arc

Please tell me your hands are freakishly small!

OK Proud the first thing you should understand is I am not a scientist. The second is I can REALLY think outside the box. But what you will also need to understand is most people require the conditions that meet their level of logical thinking. Your outline is difficult to theorize about due to the unusual arrangement or should I say derangement of masses and fundamental forces like gravity. It is apparent in your model that the smaller the mass the greater the gravitational attraction which seems to allow a star to orbit a planet. But then how does the star produce the pressures required for fusion, which it needs to be a star. Without critical mass it would be a big cloud of gas or maybe a gas giant. The planet has the gravity to dominate the star, to remain in the center of the system that the star navigates into and out of. With the required gravitational pull your only option maybe that it is the dense core of a dead star with weather probably confined to a few centimeters of the surface. So I'm kind of stuck getting this idea off the ground. Any Ideas? Look what I just found; http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78167-stars-orbiting-non-stars/ stars orbiting non-stars Started by Didymus, Today, 08:20 PM What a coincidence.

Nice link. Pretty cool Moontanman.

All these questions remind me of driving around when my oldest son was about 8 years old, after about an hour I could feel my brains begin turning into mush. In this universe planets only behave like similar planets and stars only behave like stars of similar masses. Nothing out of the ordinary should be expected. Using your description above, you can choose any outcome you want. In your theoretical universe there are obviously very few laws to obey and those that do, need not be consistent. Enjoy

When was the last time Australia was that green? It looks like the Amazon! Wait! That BETTER NOT be a cool whip Antarctica. yum

The evolution of the Primate vision system seems linked very closely to fear and vigilance receptors in the brain. Some of us may possess a more active or passive aspect of this fear and vigilance attribute. It is possible that this early acute vision system that initially developed to warn of snakes and other predators became later with an expanding brain a precision device for locating and hunting prey. Readily available to begin the task of calculating distance and supplying the needed information to lead the target for the accurate delivery of the first projectiles. There may be within our brain's visual processing center a core receptor that can in many people be sensitive to snake like stimuli. Children may lack wariness due their still developing brain, their fear response towards snakes becoming more acute as their brain grows and matures. ​ Why should we expect to enjoy the acute hand-eye coordination and high cognitive functionality of our visual processing capabilities but not receive the feedback for which it was originally for.

In a context of our earliest ancestors, this could be viewed as the adult's having an innate caution that is not susceptible to an overriding by another more foolish adult. The wisdom of caution has played a decisive role in our ancestor survival. The young have been vulnerable throughout mankind's history, your example only reaffirms why high birth rates were important to the survival of our species.

I too have seen children respond calmly to snakes and tarantulas, and almost all would later be afraid of a substantially smaller "wild" spider on their bedroom wall. They can and will differentiate between a pet the size of your fist and the predator the size of a pea. Children may have a sense of safety in numbers and even respond from the trust they give to an adult. But it may not be true instinct operating until they are alone and possibly surprised by a free range spider in their cellar or a harmless Garter snake that moves suddenly in the grass between their feet. The context of the encounter and the source of the predator is central to the respondents actions. This may be a simple reaction to things that bite or sting which all people show a universal desire to avoid. But what is perceived as a predator in its natural environment should illicit a substantial fear response. To be a swimmer circled by a shark or a hiker chased by a grizzly should instill a memory and fear to last a lifetime and induce many post traumatic stress reactions if ever exposed to a stimulus. Do people have similar post traumatic reactions to snakes. This substantial universal fear of snakes would lead one to expect a preceding traumatic experience involving a snake, which in reality most people have had none or at the very least a benign encounter. Which leads one to wonder why a Garter snake can illicit in some the same fear response as a grizzly. Could it be an innate fear of a predator?

Klaynos; Was this, albeit accurate and a fitting postmortem, a Freudian slip?

I feel zapatos has a convincing innate response to snakes. No apparent childhood trauma associated to them or bias from over cautious adults. I am trying to remember the context of the study that involved primate exposure to the rubber snake. It seems to me it was at a primate research facility where the primates were born in captivity with no prior exposure to snakes. I would like to see it again but it was probably 15 or 20 years ago, likely a NOVA or NAT. GEO. production. So, being reliant on my bad memory I will regard it as unreliable info. But this is interesting; http://blogs.thatpetplace.com/thatreptileblog/2009/12/09/snake-and-spider-fears-and-phobias-instinctive-or-learned/ So, based on my experiences, I leaned toward a learning-based explanation. However, recent work at UC Davis has revealed a possible evolutionary explanation to snake aversion among monkeys and, it is theorized, humans. Fossil and DNA evidence indicates that large snakes may have been among the first serious predators of modern mammals, and were possibly the driving force behind the development of keen eyesight in Primates. The evolution of the Primate vision system seems linked very closely to fear and vigilance receptors in the brain. As Primates became better at spotting snakes, snakes developed more effective camouflage, and so on. On Madagascar, where large snakes are absent, Primates (lemurs) have not developed the excellent vision possessed by their relatives on mainland Africa. Most primates do indeed react with “instinctive” fear upon seeing a snake for the first time. However, I have noticed that a great many creatures, ranging from rodents to elephants, treat novel objects with caution, however harmless they might be.

