arc

And the lack of fossil evolutionary evidence pertaining to a gradual increase in size is due to?

Ed, I think this is more simple than even volcanoes. The ocean seems to all of us as an immense body. But as shown previously it is 22 thousand times less then the terrestrial mass. The deep ocean is in direct contact with over 64% of the Earth's crustal surface, this being the ocean crust. These areas have deep penetration by ocean waters. This boundary deep in the crust is where the planets thermal content and the crushing pressures of the deep ocean meet. Water is a hydraulic liquid, a small decadal thermal movement and expansion in this location would produce an immediate surface elevation response. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/ In the past 50 years, sea level rose about 1.8 (plus or minus 0.3) millimeters a year. Satellite observations since 1993 indicate the pace has accelerated to about 3 millimeters per year. What’s driving the acceleration? How much and how fast will sea level rise in the future? In trying to answer these questions, scientists repeatedly tried to balance the sea level budget, and they repeatedly came up short. In the article the sea level budget was corrected but not completely. Since the revision, says Willis, the bumps in the graph have largely disappeared, which means the observations and the models are in much better agreement. Levitus agrees that the interdecadal variability is substantially decreased, but it isn’t totally gone. He argues that before anyone assumes that the observations must be wrong, they should remember that the amount of variability they are talking about is probably less than the amount of heat gained and lost during the intense El Niño in 1997-98. “Climate models don’t reproduce El Niño events very well either,” he says, but no one doubts they are real. Original graph (Blue elements) by Robert Simmon, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. Red elements by this author. Could Earth's terrestrial thermal content vary in slow interdecadal periodicities? It is now hard to imagine it wouldn't.

Ed, sorry about the misunderstanding. My point that I am trying to make on this is whenever I read or hear about ocean levels I know from that NOAA article that there are anomalies in the estimates, especially the short term interdecadal. And as the article shows, these are smoothed out in the adjustments. I just wanted to express a point that most people do not think about. That using the example below can give a person a new perspective. Thus, a mean temperature change of 0.1 C. of the world ocean would correspond roughly to a mean temperature change of 100 C. of the global atmosphere if all the heat associated with this ocean anomaly was instantaneously transferred from the ocean to the atmosphere. This of course will not happen but this computation illustrates the enormous heat capacity of the ocean versus the atmosphere. The atmosphere is a little over a millionth (0.000 001) or 1/1,200,000 of one Earth mass. The ocean is 1/22,000 or 0.022 of one earth mass. These two thermal contents add up to practically nothing when compared to the Earths entire thermal content. Most of the heat content in these two systems is at their boundary with each other. But most of the ocean is actually substantially colder. Deep ocean is just above freezing. While on the other hand the mantle constitutes about 84% of Earth's volume with temperatures that range between 500 to 900 °C (932 to 1,652 °F) at the upper boundary with the crust to over 4,000 °C (7,230 °F) at its inner boundary. Next is the outer core; a billion trillion tons of molten iron that has temperatures estimated between 4400 °C (7952 F.) in the outer regions to 6100 °C (11000 F.) near the inner core, of which may have a temperature as high as the Sun's surface, at around 5430 °C (9806 F.). Taking into consideration the atmosphere and ocean facts that include the mean temperature change example above, one can see that the Earths heat content could erase the ocean and atmosphere without losing a degree of content. So why would we think that the terrestrial Earth with such a massive heat content would not vary infinitesimally in content over time. It would now seem unlikely that it wouldn't. Why would we think that an entire planet, one with a magnetic field generator that varies in output would not produce a small thermal variable? Probably a cycle. How much of a minuscule variation would it take to cause the ocean to expand the unaccounted amount? Easily small enough that it would go unnoticed.

That is unless you completely miss with that all or nothing, do or die planet killer asteroid impact avoidance mission.

