Also, note to self: looking at fungal growth (see Wikipedia's PT extinction description), the PT-extinction appears to be spread out in one location: the African Karoo.
There's a huge variation in the ages of moon rocks. Also, after looking at the methods of the isotopic dating, I'd say no... it would make it appear older.
And no, I don't think the Hudson was an impact site. Perfect circle, and the blowout ring of kimberlites at 850 mi. radius is an *exit* , not *entrance* wound.
But the ring involving Brazil, Ivory coast, down to Zimbabwe, and then through Permian India and Australia... that's a 60% circle, with a large horizontal scar (the African karoo, or equally at the Permian, the current location of the Scotia Plate) in the middle. Further, there is evidence of asteroidal impact at that era, all through the region. Shock rings, tectite shocked glass spheres, etc. extending as far as Australia.
So I'd say the impact site was the Karoo, and the initial blast was there. The second blast, the Hudson. AFAICT, the Hudson was basically above the current location of the New England Plume at the Mid Atlantic rift. Those two, I'd say, would have also been what cracked the Atlantic open.
The permian extinction is unique in that while in other extinction events, you lose up to 70% of the species, in the permian you lost 99% of the species. Whatever happened, it was huge.
I don't think that just the release of the Siberian traps (on the other side of the globe) would have done it. But that's all we've got... at the moment.
Also... I forgot to mention that we really do see a huge scatter in the data for the age of the moon rocks: here .
And yes, that last guy is a creation scientist. I don't happen to agree with his conclusions, but I agree with his methods a lot faster than with those of a lot of proponents of "standard" conclusions. I happen to think that our real science, as you might call it, is driven by those who -- while disagreeing with the creation scientists -- still listen to them, especially when they say "you have an inconsistency here" or "I disagree with your statistics there", etc.
(1) According to some research, the Moon appears to be from 2 moons,both from the mantle, no major asteroid content, thus no mars-sized asteroid. [1] (Note: The latest slashdot article mentioned above appears to conclude that the moon's formation was hot, not that it was necessarily a mars-sized asteroid).
(2) If that is the case, then the best explanation is de Meijer's and Wim van Westrenen's critical georeactor theory [2]: calcium bergs blew up in the mantle. But...
(3) the de Meijer/ van Westrenen theory falls down based on the fact that the uranium/calcium bergs would create enough vapor pressure in going critical, that they wouldn't go sufficiently supercritical to blow out a major fraction of the moon, unless a *small* asteroid knocked one of them into the center of a group, or if another blast created shockwaves that compressed a collection of U-Ca bergs together. So it *does* require a small asteroid.
(4) If that is so, then due to the neutron bombardment, the U-Th, U-Pb, Pb-Pb dating of rocks is going to be wrong, but there will be great scatter in the estimated ages, and the event will be more recent than the dating indicates (2.3- billion years). But
(5) we have earth rocks that date older than that, too. So we should have evidence of the locations. That is, the Earth's crust should show evidence of the blast. Note that Wim van Westrenen specifically believes this not to be the case, but doesn't make a good case against it, in my opinion.
(6) Such a blast would shatter the Earth's crust, leaving rings of Kimberlites around the blast zone, that dated younger (because the rings are structural failures, and less contaminated by neutrons), while the center would date older, being more contaminated. Kimberlites are the remains of extremely explosive [3] volcanic reactions.
(7) Two such locations exist: the 850 mi-radius ring of Kimberlites around the Hudson Bay ( Canada kimberlite [4], and Greenland kimberlite [5]), and the ring of Kimberlites around Vredefort that stretches from Brazil [6], through Africa [7], through North India [8], and into Australia[9].
(8) According to plate tectonics, both rings align correctly to form fairly well defined circles at the Permian extinction. Both rings have central rocks dating to about the age of the moon.
(9) At the site, more or less, of the Vredefort blast, you have an area called the African Karoo. The lava sills (light gray in this picture) are excluded from a region which is heavy in Kimberlites, and indeed includes the city of Kimberly. The shape, size, and location of the excluded zone, at 230 ma ago, exactly matches the shape size and location of the Scotia plate, which remains volcanic to this day. (In the following picture, note where in the Karoo, the lava sills are not... that is, where they were excluded by impermeable rock Lava sills normally intrude between layers. Their exclusion implies there are no layers between which to intrude.
[10]. What this makes me think happened, is that an asteroid hit at an oblique angle travelling eastward, at the location of a collection of georeactors, near where the South Sandwich islands are today, and where the Karoo was at the time. The blast went supercritical, and blew out a close to half of the moon. most of the blast going back through the asteroid scar, but a lot of it going straight out. Crustally speaking, the blast destroyed whatever continent existed to the west. Specifically, that would make the South Sandwich Islands and Vredefort both asteroidal *and* volcanic in nature.
The blast also sent shock waves through the earth. 1/3 of the way around the globe, another collection of georeactors was forced supercritical [possibly at a location near where the New England Plume is now, on the Atlantic Rift? But definitely where the Hudson Bay was then), creating a symmetrically round blast (the Hudson and its kimberlites). That blew out maybe 1/3 of the moon. The remainder was from the rings of kimberlite blasts up to 85
I don't think that that theory would be justifiable, given the proposed hypothesis of a 4.5-billion year old collision. Pangea is nominally 230 million years old, and there was a ton of plate tectonic movement before then.