I knew you were going to say that before you said it.

So we are either taught to be afraid of snakes or need to be taught not to be afraid of snakes. Considering places that have few snakes may be included in the "universally afraid of snakes" category I'm still leaning toward instinctively afraid or maybe better instinctively aware. A heightened sense would seem to be a reasonable out come for a former prehistoric survival instinct that in time moderated to a lessening fear response. I seem to remember seeing a video somewhere of primates being shown a fake snake and they were freaking out like all get out. To have in modern humans a wide selection of response from a heightened awareness to screaming and wetting ones pants at seeing a garden hose in a dark garage could be seen as natural variability of the fear response to this moderation.

I like them too. Especially when I was a kid. But those vipers in Australia or in India where they walk around bare foot in the grass, nowaaaaay.

Hi TAR2, sorry I sound obnoxious and pretentious. I am quite flawed I assure you. My job is dangerous, physically demanding and the only thing I have ever done for a living. I have a high expectation for my performance and all those working with me. I have been very close to being killed 6 or 7 times. Several electrocutions, many falls and being struck by falling objects and swinging loads. Most of these you would have no warning. I have trained many workers over the years, some are like sons to me, others now seasoned friends, and they are some of my proudest accomplishments. They are trained well and credit me for it. I also know what it is like to be 5 stories high and yelling at a seasoned idiot (40+ years old and trained by other) to stop doing something that was going to kill us. He was incapable of understanding what his actions were going to lead to. After yelling STOP maybe ten times this guy manage to do what I tried to prevent. He unstuck from our swing stage a large metal panel being held by 140 ft crane. The wind had started blowing stronger and I was willing to sit tight and wait it out. But now the panel was loose and the rope that had been holding it had wrapped itself around the idiots leg several times. The panel became a large sail in a 40 mph wind, the rope pulling the idiot against the railing and leaving him unable to reach the controls on his side of the stage. The sail pulled us out away from the building where it could spin us or swing us around the corner of the building and into the side. This was unacceptable results. Our lives, maybe others on the ground or in the building were at risk because of this guys penchant to argue and resist authority of a supervisor. And this type of event has happened many times in my career. You can read these guys early by the way they will argue against your authority. Even change the laws of physics to salvage their losing point of contention. I will say again; I can only take so much of this.

Mankind originally came from regions inhabited by deadly vipers. This may be an original instinct still inhabiting our subconscious manifesting its control.

Wow, been on both ends of this my whole life. I could make my teachers pull their hair out and scream. (on the inside, I could see it in their faces) I know now I have aspergers, and it has made communication with others difficult at the very least. At a very young age I understood that everything can be improved through better understanding, so my attempts to search out more information lead to the disruption of the instructors plans and frustration of others. It is a trait (or defect) that I did not know I possessed. It is to me as if the learning process is the continual exploration of places I have never been or never had opportunity to explore. The instructor had a narrow field defined for the lesson that I was oblivious to. In my frame of mind you just took me someplace to explore and then drew a box on the ground and said don't step out of it. I could easily appear to be argumentative or even disruptive. I did not prosper from this format because the distractions my imagination created from the continual prompting by the subject. It is in the evolutionary context to explore "To boldly go where no one has gone before." This is not easily controlled at a young age. The roles were reversed as a young adult when required to learn from older individuals in my occupation. It was frustrating to be doing processes that were not planned out well. To suggest improvements and be treated as an inexperienced rookie was incredibly frustrating and it lead to me being treated as insubordinate. Luckily the management realized I could out perform two or more of the older "experienced" personnel just by myself. I could invent onsite solutions to problems that they only would or could solve with time and extra personnel. It was extremely satisfying to do something by myself that no one could figure out how I did it. I now have had 33 years in my occupation to experience people who when we first work together have a desire, due to my reputation, to impress me with there knowledge and skill. But they are unable to realize their great idea is one of those old and still passed down processes that I rejected 30 years ago or it is so hair brained and "just made up on the spot" impossible. But mostly they are just showing me that they only posses other peoples bad and inferior ways. Occasionally there will be someone who will desperately argue their idea knowing full well it is unworkable, but can't admit it due to a fragile ego. I can only take so much of this time wasting exercise. Oh, and now here at SFN I'm back to the former. Just making all of you pull your hair out.