I'm not sure if someone has made this comparison before but speculations is the sciences version of a talent show. Like the "Idol" type. Where 99.9% cannot even be considered mediocre. They sing in the shower or in front of a mirror and see the next big super star. You have created a venue for science amateurs to get there big break. To be the next science super star. The next Einstein. I think the reason everyone likes to watch this bad science spectacle is both "car crash" can't look away behavior and the Simon Cowell like responses from the "judges". It is quite entertaining. Forgive me for one more comparison. The participant's lack of awareness of their lack of abilities is similar to professional stand-up comedy. Some people think they are the funniest person on Earth and they are just as good as the pros, but then one open mic night and they meet reality. The professionals make it look easy, be it sports, entertainment or science.

Ed, your Wikipedia link states 45 - 90% is the result of radioactive decay in the crust. Much of the heat is created by decay of naturally radioactive elements. An estimated 45 to 90 percent of the heat escaping from the Earth originates from radioactive decay of elements concentrated in the crust. I think this is a pretty reliable link. http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2011/07/17/kamland-geoneutrinos/ This article is about the Kamioka Liquid-scintillator Antineutrino Detector (KamLAND), and states, of the 44 trillion watts of heat that continually flows from Earth's interior into space, 50 percent of the heat is due to radioactive decay and other sources, and primordial heat left over from the planet's formation must account for the rest. The research says radioactive decay of uranium, thorium, and potassium in Earth's crust and mantle is a principal source of the 20+ trillion watts. But where does the other slightly more than half come from. Stuart Freedman who is a member of Berkeley Lab's Nuclear Science Division and a professor in the Department of Physics at the University of California at Berkeley and who is also leading the participation of the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), says in the article; "One thing we can say with near certainty is that radioactive decay alone is not enough to account for Earth's heat energy". "Whether the rest is primordial heat or comes from some other source is an unanswered question." "All models of the inner Earth depend on indirect evidence. Leading models of the kind known as bulk silicate Earth (BSE) assume that the mantle and crust contain only lithophiles (”rock-loving” elements) and the core contains only siderophiles (elements that “like to be with iron”). Thus all the heat from radioactive decay comes from the crust and mantle – about eight terawatts from uranium 238 (238U), another eight terawatts from thorium 232 (232Th), and four terawatts from potassium 40 (40K)." Ed, the other "unaccounted" half is undetermined. It could be any of the following from your link or maybe something else not yet understood. Heat of impact and compression released during the original formation of the Earth by accretion of in-falling meteorites. Heat released as abundant heavy metals (iron, nickel, copper) descended to the Earth's core. Latent heat released as the liquid outer core crystallization at the inner core boundary. Heat may be generated by tidal force on the Earth as it rotates; since rock cannot flow as readily as water it compresses and distorts, generating heat. There has been speculation that nuclear fission might occur. There is no reputable science to suggest that any significant heat may be created by electromagnetic effects of the magnetic fields involved in Earth's magnetic field, as suggested by some contemporary folk theories. In the http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php article the researchers are stymied by unaccounted ocean temperature variation and it's physical manifestation: ocean expansion. "Although he has “caused a stir” among his colleagues in the past by criticizing models’ inability to simulate how ocean heat storage varies on short-term time scales," he stresses, “I have said from the beginning that the fact that the long-term trends in models and observations do agree so well is what is most important.” “My point is just that we need to remain open-minded because it may be that it is possible for the ocean to gain heat and lose it more rapidly than we think. There may be other phenomena [similar to El Niño] operating on different time scales that can explain interdecadal increases and decreases,” says Levitus. Interdecadal is short term, literally between decades. That is the same Mr Levitus of the National Oceanographic Data Center, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA and the before mentioned mean temperature change of 0.1 C. temp anomaly transfer example. The article states: "We need theories about how the parts of the Earth system are related to each other so that we can make sense of observations. And we need models to help us see into the future". Nobody is considering models unrelated to solar thermal forcing.