That said, I've read the articles referenced, and I don't understand where the introduction gets the idea that this proves the asteroid theory. It looks to me like the same evaporation could occur in the event of a georeactor (which I believe *did* happen, though I also believe that it was triggered by a much smaller-than-Mars sized asteroid hitting at an oblique angle.)
Rather, the research just appears to say that "if there was an impact, it would have shown this fractionalization, and we did find that if what we are seing is fractionalization, it was large-scale, and not (for example) local fountaining fractionalization. Further, it appears that it really is fractionalization."
Which doesn't prove a Mars-sized asteroid. It just says that they can account for the heat of whatever threw the moon out: it's no longer a problem.
It appears to be the journalists who got it wrong, but just in case, I sent one of the WUSTL people an email question, asking whether the conclusion of the journalists is justified. I'd really like to know, because I am greatly interested in lunar formation theories.
Now, for all that, I still actually do believe in a young Moon theory: the hage scatter in the isotopic dating, both on the Moon and on Earth cratons says to me that it had to have been a de Meijer / Van Westrenen georeactor. But unlike them, I do not believe a georeactor collection could go sufficiently supercritical on its own, to force out the moon. Supercritical, yes. But it would relieve its own pressure at far lower energies. The only way I can see for the moon to be ejected, is through a *small* asteroid punching through into the mantle, and suddenly forcing one of a collection of Ca/U bergs in the mantle into the center. That could do it. Once that happened, the shock waves from the blast could force another collection supercritical, as well.
Thing is, if that happens, though, then the neutron flooding is going to throw off all your dating, in a scattered pattern, and everything will appear to be much older. Aiieee! The moon, then, has to be much younger than it appears. But there's another thing: the shattering of the crust will result in the release of Kimiberlite style explosions around the shatter cone (similar to a pullout cone in concrete, or the ring of broken glass around a bullet hole that is in a window). We have all that, in two very distinct rings: one surround the Hudson Bay at 850 miles, in a perfect ring, and the other surrounding Vredefort at 850 miles, in a 2/3 ring (including Australia, India, Brazil). But they only align at the Permian extinction. So, ironically, I think you are right about the Permian.
Moreover, at that same time, the Hudson and Vredefort are right over the New England Plume and the Scotia Plume... and the atlantic cracks from one to the other. Moreover, the later-deposited lava sills around the African Karoo are missing in the area of the Karoo, implying that while the lava could intrude between layers all around, there were no layers in that area... the Kimberlites the go all the way up, and all the way down. The shape of the Karoo, and its location, and its orientation at the Permian extinction, all match the shape, location, and orientation of the Scotia Plate.
So, as far as I can tell, everything points to a pair of georeactors that exploded at 230 ma ago.
In line with that, I don't know what Md state law is... but if worst comes to worst, he can just move across the border to Virginia, and get a religious homeschooler's exemption. Of course, that means that he doesn't get other opportunities.
Which was his whole point.
My point is that just because you are in public school, doesn't mean you're forced to do anything. The disreputable kids learned it long ago. When I realized it, it was quite liberating.
You see, I too favor not teaching the sciences. Anyhow, I favor not teaching them in K-6 with quite as much force as I want my kids to learn basic math, reading, and writing. Get those 3 down, and -- to quote the JMU physics professors' consensus -- they can teach the rest.
So... my kids are already good at reading. They aren't good at math. Therefore, I require my kids to do 1 hr of math each day, when they get home. Practice, practice, practice. And if they get the other homework done, that's fine. If not, so be it. They still are required to get all As and Bs for a dinner out... but I let them know I don't find that as important as the math.
They're getting better. Between Hooked on Math, and lots of practice problem drills, they are starting to move forward. It was really lousy, before, when they couldn't add 7+8, or multiply 9 x 13, and the teachers were saying "he'll be fine in geometry. He's one of our best students."
And when it comes time for the sciences, I hope my kids to learn experimentation: theory, then design, then construction, then results, then analysis, and so on.
THEN we can start learning about what others say is science. I don't always think the standard theories are correct. Like, I favor the young earth theory. More specifically, I favor the theory that the moon is no older than the Permian Extinction, and I consider the possibility that the Creationists could be right in their Tectonics theories (sudden motion, as opposed to gradual motion). I certainly hope they aren't. But I don't *presume* that the standard theories are right.
Okay, there's several things tied up in your post. First of all, at least according to the Christians, belief in God doesn't do the trick. "Very good, even the devils believe, and it makes them tremble." Second, the Son of God came so that forgiveness would make an eternity of life bearable. Thirdly, the word repent comes from "back/again (re) hand (pente, the five fingers)". It means being able to draw your hand back from sin. The JudeoChristian Bible (Deuteronomy 30, to be exact) is very specific that we have no power to do that... but in Isaiah 53:10, it specifies that if He (the Messiah) gives his life as an offering, his descendents will live long (forever), and the Lord's will will prosper in his hand, for by knowing him, many will be justified. Elsewhere Isaiah specifies that the Holy Spirit, in whose relationship He was kept from sin, will be given in fullness to his descendants
Read about Wigglesworth, or Brengle: it does happen.
Now, on the other hand, just because a person says "yah, that's me too" doesn't make it so. As Christ himself said, a good tree cannot bear bad fruit; a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
When my father was defending his PhD in fusion physics at the University of Wisconsin (1974), he had some very impressive results: 2 data runs, zero standard deviation, date-stamped polaroid photos of every step in each. The zero standard deviation was challenged; the response was to pull out the photos.
