined as well) change is more than 2 pH numbers or involves crossing pH 7 in one direction of another I see no way for pH to be a large part of the mechanism that resulted in the extinction of much of the life on the Earth at the K/T boundary. I still think that lack of sunlight for months or even years was the deciding factor, life can and does adjust to changes in pH, no light is far more of a problem. Considering I see nothing to indicate we are talking about the oceans pH of 8.3 or so changing to pH 5, I'm not even sure this would be possible over the times scales of the K/T extinction such a change would be evident in the chemistry of sediments and we do not see such a change. A change in pH of 1 is a ten X change, dropping the pH from 8 to 5 of the entire oceans or even to below 7 is highly improbable especially when you take into account that pH of the oceans was still 8 or more when the atmosphere contained far more CO2 than it does today, the ocean has a tremendous amount of buffering capacity and the larger an organism is the less it is affected by pH changes, the acid rain changes you are speaking of occur in very limited habitats and only affect certain fishes and the pH change is quite large from above neutral to 5, pH 5 will burn your skin if you have a scratch or other wise broken skin but there are many fish that not only live at this pH but have to have it to breed and hatch their eggs. lack of sunlight is the deciding factor, pH changes would have been the least of the worries of animal life with no sunlight.

Lets do a thought experiment... Lets say that in some lab somewhere (don't matter where or what kind of lab it was) an effect was discovered that indicated that during or as a result of some experiment a connection was made with aliens doing a similar experiment somewhere in the Andromeda Galaxy. Lets just say for the sake of argument a device meant for something else started vibrating in a non random way and it turned out to be aliens with a similar device making our device vibrate. It turns out to be a code based in math and we are able to decipher it and it not only turns out to be from another galaxy but the communication between devices is instantaneous. Would such a device and the knowledge to build them result in me calling my past self and telling me not to do something that turned out disastrous or would the effect on modern life be just a curiosity that impacts modern technology in more subtle ways much like time dilation is not part of our normal experience?

The "change" in the atmosphere was that suddenly the light from the sun was cut off by ash, dust and smoke, an asteroid strike on one side of the earth and a huge lava flow almost on the other side pretty much kicked up enough material to cut off sunlight for possibly years, months at least, it's quite possible the flood of basalt lava had been going on for thousands of years, the asteroid strike could have just been the straw that broke the camels back, this destroyed the bottom of the food change, most all the tiny animals who used sunlight died, then the ones who ate them died and so on. The tiny producers didn't die out completely but not enough survived to support the food chain and the bigger animals tended to die off. There were exceptions but most of the larger sea creatures died off much the same way the larger land creatures died off as well.

I doubt that would be possible in the real world, such a concentration of mass would immediately go to the center as the rest of the mass wrapped around it, in such an extreme case you would get the effect of higher gravity above the mass concentration much mike you get with mascons under the surface of the moon. But an example as extreme as yours couldn't be stable for very long even in human terms of time.

I'm going to give the guy kudos for an idea about the universe i had never heard of before and that has a certain.... elegance to it, I'd like to read about any predictions his idea might make that would be measurable and unique to his hypotheses.

No Earthling, unless the actual diameter of the Earth changed drastically no amount of reshuffling of the Earth's mass would have changed the pull of gravity at the surface, I'll repeat myself, "if you were 4000 miles away from the center of an Earth mass black hole you would still experience the same gravity we do today." a shorter day would also have no discernible effect, no internal shifting would have any effect, where are you getting these ideas from? You really need to provide a link to show some evidence for what you are claiming. I hate it when that happens, sorry i wasn't more precise in my response. Lets break down the OP into all it's seperate parts If I understand what he is saying then yes, more gravity would indicate smaller organisms due to the cube square law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-cube_law I'm not sure if i really understand this but if I do I think the above link does explain what he is asking. No, gravity (on a planetary scale at least) does not make atoms or molecules smaller... I am quite certain this is true, probably for reasons other than gravity as well, but over interstellar distances it would seem to a moot point.

Michel, as I said before, all things being equal a large planet will have stronger gravitational pull at the surface than a small planet, you keep trying to change the arbitrarily parameters to suit your self. High gravity would mean smaller animals in general due to the cube square law, low gravity would allow for larger animals. Yes it is possible to conceive of a larger planet with less gravity, a 24,000 mile in diameter planet made of ice would not have as high a gravity as as 24,000 mile planet made of iron but you are only trying to wiggle out of being wrong and you know it. BTW, a larger Earth with the same mass???? Care to add to add a mechanism to that large steaming pile of hot male bovine excrement?

The main thing to remember is that the disaster that wiped out the dinosaurs severely affected the entire planet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Tertiary_extinction_event

I am not an engineer but I worked with engineers for much of my career with DuPont and i have seen the very thing you are showing in the pics with bolts that "appear" to actually be the same bolts we used in high pressure very hot (300c) polymer pipes. The bolt always comes out like that, you can tell by the lack of damage to the threads that the bolt was not twisted off, that would have broken it above the threads. It is entirely possible that the bolt may have failed due to inherent flaws that made the bolt break when heated (we used them at 350c) and torqued (100fp). We never knew the bolt was broken until we removed the bolt but we were far more likely to see this in manifolds that had been allowed to cool to room temperature after being bolted with hot bolts when the pipes were also very hot. . Oh yeah, one of the studies showed the number of broken bolts went up when we bolted cold bolts into hot manifolds as well, it's been a long time, sorry if it's not helpful.

I agree with csmyth, I would like to see how rearranging the mass of the earth would result in a different gravitational pull at the surface.

I'm sorry Marat, but what does the Coelacanth have to do with the extinction event that caused the deaths of the marine reptiles? No one says everything died at the KT boundary, some animals did survive, I gave an example, sea turtles, there are many more that did survive but not any of the marine reptiles other than the sea turtle.

Either I don't understand what is being asserted or my personal experiences put me somewhat outside the bell curve on this one...