Although this is from Nov. 2008 it is an interesting NASA article on ocean levels and the difficulties that are confounding the researchers. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/ Quote: The two main causes of sea level rise are melting of Earth’s frozen landscapes—ice sheets, ice caps, and glaciers—and thermal expansion. Water expands when it absorbs heat. If you add the amount of thermal expansion to the amount of melting, it should equal the observed sea level rise, but somehow, it never did. Here's another, What we found was that ocean heating was larger than scientists previously thought, and so the contribution of thermal expansion to sea level rise was actually 50 percent larger than previous estimates.” So they know what these input values are, but the sea level rise is 50% higher than estimates would suggest. The ocean expansion is what is being observed. It does not equal the rise when added to the melt. And one more. “In this analysis, we focused on 1961-2003 because it is the time period highlighted as being an important, unresolved issue in the last IPCC report [intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report],” said Domingues, “but also because the problems with the newest Argo data—the problems that Josh Willis found as well as other problems we have identified—haven’t been totally solved. For the most recent years [2003-2007], the sea level budget once again does not close. Our team is still working on that problem.” “One thing we found was that climate models that do not include volcanic forcing tend to overestimate the long-term change, and their simulated decadal variability is not in agreement with the observations. On the other hand, the models that include volcanic forcing are more realistic in terms of decadal variability, but they tend to slightly underestimate the long-term warming,” she says. “This kind of result tells us volcanic forcing is important, but that we don’t totally understand it yet.” "Over estimate" and "is not in agreement" vs "more realistic and slightly underestimates". Hmmmm. Maybe the deep ocean has another heat source. The article is worth reading. Here's something else that is related; ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat05.pdf Warming of the world ocean, 1955–2003 S. Levitus, J. Antonov, and T. Boyer National Oceanographic Data Center, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA Received 22 September 2004; revised 24 November 2004; accepted 8 December 2004; published 22 January 2005. Thus, a mean temperature change of 0.1 C. of the world ocean would correspond roughly to a mean temperature change of 100 C. of the global atmosphere if all the heat associated with this ocean anomaly was instantaneously transferred from the ocean to the atmosphere. This of course will not happen but this computation illustrates the enormous heat capacity of the ocean versus the atmosphere. Wow, the ocean looks like it is the dominant thermal content around here. Except for that it is 1/22,000 thousandths of the terrestrial mass of the Earth. So using the NOAA example above, what would a similar 0.1 C mean change in the Earth's volumetric heat capacity (VHC) do to the ocean? Make it phase change into something like Venus? So this unaccounted 50% expansion in the deep ocean could be a vary vary vary small natural variation in the Earth's VHC manifesting through ocean hydro-thermal and volcanic systems.

Strange that the fossil and skeletal evidence shows a rather gradual increase in our human ancestor's stature. Then there is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens Anatomically modern humans first appear in the fossil record in Africa about 195,000 years ago, and studies of molecular biology give evidence that the approximate time of divergence from the common ancestor of all modern human populations was 200,000 years ago. Funny, we have found lots of massive +/- 200 million year old dinosaur skulls and bones, but we have never found ANY 200,000 years old 6 m (20 ft) tall human remains.

Not the copy burned into my brain.

If it belongs to or is of at least this universe, what is it's totality. Can it with enough time be revealed entirely. Is our utilization of it its "true purpose" or are we just using a microscope to break rocks into smaller pieces.

Arthur C Clark hosted; Fractals - The Colors of Infinity. It forever changed my perception of the universe and mans perception of it through maths. There seems to be a simple underlying form to reality. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB8m85p7GsU It poses in my mind the question; Is math ours or the universes.

That is grossly inaccurate. You ended up where I did.

Number 1. is affirming the obvious. Number 2. is incorrect because the Wright's work began on a foundation of previous work by many scientists including that of George Cayley, an English engineer and one of the most influential people in aeronautical history. Believed by many to be the farther of aeronautical sciences and the underlying principles of flight. And also Samuel Langley the American astrophysicist and astronomer who built and flew steam powered model airplanes. One of which flew 1.2 kilometers in 1891. So advances in science are by; previous work improved and made more accurate. Combining old and new ideas. Using other fields as inspiration and information for new concepts. I believe you are confused by the nature of discovery, the natural process of the accumulation of knowledge. It resembles a flowing river that began as a trickle in antiquity, moving in one direction, always looking to change course and find the path of least resistance (Occam's razor). As it moved into the future its volume increased as smaller streams and rivers of information added to the growing body of knowledge. ​ Many of the course changes began as simple spills into a lower area while others took great amounts of erosion to breach an impasse (LHC). But one thing is certain, the total volume of knowledge provides the momentum, the force that allows new discoveries. That is clear from the Renaissance to the Industrial Revolution to our current Tech Revolution. Their are no separate trickles or streams that create parallel but separate discovery. All current work is supported by THE PREVIOUS.