He got the PhD. But he didn't continue in the field. Partly why, may be that when he was asked about the future of practical nuclear fusion, he pointed out that for the last 40 years back then, practical nuclear fusion had been ten years away, and he figured it would be the same for the next 200 years. When asked why, he pointed out some standard feynmann estimates that showed that there isn't enough Lithium in the world to make nuclear fusion a practical power source, using the DT reaction.
So when the ignition facility gets a better reaction than the DT, and has a way of making *that* practical, then knock again. Till then, I'll be counting off another 160 years....
... that I'd like to know how they are done. For example, how does David's Sunflowers separate the seeds from the hulls, or do the same for pumpkin seeds. There's a ton of protein I throw away, because I don't know how to crack the shells en masse.
I think the idea of MakerFaire is great. So let me throw in my 2 cents.
To make a nice, high power electric brushless DC motor:
Get 10 of the 1 x 1 3/4 x 5/8" magnets from Lowes or RadioShack. They will just fit around a standard size food can. Now, using 1/2" fiber board, layout 10 1/4" holes in a circle, to fit the can. Also layout 4-6 holes inside the can's diameter, and drill the center hole, with a large circle saw for the outer edge. Assemble 2 fiberboard circles on the ends, 6 bolts through the circles and the ends of the can, and then 6 1/4" aluminum bars to separate the magnets. Bend the bars outwards slightly, as necessary to let the magnets fit, and slide a magnet into each slot. So now you have the rotor. Next, buy 3 12-V transformers, and disassemble. Use Silicone to glue the Es back together. Re-wind both wires (large and small) around the Es in a figure-8. Mount those around the circumference. Now apply a 3-phase voltage, one to each magnet, or a timed DC voltage to each one in succession. Or power the rotor, and pull 3-phase power out of the magnets.
My point is that I don't think that social services is the proper or effective way to care for the child, without leading to the horrors of fascism later. That, too, is a threat to the child.
I have yet to see Frederich Hayak be wrong in one instance. Read his "Road to Serfdom". Don't buy it -- get it from the library. If you should somehow be convinced that it is right, enough to want to buy it later, I guess you can.
In line with that, I put up, not shut up. I've put my money where my mouth is. Would that you did the same [where *my* mouth is, not yours], but I'm not forcing it.
Therefore, being against social services doesn't affect how pro-life I am: my pro-lifeness is consistent.
That said, I am not one of those who wants to gut social services, in order to make the rich richer. I want to gut the entire steal-and-redistribute fascist system, and just to gut the end that gives back a little to the poor of what was stolen, seems a farce.
That's part of why I could never support Romney, or any candidate whom the Republican leadership -- according to Romney's own words before Iowa -- would allow to win a primary.
I'm probably going to write in "Ron Paul" this election. I'd vote for Johnson, but he's pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage. If he just said "state issue", I could have gone with it, because murder *is* a state issue. Likewise, if he had said that marriage is not something that the government should be involved in at all, I could have gone with it. But he didn't, and I can't. As I said, I'm pretty libertarian, not a party Libertarian.
(3) the de Meijer theory falls down based on the fact that the uranium/calcium bergs would create enough vapor pressure in going critical, that they wouldn't go sufficiently supercritical to blow out a major fraction of the moon, unless a *small* asteroid knocked one of them into the center of a group, or if another blast created shockwaves that compressed a collection of U-Ca bergs together. So it *does* require a small asteroid.
(4) If that is so, then due to the neutron bombardment, the U-Th, U-Pb, Pb-Pb dating of rocks is going to be off, but there will be great scatter in the estimated ages, and the event will be more recent than the dating indicates (2.3- billion years). But
(5) we have earth rocks that date older than that, too. So we should have evidence of the locations. That is, the Earth's crust should show evidence of the blast.
(6) Such a blast would shatter the Earth's crust, leaving rings of Kimberlites around the blast zone, that dated younger (because the rings are structural failures, and less contaminated by neutrons), while the center would date older, being more contaminated.
(8) According to plate tectonics, both rings align correctly at the Permian extinction. Both rings have central rocks dating to about the age of the moon,
(9) At the site of the Vredefort blast, you have an area called the African Karoo. The lava sills (light gray in this picture) are excluded from a region which is heavy in Kimberlites, and indeed includes the city of Kimberly. The shape, size, and location of the excluded zone, at 230 ma ago, exactly matches the shape size and location of the Scotia plate, which remains volcanic to this day.
What this makes me think happened, is that an asteroid hit at an oblique angle at the location of a collection of georeactors, near the South Sandwich islands. The blast went supercritical, and blew out a close to half of the moon. most of the blast going back through the asteroid scar, but a lot of it going straight out. Crustally speaking, the blast destroyed whatever continent existed to the west.
The blast also sent shock waves through the earth. 1/3 of the way around the globe, another collection of georeactors was forced supercritical, creating a symmetrically round blast (the Hudson and its k
Not at all. Those triffids were developed as a reasonable alternative (and renewable) source of oil. They were first identified in 1951.
wikipediaGoogle Images
My proposed solution is that we walk through this mess, with as much prayer and dignity and holiness as possible.
I *DON'T* see any other way out or through, that is not pointlessly and stupidly violent. I don't care if you name the French revolution, or the Russian, or the Cuban, or the Chinese, or the Zimbabwe, or the Zaire revolution. EVERY SINGLE ONE was horribly stupid and violent.
