Olber's Paradox sums it up. If the sky is uniform then all gas clouds and all distances will be full of star light, right? Hubble had to come along and say the Universe was expanding and redshifting the light into the cosmic background.
Oops, it was actually Winglee who suggests injecting plasma into a more modest magnetic field in response to the critique of Zubrin's ten kilometer coil.
"What we're proposing to do is create a magnetic bubble to deflect the solar wind," Winglee explained
Is this feasible? Its 5 something, time to go home.
Neil Murphy Dismisses the notion on a nonphyiscal solar sair right off hand. "We use aluminized plastics and nanotubes. You really do have to have a physical sail. Magnetic fields interact, but not in the same way." What about Robert?
"The problem isn't that he's wrong, per se, but that his methods are exceedingly error-prone."
Well, you may find this funny from reading my above posts, but I agree.
Rush, not questioning the unknowns of the theory seems to idicate that his method of consideration of theories is indeed error prone.
He's clearly attempting to make the case that the EPA kills more people than it would had it not existed, but even assuming the false notion that the EPA is the cause of the Columbia disaster, how many lives throughout the history of the EPA have been saved due to cleaner air and water than we would have had without the EPA?
This is becoming very offtopic and very archetypically slashdot, but this is also a very good question. As a unabashed Libertarian(call me if you wanna know which sect.), I reason that the EPA has not protected as many as an unfettered free market could. IMHO, the EPA will provide protection only up to a specific level and then flatten out. In a free market, there would not exist government caps on class action lawsuits. Juries who award large fiscal penalties to companies that maim, kill or injure otherwise healthy persons would be a great incentive for an insured company to chooses to be clean so their premiums are affordable. Companies that pollute and are found to have caused injury will not last. Of course, all this requires is that the population asserts thier rights and has legal recourse for resolving the violation of these rights. It would be a more complex world and numerous third party companies would have to fill the gaps. To bad for unemployment.
/In short a Libertarian utopia. So much for dreams.
"...you'd ignore it. This is what you should do with anything Rush Limbaugh says. Unforunately a significant percentage of the populace doesn't ignore this human random phrase generator, so other people have to track down references that prove him wrong. I say skip the middle man and ignore this fool."
I guess my main reason for taking time to initially post was to address the a priori characterization of Limbaugh with nothing more than adjectives. To date, and perhaps due to my absence of diligence, I have not hear nor read anything that impugn him aside from ad homenim. Your insistence above that he is a "random phrase generator", a "middle man"(in the pejorative sense it take it) and finaly a "fool", does nothing to assuage me from this conclusion.
"Rush Limbaugh doesn't merely state things that are imprecise, he makes statements that are flat out wrong. Sorry if you can't see that, but it's a fact."
So was he flat out wrong when he said, and I quote from the audio on Mediamatters, "...there is a, uh a theory going around that EPA rules actually may have cause the Columbia disaster?"
I see nothing false with this. There was, in fact, a theory going around. The fact that the theory was wrong does not make him a liar. Perhaps his biggest fault in this musing with a caller, was not to ask himself if, in fact, the Columbia orbiter's external tank used the foam in question. Its not like he solicited this call, he may have taken the opportunity the put forth the theory, but he never concluded it was fact.
Now you may say he is weaseling around by using words like "theory" and "may", but the lack of vocabulary skills by listeners, does not make him a liar.
"I don't know why you're mentioning Al Franken. He's irrelevant to this discussion. Slashdotters, as I've said previously self correct. If you have a problem with that statement, address it. Ignoring it only makes you sound ignorant."
Since slashdot posts are read by all, I figured I would obliquely repsond to them, but perhaps its bad form. While not addressing you directly, I was hoping that those who elevate Franken and diminish Limbaugh, would see that parity is required to compare both of them. Albeit, its a hopeless cause. Hmm, I have also never doubted that intelligent slashdotters would not update thier panmemes based upon cogent and rational information, so I am not quite sure why you bring that up.
Yeah keep ignoring logic. That's a great start. Lets judge things on what reputation says instead of logic.
First, you can't simply claim #2 above and have others accept it. Simply saying it doesn't make it true. You need proof. BTW it is not a single statement, but a composite one.
Now accumulating all the data may be difficult. To do it right, one would have to first determine a level of measurement. For example, if Rush says its" 11pm" when it is actually "11:01pm", I wouldn't hold this as much as a transgression as "Bill Clinton is a partisan alien from the planet Omnicron Persia 2". So once you have a threshold for what is and is not important to measure as accurate, then you would have to perform a count of times right versus times wrong.
I have not heard Al Franken's show (nor have I listened to more than 3 hours of Rush my entire life), but if slashdotters are to compare the two, then both must be held up to the same criteria.
Well I think the above is definitively flamebait.