OK, several things to set straight here. You may have forever damaged the phrase "brilliant - - - -". Brilliant is used to describe Galileo, Da vinchi, Newton, Einstein, Feynman and the like. Not some Yahoo like me who shows up and makes an ass of himself with some home cooked crack pot hypothesis/theory. Please go to the moderators page and take a look at the multiple categories that are discussed by the experts there; For example ajb is the first on the list, he covers 37 categories! View 37 Forums Sciences Physics Classical Physics Relativity Quantum Theory Modern and Theoretical Physics Astronomy and Cosmology Chemistry Inorganic Chemistry Organic Chemistry Applied Chemistry Biology Evolution, Morphology and Exobiology Genetics Ecology and the Environment Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Mathematics Analysis and Calculus Linear Algebra and Group Theory Applied Mathematics Mathematics Tutorials Medical Science Anatomy, Physiology and Neuroscience Microbiology and Immunology Psychiatry and Psychology Engineering Earth Science Climate Science Computer Science Computer Help Amateur Science Experiments Equipment Projects Other Sciences Trash Can Speculations 37 CATEGORIES! The moderators/experts all list either "all forums" or " view 37 forums". The level and range of knowledge on that list is staggering. Before coming to this forum I could not imagine that someone could achieve this level of expertise in more than a few subjects but they move from one to another with ease. Take for instance DH, he has 1360 +1's out of 3,630 posts. That is one +1 every 2.6 posts! You don't get these +1's for shoveling crap to people. Even at this level of knowledge these members, I'm sure, would not place themselves on a par with Newton and Einstein. Maybe brilliant has been over used lately and it means something far more common than in years past but I doubt it. So lets save it for those great minds that only come around every once in a while. To be honest, I am more than a little embarrassed by this. As I said before this site has been a humbling experience. Creator, what you see as arrogance at this site is a reflection of what is projected at them. It is everyone's attempt here to conduct science in a way that is honest and true. So that the results are accurate to the best of "ones" abilities. That we will play by the rules and not promote concepts that are not subject to observation and testing. When someone comes here with preconceived ideas that are "overly" reinforced with cherry-pick scientific facts and then further expects to arrange them in an advantageous way for argument without challenge, they are usually met with an attitude of suspicion and doubt. This is about trust, which I hope I am continuing to earn.

Mike, we're going to need a bigger hammer!