That said, I had an uncle criticise us stupid Americans who empower our own destroyers. He said we could vote with our feet. I shot down that statement by pointing out that (1) go where? Bernanke has worldwide power. (2) go where? Countries don't let in poor immigrants, and poor illegal immigrants get preyed upon [I gave specifics]. (3) Move my bank funds where? I have worked for twenty years, usually producing in excess of a million dollars for my employers, and have *never* been paid more than the minimum cost of living. I live in a trailer park, no alcohol, no drugs, no other expensive habits [I do have a family]. I am paid the wages of a slave: room, board, basic medical care, and nothing else. (4) Vote how? Both parties have the preliminary elections locked down -- run the Romney quote of "the Party will not allow Paul to win the nomination."
Because of this, I do not accept responsibility for this. This is the extreme greed of the 1% for the produce, wealth, and lives of the other 99%. But, the Bible points out "though they go hand in hand, they shall not succeed."
Therefore, I say, let us simply pray to God, let our withheld wages cry out to him, and let it come before His ears.
The fault of the Inquisition was the same as the fault of the Jihadists: if you believe that God is all powerful, and a good God, then you don't have to do evil in the name of good. He can handle it. And He will. And it doesn't take us to arrange any meeting: he's on the job, on the spot.
In yet other news... abortion is murder: the killing of an innocent human for the desire of the one who does it.
Gun proliferation, while bad [and in some cases indicative of murderous thoughts], is not necessarily murder.
Go on, get some grounding. You sound like a soundbite.
I'm libertarian on most things. But if the whole purpose of the law is to protect the interests of the strong, while ignoring the weak, then I really don't see the point of it. When you approve of abortion, you cut the logical feet out from under the disapproval of any other murder. In point of fact, regardless of what a currently-insane society says, murder is evil, and should not be committed, no matter what the flavor.
Search your inner conscience and see if I am right on this: Man was made for incorruption. If that is so, then leave evil to the evil, and pursue incorruption with your whole heart. You only have one chance, so don't throw it away.
My memory is that there is a federal law defining as a bicycle anything that pedalling will propel, and no more than three wheels, no more than 3/4 hp, electric assist, and motor only tops out at 25 mph.
Yeah, it looks like a flame, but the parent post probably is legit. Vacuums do not hold seals do break down. Airlocks are intermittent seals that are subject to regular mechanical abuse. If your car's AC, with something like 10 inches of seal, cannot hold a lowVacuum for 3 months under a normal aging of ten years, then what makes you think that a 500 mile idealized high vacuum tube, with 40' of seal spaced every 100 yards, and at least 4 airlocks, will hold its vacuum sufficiently well? Now add in the fact that atoms tunnel into vacuum, and explode off the walls to fill a vacuum. That's why atomic physicists have to bake their vacuum chambers each time they use them. Now also consider that superconductor magnets will not work for the application, because the first time you use it, you break the field, and the electron superhighway jams up with phonons, turning your superconductor into a normal resistive conductor.
Packet switching an internet hub is a headache, but is cheap. Packet switching hypersonic trains is probably next to impossible, unless you design it from the get go to be "loss tolerant". But that phrase may be hard to sell to potential passengers. .
I think the key here is to abandon the impossibly high tech, and work on packet switching at speeds like 60 mph, travel at 180 mph, and frequent turnover on many repetitive loops.
Kas as noriu, yra rasyti su viena koja... oh wait, let me switch back into English. Having lived in Silute, I like to speak and even think, sometimes, in Lithuanian.
What I want, is something a little different. Imagine mapping a numeric keypad onto a graphical touchscreen (like a smart phone). Now, up the left side is a scroll bar with a number of different options: Letters, alternate language letters, programming, Alt, shift, ctrl, Num, Alpha, Caps, symbol, math, etc... are all there. Single click to use, Double click to lock, triple-click to reset.
Now, the 20 keypad keys each have a predictive function for "tap", but a specific fixed value for tap-and-slide. You can tap-and-slide up, down, up and to side, down-and-to-side.
Now, when typing, your keyboard shows you superimposed over any other imagery, the fixed keys to the edge of each key location, and the predictive key in the middle. The predictive function, meanwhile, tries to keep your most common keystroke pattern in the form of left-mid-right-mid-left-mid-right-mid, and so on.
Like any other keyboard, it is pre-trained on text. That way, the predictive functions don't change much. If you have a new function key, you simply have to come up with a training text, add the function key, and train it.
I wasn't aware of any of that.No, I don't find junk like that convincing, either. I probably shouldn't have posted that comment anyhow. I was only aware of one specific instance of a publication/ documentation of some...er, questionable material by JPL, but it was something else, later, that made my mind up.
Maybe a more reasonable person than me would assume that the one instance was a fluke. Or if not a fluke, perhaps brought about by claims like the one you posted.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, note to self: looking at fungal growth (see Wikipedia's PT extinction description), the PT-extinction appears to be spread out in one location: the African Karoo.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/307/5710/709.full
There's a huge variation in the ages of moon rocks. Also, after looking at the methods of the isotopic dating, I'd say no... it would make it appear older.
And no, I don't think the Hudson was an impact site. Perfect circle, and the blowout ring of kimberlites at 850 mi. radius is an *exit* , not *entrance* wound.