Did they say anything about tidal heating, that much ocean could have some pretty sizable movement. The tidal movement of a magma boundary area below the crust could also provide additional heat flux. Could the right orbit and gravitational stresses provide the energy?

Trans-Stellar rouge planet wearing lipstick. Whatever you do, don't Google THAT!

Leif, don't start your journey here critiquing the education and qualifications of those who have earned our admiration. Where else in this world are you, I or any merely curious person going to find such a broad body of intellect willing to discuss science for free! I cannot be grateful enough to those who give their time here.

One down, several hundred to go!

First, to lead would require one to know where one was going. That has not been shown to be occurring, of the two that have responded, we have stated that we are lost due to your direction. Second, what concept? A long unbroken chain of verbiage. ver·bi·age ˈvərbē-ij noun 1. speech or writing that uses too many words or excessively technical expressions. synonyms: verbosity, wordiness, prolixity, long-windedness, loquacity, rigmarole,circumlocution, superfluity, periphrasis

Ummm, I am not a physicist and I know next to nothing about the subject, but despite my shortcoming I suspect that you do not either. I do know a little something about construction, that without proper education and training in building materials and processes a amateur could design and build a construct that cannot support its own weight. I would take the nice lady's advice and try to not sound so much like a guru at a hippy commune.

Your assertions as to the context that lead to the development of flight are somewhat backwards. The development of flight, that is, the scientific discovery of the characteristics of flight was systematically revealed over several years through careful experimentation by the Wright brothers. They first invented, again through careful experimentation, the instruments to study flight. They built the first wind tunnel that would later test over 200 scale wing configurations, one of which actually flew at Kitty hawk Dec. 17 1903. It was their discipline to the scientific process that enabled their success. To discover human flight and not be killed while doing it was a direct consequence of the control that a diligent and thorough scientific study can produce. They flew their Wright glider one year earlier and accomplished their goals for tethered flights and returned home to Ohio by train. They carefully went over their data and returned the next year for their first powered flight. Careful, systematic accumulation of knowledge allowed human flight. A fact well sharpened with the knowledge that only one of them completed high school. While the Wrights experimented some of their fellow seekers of flight died or were crippled as the first true crash test dummies. The possibly ironic thing about your post on flight is that the Wright brothers could have likely flown on the 13th of Dec. instead of the 17th. The weather was perfect but they were the devout sons of a bishop and would not work on or attempt to fly their life's dream on a Sunday. Then weather and mishap delayed them until the 17th. The irony is not in their religious devotion, or that they were encumbered very little by it. But it was the many religious commentators stating at the time that if man was intended to fly God would have given him wings. The Wrights could apparently accommodate both and be great scientists.

Alright then, don't let it get near Uranus.

www.thefreedictionary.com/rogue‎ An unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person; a scoundrel or rascal. 2. One who is playfully mischievous; a scamp. 3. A wandering beggar; a vagrant. 4. A vicious and solitary animal, especially an elephant that has separated itself from its herd. Sucks to be that planet. Could you ever live down that bad rep. WAIT! Don't let it get near VENUS!

Hold on zapatos, in a recorded format this could easily be the legal replacement for water boarding.

Proud, let me put it this way. Have you ever seen a science fiction movie that had a story that was so technically improbable that it was painful to watch. You know, like when the astronauts are in orbit and there is no zero gravity. It almost always tops off a really bad story line. It is difficult to discuss the concept of this thread because anything can happen. To borrow a theme from here at SFN - a thought salad. You cannot simply say the above and expect constructive dialog, because these rules that our universe operates by are entwined in our minds with a vast construct of logical outcomes that give us a accurate picture of how things work. You change a key force or law and it is like moving a foundation stone, you will knock loose every brick in the wall. Nothing in your model is based on the laws of this universe that allow a logical predictive evaluation. Would you want to play a game like chess where there are no logical rules, it would become as tedious as building a house of cards on horse back. Why do you want to know this anyway?