Perhaps if your argument had less ad homenim and more substance you would have not received the rating.
I would really like to know who taught you to speak like you do? Why choose all these colorful adjectives and yet offer no substance?
It reminds me of the "miserable failure" in IRAQ argument. "The war in IRAQ has been a miserable failure, therefore its a failure"
Wel, I guess I better shutup before I start using to much ad homenim myself.
Oh thats a goood one. Very good one. You should submit that slight to the joke institute.
I mean, no one has ever made the implication that a thought out response and ability to write out ones thoughts is in fact equivalent to being a nerd puss face that the girls don't like.
After all, us in the know, know that girls hate smart people and like the dumb fucking idiots who use tired and lame comebacks.
Good one. Rich. Seriously, submit it to the joke institute. Got any other original slights?
Actually you are wrong. There is energy loss in a two body system. The loss comes from gravitational waves. As the two bodies orbit each other, the dents they make in spacetime send ripples out through spacetime.
However, for low mass objects this effect is very small, so we can effectivel rule it out in this case. Someone had correctly pointed out that the moon is slowly getting closer. This is due to the affect described above.
Hmm. It doesn't mention solar wind pushing the earth. I think it refers to the reduction in mass of the sun and the resultant change in the major and minor orbital axis. Same result none the less.
I do see your point, but his was more about cockroaches and less about erosion of the atmosphere due to the absence of the magnetopause, bow shock and all those other interesting field related entities.
Yeah, I invoked the Roch limit to illustrate that the Jovian moons have one an order of magnitude lower than ours. So your comparison is IMHO an order of magnitude off= not really, but you see what i mean?
Ah yes, "Worlds in Collision", wwhat a great read. Until you start thinking, hey if the Earth reversed direction in less than a week, wouldn't the conservation of angular momentum literaly boiled the planet?
Isn't the moon to far away to have a significant effect? Perhaps there is a butterfly effect, but the moon is no where near the Roche limit, where the bigger body want to rip the smaller boy into pieces due to tidal forces.
In fact it is the most unusual planet-moon system in the eintire solar system, most systems have Roch limits ranging from 4-1.5:1 whereas the earth-monn system is around 41:1 or 21:1 depending on which model you use.
I am making lots of replies in this interestig thread.
I used to think the radioactic heating was from core material, but the bulk of it is from mantle material: primarily from Th, U and K.
Of course, many have different opinions as to the distribution of the radioactives and the need to assume the abundances others have put forth. This is an interesting article to show some of those assumptions.
I doubt the earth will ever freeze solid. In the estimated 4BY to red giant stage for our sun, I think the planet will still have enought radioactives in the mantle to keep the interior warm. Once the sun's atmosphere expande to engulf the planet, it will heat up and start to boil away to vapor.
Of course, the earth could get freeze if it gets knocked out of its orbit and wanders interstellar space effectively forever.
You do know that the field shuts down and reverses every 250,000 years or so right? This means that homo sapiens sapiens would have been exposed to the environment your are talking about, around 16 times; 4MY/.25MY.
What I have always wondered, is how long is the duration of no field? Also, I think our biology has quite a few tools built in to deal with this exposure. I am sure that not all of us could handle it, but 10% should do just fine.
Yeah, if there was an atmosphere and oceans prior to the impact, there wasn't any after.
The temperature at the surface of the newly coalesced earth and moon, would have been large enough for most if not all lighter gaseous elements to acheive escape velocity and quickly been blow away by the solar wind.
Actually the moon formation by impact theory says that the moon is composed of mantle matrial.
There is no evidence that there even was a crust prior to the impact according to the theory and if there was, it would have been thorougly molten and mixed with mantle material after the impact. Then after geologic ages, the lighter material in the mantle would have floated to the to of the mantle, cooled and became crust.
The heat generated by the impact could account for the energy required to drive mantle convection, but remember that its probably radioactive decay that keeps the mantle temperature fairly constant.
Also bear in mind that life has largely dictated the nature of the crust. With out an oxygenated atmosphere, the trace iron being convected from the core, would have not oxidized into light enough molcules to stay in the crust. So say some.
Slashdot Mirror
Olber's Paradox sums it up. If the sky is uniform then all gas clouds and all distances will be full of star light, right? Hubble had to come along and say the Universe was expanding and redshifting the light into the cosmic background.
Oops, it was actually Winglee who suggests injecting plasma into a more modest magnetic field in response to the critique of Zubrin's ten kilometer coil.
"What we're proposing to do is create a magnetic bubble to deflect the solar wind," Winglee explained
Is this feasible? Its 5 something, time to go home.
Neil Murphy Dismisses the notion on a nonphyiscal solar sair right off hand. "We use aluminized plastics and nanotubes. You really do have to have a physical sail. Magnetic fields interact, but not in the same way." What about Robert?