But the ring involving Brazil, Ivory coast, down to Zimbabwe, and then through Permian India and Australia... that's a 60% circle, with a large horizontal scar (the African karoo, or equally at the Permian, the current location of the Scotia Plate) in the middle. Further, there is evidence of asteroidal impact at that era, all through the region. Shock rings, tectite shocked glass spheres, etc. extending as far as Australia.
So I'd say the impact site was the Karoo, and the initial blast was there. The second blast, the Hudson. AFAICT, the Hudson was basically above the current location of the New England Plume at the Mid Atlantic rift. Those two, I'd say, would have also been what cracked the Atlantic open.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3191771&cid=41687277
The permian extinction is unique in that while in other extinction events, you lose up to 70% of the species, in the permian you lost 99% of the species. Whatever happened, it was huge.
I don't think that just the release of the Siberian traps (on the other side of the globe) would have done it. But that's all we've got... at the moment.
Canada kimberlites:
Greenland kimberlites: and
African Karoo missing lava sills here and here
Also... I forgot to mention that we really do see a huge scatter in the data for the age of the moon rocks: here .
And yes, that last guy is a creation scientist. I don't happen to agree with his conclusions, but I agree with his methods a lot faster than with those of a lot of proponents of "standard" conclusions. I happen to think that our real science, as you might call it, is driven by those who -- while disagreeing with the creation scientists -- still listen to them, especially when they say "you have an inconsistency here" or "I disagree with your statistics there", etc.
(1) According to some research, the Moon appears to be from 2 moons,both from the mantle, no major asteroid content, thus no mars-sized asteroid. [1]
(Note: The latest slashdot article mentioned above appears to conclude that the moon's formation was hot, not that it was necessarily a mars-sized asteroid).
(2) If that is the case, then the best explanation is de Meijer's and Wim van Westrenen's critical georeactor theory [2]: calcium bergs blew up in the mantle. But...
(3) the de Meijer/ van Westrenen theory falls down based on the fact that the uranium/calcium bergs would create enough vapor pressure in going critical, that they wouldn't go sufficiently supercritical to blow out a major fraction of the moon, unless a *small* asteroid knocked one of them into the center of a group, or if another blast
created shockwaves that compressed a collection of U-Ca bergs together. So it *does* require a small asteroid.
(4) If that is so, then due to the neutron bombardment, the U-Th, U-Pb, Pb-Pb dating of rocks is going to be wrong, but there will be
great scatter in the estimated ages, and the event will be more recent than the dating indicates (2.3- billion years). But
(5) we have earth rocks that date older than that, too. So we should have evidence of the locations. That is, the Earth's crust should show evidence of the blast. Note that Wim van Westrenen specifically believes this not to be the case, but doesn't make a good case against it, in my opinion.
(6) Such a blast would shatter the Earth's crust, leaving rings of Kimberlites around the blast zone, that dated younger (because the rings are structural failures, and less contaminated by neutrons), while the center would date older, being more contaminated. Kimberlites are the remains of extremely explosive [3] volcanic reactions.
(7) Two such locations exist: the 850 mi-radius ring of Kimberlites around the Hudson Bay ( Canada kimberlite [4], and Greenland kimberlite [5]), and the ring of Kimberlites around Vredefort that
stretches from Brazil [6], through Africa [7], through North India [8], and into Australia[9].
(8) According to plate tectonics, both rings align correctly to form fairly well defined circles at the Permian extinction. Both rings have central rocks dating to about the age of the moon.
(9) At the site, more or less, of the Vredefort blast, you have an area called the African Karoo. The lava sills (light gray in this picture) are excluded from a region which is heavy in Kimberlites, and indeed
includes the city of Kimberly. The shape, size, and location of the excluded zone, at 230 ma ago, exactly matches the shape size and location of the Scotia plate, which remains volcanic to this day. (In the following picture, note where in the Karoo, the lava sills are not... that is, where they were excluded by impermeable rock Lava sills normally intrude between layers. Their exclusion implies there are no layers between which to intrude.
[10]. What this makes me think happened, is that an asteroid hit at an oblique angle travelling eastward, at the location of a collection of
georeactors, near where the South Sandwich islands are today, and where the Karoo was at the time. The blast went supercritical, and blew out a close to half of the moon. most of the blast going back through the asteroid scar, but a lot of it going straight out. Crustally speaking, the blast destroyed whatever continent existed to
the west. Specifically, that would make the South Sandwich Islands and Vredefort both asteroidal *and* volcanic in nature.
The blast also sent shock waves through the earth. 1/3 of the way around the globe, another collection of georeactors was forced supercritical [possibly at a location near where the New England Plume is now, on the Atlantic Rift? But definitely where the Hudson Bay was then), creating a symmetrically round blast (the Hudson and its kimberlites). That blew out maybe 1/3 of the moon. The remainder was from the rings of kimberlite blasts up to 85
I don't think that that theory would be justifiable, given the proposed hypothesis of a 4.5-billion year old collision. Pangea is nominally 230 million years old, and there was a ton of plate tectonic movement before then.
That said, I've read the articles referenced, and I don't understand where the introduction gets the idea that this proves the asteroid theory. It looks to me like the same evaporation could occur in the event of a georeactor (which I believe *did* happen, though I also believe that it was triggered by a much smaller-than-Mars sized asteroid hitting at an oblique angle.)