Let me show you another speculation. Image below used and modified by this author was furnished through and in no way endorsed by http://www.geomapapp.org using Global Multi-Resolution Topography (GMRT) Synthesis, Ryan, W. B. F., S.M. Carbotte, J. Coplan, S. O'Hara, A. Melkonian, R. Arko, R.A. Weissel, V. Ferrini, A. Goodwillie, F. Nitsche, J. Bonczkowski, and R. Zemsky (2009), Global Multi-Resolution Topography (GMRT) synthesis data set, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 10, Q03014, doi:10.1029/2008GC002332. Data doi: 10.1594/IEDA.0001000, through http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ The current understanding of the island chain is that they are the result of a hypothetical mantle plume (hot spot) that rises, possibly from the core, up through the mantle in periodic events. The current standard model infers the ocean crust is in constant motion and the mantle plumes of magma are responsible for the periodicity and volume of each island building event. According to my model the reason the islands are separated and fairly individual is the islands are built during thermal expansion when there is not any substantial lateral movement in the tectonic plates; the crust is expanding imperceptibly out from the core and at which time the mid-ocean ridges are receiving infill’s of magma. Though the plate and hot spot vent will offset slightly towards the convergent plate boundary as the plate rises from expansion (like a door swings) offsetting the vent tube proportionally to the rise, it does not have the massive gravitationally driven kinetic energy (movement) of the contraction cycle. The sea mount and hot spot are a thermal expansion dependent mechanism, possibly a large deep tear in the lithosphere from past historic hyper-thermal events. They are pressurized with hydraulic magma from the crust/mantle boundary area during the thermal expansion of the mantle and are slightly raised causing the crust to be stretched and thinned, possibly even cracked when positioned over the hot spot exposing the crust to high levels of superheated magma. The length of the thermal event (the amount of power induced into the core) determines if the stay over the hot spot is long enough to build an individual island or just a short period that produces a small seamount on the ocean floor. A series of short cooling periods interrupting an overall thermal period would build a chain of superimposed volcanoes as the crust intermittently shifted and then continued lava discharge. Eventually the core begins cooling and as the strain energy heat content of the mantle moves into the crust and ocean. The fissures are slowly closed causing the volcanoes to become dormant. The crust moves towards the core putting itself into compression against the recent ridge infill. Depending on the timing between thermal cycles and the convergent trenches rate of resistance the crust will shift to the direction of least resistance. Globally, 80,000 km of mid ocean ridges are producing new crust, and only 30,500 km of trenches exist to receive it, this would indicate on average the ocean crust takes over twice as long to subduct as does the creation of the mid ocean ridge material that replaces it. But that time span is determined by the trenches rate of resistance which lengthens the time period and by the increased compression from variable cooling periods that reduce the time. Sizes of the older seamounts in the northern section [C] are indicative of large thermal periods. The seamounts in the upper section [C] are all of a footprint of comparable size with each other but appear to be smaller than the currently active big island of Hawaii, that after tens of millions of years of erosion to below sea level will likely be of a larger footprint. Those seamounts are assumed to be highly eroded but can reveal by their size and periodicity that they span a period of higher planetary heat flux. The spacing indicates there were small reductions in energy that initiated small contractions in the mantle that in turn slightly moved the crust. I think this hypothesis will change many timelines; the current date for the oldest sea mount is around 81 million years. Those small seamounts near the bend with wide sea floor between are likely a couple of lower energy core increases that momentarily suspended contraction, producing small expansions and sea mounts during a long low core energy period of mostly contraction of the planet. It followed a contraction period that began after a sudden drop in the cores higher energy level. In the current model the mantle plumes responsible would be small with extended periodicity. In my model the core was in a long period of lower energy maybe 20 million years with small intermittent thermal core increases. The model can show that the preceding 40 -50 million years before the bend was a higher energy period by way of the seamounts size comparison to current islands and planetary thermal levels, the northern section shows uniformity except for the lower energy period [A] which resulted in an increased contraction and movement of the crust. The seamounts show an interesting pattern, the larger the island the smaller the sea floor section between them and the smaller the island or seamount the wider the sea floor between. This shows the energy level is inverse to the distance between seamounts, which fits this hypothesis’ thermal cycle perfectly. In the current model the interpretation of this is the plumes can be of various sizes and timing. In this model the lower the energy drop the more movement in the crust will be produced and inversely the higher the energy the smaller the crustal displacement between energy events due to heat content duration. The degree of lateral movement in the crust is totally dependent on the degree of negative temperature change in the molten iron core of the field generator.

Mike, the more I explain it the clearer it becomes to me also. This is really simple mechanics, we have unfortunately had to many decades of complex theories trying to explain these events. And when two or three complex geologic theories are worked together they require many little adjustments. What came out has been much to complex for the casual observer. I hope to remove all of that complexity and show this as really simple electro-mechanical cause and effects. All of the diagrams and images that you find online by USGS, NOAA and NASA and in other references are all accurate to my model, I am simply reinterpreting the evidence. Finding a much simpler and more accurate explanation for the structures we see. Try Google Earth it is a great tool to explore the world. Use it to look at the ocean floor, you won't believe what you can see.

Speculation! I take exception to that. The difference between a speculative argument and a theory is that the theory makes accurate predictions. This hypothesis has very accurate predictive qualities. Let me show you. http://science.nasa...._magneticfield/ Earth's present-day magnetic field is, in fact, much stronger than normal. The dipole moment, a measure of the intensity of the magnetic field, is now 8 × 1022 amps × m2. That's twice the million-year average of 4× 1022 amps × m2. My hypothesis simply requires that the molten iron of the Earth's magnetic field generator will vary over million year time periods, and that is verified in the above. An increase in amperage will always include an increase in temperature. The temperature increase will in turn always produce thermal expansion of the molten iron. This will displace the mantle and release strain energy in the form of heat during its outward expansion. The slow increase in the mantles circumference will require the crust to separate and adjust to release the continual tension. How does this match observations? The Pacific divergent plate boundary expands more than the Atlantic's does. But why? Shouldn't they expand the same if the crust is being pushed out by the mantle. The answer is seen in a simple thought experiment that I use to illustrate the solution. Imagine the Earth with one single belt of seafloor around the equator with one end considered attached, immovable. The other end a short distance away unconnected. Now we can apply the thermal increase that displaces the mantle and extends the crust. We can now see the gap between the plate ends open a given degree. Now we all know that if the belt was divided in half and then in quarters it would with each reduction in length show a proportional reduction in movement. This means that a wider ocean plate like the Pacific would show more movement than a narrower one. And the Pacific plate having the widest expanse of plate material shows an unusually large amount of movement resulting in more infill. While the Atlantic being narrower shows a proportionally smaller amount of movement. This is an accurate prediction using this model. When the field generator's cycle changes to a lower amperage the process reverses to a slow contraction in the mantle with the crust now loading up its raised mass as gravitational potential energy that will be displaced into the trenches by the divergent plate boundaries recent infill. Cycles that are widely spaced can result in extra infill which in conjunction with a long decrease in core temperature will produce excessive kinetic movement. The resulting increased crustal movement and compression will surpass the trenches rates of resistance and redirect the energy to the vertical displacement of rock into mountain complexes. There is currently not any other hypotheses or even theory that can offer a clear and direct mechanism for mountain structures even close to this. It also provides answers for the processes involved in Island arcs, deep ocean trenches, the Basin and Range Area, the San Andrea's Fault and continental break-up and collisions. It even provides a mechanism for the large scale flood basalt events like the Deccan and Siberian Traps. This is hypothesis is much more than mere speculation.

The Sahara was a wetter place 3 1/2 thousand years ago. And then the rain stopped and the top soil dried out and blew away. Much of this soil was blown out into the Atlantic and maybe even as far as N. America. The wind continued and made the remaining heavier soil components of sand into an abrasive erosional medium that reduced the exposed bedrock and ancient sand stone into even more airborne abrasives. This cycle continued until large expansive areas had no exposed rock left, just a massive desert covered with wind driven sand dunes slowly moving across most of it's 9,400,000 square kilometres (3,600,000 sq mi). There are around the world deposits of sands that are covered over in forests and plains that are ready to get to work as soon as the overlaying soil and plant growth are removed beginning the process of desertification. The American dust bowl was as close to a false start as you would want to get, the exposing by the plow of the soil to a climate dry period created an analog to the Sahara's beginning, that only for the sake of soil conservation and the eventual rains it ended.

It should be easy to measure, I'm sure its proportional to the preceding parental nagging.

Black and brown and unbelievably dense, it might not even float. It would need to hit the target perfectly square at 90 degrees. Anything less would deflect off the steel's surface. The wood will compress and then bend. You need the projectile to have enough mass energy to penetrate. But increasing length increases compression bending on impact which leads to deflection. I think the shape of the penetrator is extremely important. Most of the mass forward behind the point. The sharp point may work against it, simply absorbing energy without displacing steel in return. A blunt end would probably be the best, sudden loading in a small area, like a hole punch. An circular shock fracture is what we want. Cool the penetrator to harden it but avoid causing brittleness. Fire out of air cannon at point blank range or if a rifled barrel at a short range. (Difficult to maintain 90 degree contact.)

I thought the same thing when I was a kid, I even tried to break or cut steel with ice. Titanic would have resisted the ice burg if its mass would not have been spread out so thin. Its hull was, in scale to its mass and volume, incredibly thin. It really just broke itself against the ice that had not only a greater mass, but more important, a solid interior structure. Titanic's hull plate's thickness varied from 2.5 cm (1 inch) to 3.8 cm (1.5 inches) which for a structure that was 269.06 m (882.75 ft) long with a maximum breadth of 28.19 m (92.5 ft) and weighed 46,328 gross register tons is quite thin. Its total height from the base of the keel to the top of the bridge was 32 M (104 ft). It displaced 52,310 tons. During construction a ship of this scale could be damaged by its own weight, not having the ocean around it for even support and stability. It looks like some of the ship's over three million iron and steel rivets are what actually failed and allowed the steel plate to re-position and fracture under the extreme loads applied to them. . Here is my guess on this, it depends on how malleable the steel is for one. Steel is so widely used because of is ability to absorb kinetic energy and retain a reasonable amount of its original structural shape, like in car bodies. It could respond like a catchers mitt. The wood may possible grind itself up against the target material. And there is a wide variety of wood out there. You would need a piece of wood that could carry enough energy to overcome the steel's hardness. I have a board out in my shop my dad gave me, It is a tropical hardwood that he called iron wood. There are as many as 30 varieties of this wood, I am sure this material would have the best chance to penetrate the steel. You cannot drive a nail into it. I think with a point and enough velocity, a shaft of this stuff could do the job. It is almost as heavy as steel.