Rather, the research just appears to say that "if there was an impact, it would have shown this fractionalization, and we did find that if what we are seing is fractionalization, it was large-scale, and not (for example) local fountaining fractionalization. Further, it appears that it really is fractionalization."
Which doesn't prove a Mars-sized asteroid. It just says that they can account for the heat of whatever threw the moon out: it's no longer a problem.
It appears to be the journalists who got it wrong, but just in case, I sent one of the WUSTL people an email question, asking whether the conclusion of the journalists is justified. I'd really like to know, because I am greatly interested in lunar formation theories.
Now, for all that, I still actually do believe in a young Moon theory: the hage scatter in the isotopic dating, both on the Moon and on Earth cratons says to me that it had to have been a de Meijer / Van Westrenen georeactor. But unlike them, I do not believe a georeactor collection could go sufficiently supercritical on its own, to force out the moon. Supercritical, yes. But it would relieve its own pressure at far lower energies. The only way I can see for the moon to be ejected, is through a *small* asteroid punching through into the mantle, and suddenly forcing one of a collection of Ca/U bergs in the mantle into the center. That could do it. Once that happened, the shock waves from the blast could force another collection supercritical, as well.
Thing is, if that happens, though, then the neutron flooding is going to throw off all your dating, in a scattered pattern, and everything will appear to be much older. Aiieee! The moon, then, has to be much younger than it appears. But there's another thing: the shattering of the crust will result in the release of Kimiberlite style explosions around the shatter cone (similar to a pullout cone in concrete, or the ring of broken glass around a bullet hole that is in a window). We have all that, in two very distinct rings: one surround the Hudson Bay at 850 miles, in a perfect ring, and the other surrounding Vredefort at 850 miles, in a 2/3 ring (including Australia, India, Brazil). But they only align at the Permian extinction. So, ironically, I think you are right about the Permian.
Moreover, at that same time, the Hudson and Vredefort are right over the New England Plume and the Scotia Plume... and the atlantic cracks from one to the other. Moreover, the later-deposited lava sills around the African Karoo are missing in the area of the Karoo, implying that while the lava could intrude between layers all around, there were no layers in that area... the Kimberlites the go all the way up, and all the way down. The shape of the Karoo, and its location, and its orientation at the Permian extinction, all match the shape, location, and orientation of the Scotia Plate.
So, as far as I can tell, everything points to a pair of georeactors that exploded at 230 ma ago.
Asteroid? Yes. Mars sized? No.
In line with that, I don't know what Md state law is... but if worst comes to worst, he can just move across the border to Virginia, and get a religious homeschooler's exemption. Of course, that means that he doesn't get other opportunities.
Which was his whole point.
My point is that just because you are in public school, doesn't mean you're forced to do anything. The disreputable kids learned it long ago. When I realized it, it was quite liberating.
You see, I too favor not teaching the sciences. Anyhow, I favor not teaching them in K-6 with quite as much force as I want my kids to learn basic math, reading, and writing. Get those 3 down, and -- to quote the JMU physics professors' consensus -- they can teach the rest.
So... my kids are already good at reading. They aren't good at math. Therefore, I require my kids to do 1 hr of math each day, when they get home. Practice, practice, practice. And if they get the other homework done, that's fine. If not, so be it. They still are required to get all As and Bs for a dinner out... but I let them know I don't find that as important as the math.
They're getting better. Between Hooked on Math, and lots of practice problem drills, they are starting to move forward. It was really lousy, before, when they couldn't add 7+8, or multiply 9 x 13, and the teachers were saying "he'll be fine in geometry. He's one of our best students."
And when it comes time for the sciences, I hope my kids to learn experimentation: theory, then design, then construction, then results, then analysis, and so on.
THEN we can start learning about what others say is science. I don't always think the standard theories are correct. Like, I favor the young earth theory. More specifically, I favor the theory that the moon is no older than the Permian Extinction, and I consider the possibility that the Creationists could be right in their Tectonics theories (sudden motion, as opposed to gradual motion). I certainly hope they aren't. But I don't *presume* that the standard theories are right.
Okay, there's several things tied up in your post. First of all, at least according to the Christians, belief in God doesn't do the trick. "Very good, even the devils believe, and it makes them tremble." Second, the Son of God came so that forgiveness would make an eternity of life bearable. Thirdly, the word repent comes from "back/again (re) hand (pente, the five fingers)". It means being able to draw your hand back from sin. The JudeoChristian Bible (Deuteronomy 30, to be exact) is very specific that we have no power to do that... but in Isaiah 53:10, it specifies that if He (the Messiah) gives his life as an offering, his descendents will live long (forever), and the Lord's will will prosper in his hand, for by knowing him, many will be justified. Elsewhere Isaiah specifies that the Holy Spirit, in whose relationship He was kept from sin, will be given in fullness to his descendants
Read about Wigglesworth, or Brengle: it does happen.
Now, on the other hand, just because a person says "yah, that's me too" doesn't make it so. As Christ himself said, a good tree cannot bear bad fruit; a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
When my father was defending his PhD in fusion physics at the University of Wisconsin (1974), he had some very impressive results: 2 data runs, zero standard deviation, date-stamped polaroid photos of every step in each. The zero standard deviation was challenged; the response was to pull out the photos.
He got the PhD. But he didn't continue in the field. Partly why, may be that when he was asked about the future of practical nuclear fusion, he pointed out that for the last 40 years back then, practical nuclear fusion had been ten years away, and he figured it would be the same for the next 200 years. When asked why, he pointed out some standard feynmann estimates that showed that there isn't enough Lithium in the world to make nuclear fusion a practical power source, using the DT reaction.
So when the ignition facility gets a better reaction than the DT, and has a way of making *that* practical, then knock again. Till then, I'll be counting off another 160 years....
... that I'd like to know how they are done. For example, how does David's Sunflowers separate the seeds from the hulls, or do the same for pumpkin seeds. There's a ton of protein I throw away, because I don't know how to crack the shells en masse.
I think the idea of MakerFaire is great. So let me throw in my 2 cents.
To make a nice, high power electric brushless DC motor:
Get 10 of the 1 x 1 3/4 x 5/8" magnets from Lowes or RadioShack. They will just fit around a standard size food can. Now, using 1/2" fiber board, layout 10 1/4" holes in a circle, to fit the can. Also layout 4-6 holes inside the can's diameter, and drill the center hole, with a large circle saw for the outer edge. Assemble 2 fiberboard circles on the ends, 6 bolts through the circles and the ends of the can, and then 6 1/4" aluminum bars to separate the magnets. Bend the bars outwards slightly, as necessary to let the magnets fit, and slide a magnet into each slot. So now you have the rotor. Next, buy 3 12-V transformers, and disassemble. Use Silicone to glue the Es back together. Re-wind both wires (large and small) around the Es in a figure-8. Mount those around the circumference. Now apply a 3-phase voltage, one to each magnet, or a timed DC voltage to each one in succession.
Or power the rotor, and pull 3-phase power out of the magnets.
My point is that I don't think that social services is the proper or effective way to care for the child, without leading to the horrors of fascism later. That, too, is a threat to the child.
I have yet to see Frederich Hayak be wrong in one instance. Read his "Road to Serfdom". Don't buy it -- get it from the library. If you should somehow be convinced that it is right, enough to want to buy it later, I guess you can.
In line with that, I put up, not shut up. I've put my money where my mouth is. Would that you did the same [where *my* mouth is, not yours], but I'm not forcing it.
Therefore, being against social services doesn't affect how pro-life I am: my pro-lifeness is consistent.
That said, I am not one of those who wants to gut social services, in order to make the rich richer. I want to gut the entire steal-and-redistribute fascist system, and just to gut the end that gives back a little to the poor of what was stolen, seems a farce.
That's part of why I could never support Romney, or any candidate whom the Republican leadership -- according to Romney's own words before Iowa -- would allow to win a primary.
I'm probably going to write in "Ron Paul" this election. I'd vote for Johnson, but he's pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage. If he just said "state issue", I could have gone with it, because murder *is* a state issue. Likewise, if he had said that marriage is not something that the government should be involved in at all, I could have gone with it. But he didn't, and I can't. As I said, I'm pretty libertarian, not a party Libertarian.
The reasoning behind my speculation is as follows:
(1) According to an article in Science News and others referenced from Slashdot, the Moon appears to be from 2 moons, both from the mantle, no major asteroid content, thus no mars-sized asteroid.
(2) If that is the case, then the best explanation is de Meijer's critical georeactor theory: calcium bergs blew up in the mantle. But...
(3) the de Meijer theory falls down based on the fact that the uranium/calcium bergs would create enough vapor pressure in going critical, that they wouldn't go sufficiently supercritical to blow out a major fraction of the moon, unless a *small* asteroid knocked one of them into the center of a group, or if another blast created shockwaves that compressed a collection of U-Ca bergs together. So it *does* require a small asteroid.
(4) If that is so, then due to the neutron bombardment, the U-Th, U-Pb, Pb-Pb dating of rocks is going to be off, but there will be great scatter in the estimated ages, and the event will be more recent than the dating indicates (2.3- billion years). But
(5) we have earth rocks that date older than that, too. So we should have evidence of the locations. That is, the Earth's crust should show evidence of the blast.
(6) Such a blast would shatter the Earth's crust, leaving rings of Kimberlites around the blast zone, that dated younger (because the rings are structural failures, and less contaminated by neutrons), while the center would date older, being more contaminated.
(7) Two such locations exist: the 850 mi-radius ring of Kimberlites around the Hudson Bay (search Canada kimberlite, and Greenland kimberlite), and the ring of Kimberlites around Vredefort that stretches from Brazil, through Africa, through North India, and into Austrailia.
(8) According to plate tectonics, both rings align correctly at the Permian extinction. Both rings have central rocks dating to about the age of the moon,
(9) At the site of the Vredefort blast, you have an area called the African Karoo. The lava sills (light gray in this picture) are excluded from a region which is heavy in Kimberlites, and indeed includes the city of Kimberly. The shape, size, and location of the excluded zone, at 230 ma ago, exactly matches the shape size and location of the Scotia plate, which remains volcanic to this day.
What this makes me think happened, is that an asteroid hit at an oblique angle at the location of a collection of georeactors, near the South Sandwich islands. The blast went supercritical, and blew out a close to half of the moon. most of the blast going back through the asteroid scar, but a lot of it going straight out. Crustally speaking, the blast destroyed whatever continent existed to the west.
The blast also sent shock waves through the earth. 1/3 of the way around the globe, another collection of georeactors was forced supercritical, creating a symmetrically round blast (the Hudson and its k
Not at all. Those triffids were developed as a reasonable alternative (and renewable) source of oil. They were first identified in 1951. wikipedia Google Images
My proposed solution is that we walk through this mess, with as much prayer and dignity and holiness as possible.
I *DON'T* see any other way out or through, that is not pointlessly and stupidly violent. I don't care if you name the French revolution, or the Russian, or the Cuban, or the Chinese, or the Zimbabwe, or the Zaire revolution. EVERY SINGLE ONE was horribly stupid and violent.
That said, I had an uncle criticise us stupid Americans who empower our own destroyers. He said we could vote with our feet. I shot down that statement by pointing out that (1) go where? Bernanke has worldwide power. (2) go where? Countries don't let in poor immigrants, and poor illegal immigrants get preyed upon [I gave specifics]. (3) Move my bank funds where? I have worked for twenty years, usually producing in excess of a million dollars for my employers, and have *never* been paid more than the minimum cost of living. I live in a trailer park, no alcohol, no drugs, no other expensive habits [I do have a family]. I am paid the wages of a slave: room, board, basic medical care, and nothing else. (4) Vote how? Both parties have the preliminary elections locked down -- run the Romney quote of "the Party will not allow Paul to win the nomination."
Because of this, I do not accept responsibility for this. This is the extreme greed of the 1% for the produce, wealth, and lives of the other 99%. But, the Bible points out "though they go hand in hand, they shall not succeed."
Therefore, I say, let us simply pray to God, let our withheld wages cry out to him, and let it come before His ears.
The fault of the Inquisition was the same as the fault of the Jihadists: if you believe that God is all powerful, and a good God, then you don't have to do evil in the name of good. He can handle it. And He will. And it doesn't take us to arrange any meeting: he's on the job, on the spot.
In yet other news... abortion is murder: the killing of an innocent human for the desire of the one who does it.
Gun proliferation, while bad [and in some cases indicative of murderous thoughts], is not necessarily murder.
Go on, get some grounding. You sound like a soundbite.
I'm libertarian on most things. But if the whole purpose of the law is to protect the interests of the strong, while ignoring the weak, then I really don't see the point of it. When you approve of abortion, you cut the logical feet out from under the disapproval of any other murder. In point of fact, regardless of what a currently-insane society says, murder is evil, and should not be committed, no matter what the flavor.
Well, it depends on who gets to it first, I guess. It's catch as catch khan.
Search your inner conscience and see if I am right on this: Man was made for incorruption. If that is so, then leave evil to the evil, and pursue incorruption with your whole heart. You only have one chance, so don't throw it away.
My memory is that there is a federal law defining as a bicycle anything that pedalling will propel, and no more than three wheels, no more than 3/4 hp, electric assist, and motor only tops out at 25 mph.
No, No, No. You use a roundhouse.
Yeah, it looks like a flame, but the parent post probably is legit. Vacuums do not hold seals do break down. Airlocks are intermittent seals that are subject to regular mechanical abuse. If your car's AC, with something like 10 inches of seal, cannot hold a lowVacuum for 3 months under a normal aging of ten years, then what makes you think that a 500 mile idealized high vacuum tube, with 40' of seal spaced every 100 yards, and at least 4 airlocks, will hold its vacuum sufficiently well?
Now add in the fact that atoms tunnel into vacuum, and explode off the walls to fill a vacuum. That's why atomic physicists have to bake their vacuum chambers each time they use them.
Now also consider that superconductor magnets will not work for the application, because the first time you use it, you break the field, and the electron superhighway jams up with phonons, turning your superconductor into a normal resistive conductor.
Packet switching an internet hub is a headache, but is cheap. Packet switching hypersonic trains is probably next to impossible, unless you design it from the get go to be "loss tolerant". But that phrase may be hard to sell to potential passengers. . I think the key here is to abandon the impossibly high tech, and work on packet switching at speeds like 60 mph, travel at 180 mph, and frequent turnover on many repetitive loops.
Okay, then try this on for size-- typical price of a 50' wide segmental bridge done on the cheap, 120 million per mile.
Kas as noriu, yra rasyti su viena koja... oh wait, let me switch back into English. Having lived in Silute, I like to speak and even think, sometimes, in Lithuanian.
What I want, is something a little different. Imagine mapping a numeric keypad onto a graphical touchscreen (like a smart phone). Now, up the left side is a scroll bar with a number of different options: Letters, alternate language letters, programming, Alt, shift, ctrl, Num, Alpha, Caps, symbol, math, etc... are all there. Single click to use, Double click to lock, triple-click to reset.
Now, the 20 keypad keys each have a predictive function for "tap", but a specific fixed value for tap-and-slide. You can tap-and-slide up, down, up and to side, down-and-to-side.
Now, when typing, your keyboard shows you superimposed over any other imagery, the fixed keys to the edge of each key location, and the predictive key in the middle. The predictive function, meanwhile, tries to keep your most common keystroke pattern in the form of left-mid-right-mid-left-mid-right-mid, and so on.
Like any other keyboard, it is pre-trained on text. That way, the predictive functions don't change much. If you have a new function key, you simply have to come up with a training text, add the function key, and train it.
I wasn't aware of any of that.No, I don't find junk like that convincing, either. I probably shouldn't have posted that comment anyhow. I was only aware of one specific instance of a publication/ documentation of some ...er, questionable material by JPL, but it was something else, later, that made my mind up.
Maybe a more reasonable person than me would assume that the one instance was a fluke. Or if not a fluke, perhaps brought about by claims like the one you posted.