Magnetic sails proposed by Robert Zubrin can be seen in the middle of this NASA page. So is it or is it not feasible?
Perhaps Mr Murphy has time invested in physical sail research...
Me? I just wanna be a fry cook on Venus.
"The problem isn't that he's wrong, per se, but that his methods are exceedingly error-prone."
Well, you may find this funny from reading my above posts, but I agree.
Rush, not questioning the unknowns of the theory seems to idicate that his method of consideration of theories is indeed error prone.He's clearly attempting to make the case that the EPA kills more people than it would had it not existed, but even assuming the false notion that the EPA is the cause of the Columbia disaster, how many lives throughout the history of the EPA have been saved due to cleaner air and water than we would have had without the EPA?
This is becoming very offtopic and very archetypically slashdot, but this is also a very good question. As a unabashed Libertarian(call me if you wanna know which sect.), I reason that the EPA has not protected as many as an unfettered free market could. IMHO, the EPA will provide protection only up to a specific level and then flatten out. In a free market, there would not exist government caps on class action lawsuits. Juries who award large fiscal penalties to companies that maim, kill or injure otherwise healthy persons would be a great incentive for an insured company to chooses to be clean so their premiums are affordable. Companies that pollute and are found to have caused injury will not last. Of course, all this requires is that the population asserts thier rights and has legal recourse for resolving the violation of these rights. It would be a more complex world and numerous third party companies would have to fill the gaps. To bad for unemployment.
"...you'd ignore it. This is what you should do with anything Rush Limbaugh says. Unforunately a significant percentage of the populace doesn't ignore this human random phrase generator, so other people have to track down references that prove him wrong. I say skip the middle man and ignore this fool."
I guess my main reason for taking time to initially post was to address the a priori characterization of Limbaugh with nothing more than adjectives. To date, and perhaps due to my absence of diligence, I have not hear nor read anything that impugn him aside from ad homenim. Your insistence above that he is a "random phrase generator", a "middle man"(in the pejorative sense it take it) and finaly a "fool", does nothing to assuage me from this conclusion.
"Rush Limbaugh doesn't merely state things that are imprecise, he makes statements that are flat out wrong. Sorry if you can't see that, but it's a fact."
So was he flat out wrong when he said, and I quote from the audio on Mediamatters, "...there is a, uh a theory going around that EPA rules actually may have cause the Columbia disaster?"
I see nothing false with this. There was, in fact, a theory going around. The fact that the theory was wrong does not make him a liar. Perhaps his biggest fault in this musing with a caller, was not to ask himself if, in fact, the Columbia orbiter's external tank used the foam in question. Its not like he solicited this call, he may have taken the opportunity the put forth the theory, but he never concluded it was fact.
Now you may say he is weaseling around by using words like "theory" and "may", but the lack of vocabulary skills by listeners, does not make him a liar.
"I don't know why you're mentioning Al Franken. He's irrelevant to this discussion. Slashdotters, as I've said previously self correct. If you have a problem with that statement, address it. Ignoring it only makes you sound ignorant."
Since slashdot posts are read by all, I figured I would obliquely repsond to them, but perhaps its bad form. While not addressing you directly, I was hoping that those who elevate Franken and diminish Limbaugh, would see that parity is required to compare both of them. Albeit, its a hopeless cause. Hmm, I have also never doubted that intelligent slashdotters would not update thier panmemes based upon cogent and rational information, so I am not quite sure why you bring that up.
Yeah keep ignoring logic. That's a great start. Lets judge things on what reputation says instead of logic.
First, you can't simply claim #2 above and have others accept it. Simply saying it doesn't make it true. You need proof. BTW it is not a single statement, but a composite one.
Now accumulating all the data may be difficult. To do it right, one would have to first determine a level of measurement. For example, if Rush says its" 11pm" when it is actually "11:01pm", I wouldn't hold this as much as a transgression as "Bill Clinton is a partisan alien from the planet Omnicron Persia 2". So once you have a threshold for what is and is not important to measure as accurate, then you would have to perform a count of times right versus times wrong.
I have not heard Al Franken's show (nor have I listened to more than 3 hours of Rush my entire life), but if slashdotters are to compare the two, then both must be held up to the same criteria.
Well I think the above is definitively flamebait. Perhaps if your argument had less ad homenim and more substance you would have not received the rating. I would really like to know who taught you to speak like you do? Why choose all these colorful adjectives and yet offer no substance? It reminds me of the "miserable failure" in IRAQ argument. "The war in IRAQ has been a miserable failure, therefore its a failure" Wel, I guess I better shutup before I start using to much ad homenim myself.
Again, how dare he be smart. Hes should be as dim as the dimmest bulb in the box.
I mean, no one has ever made the implication that a thought out response and ability to write out ones thoughts is in fact equivalent to being a nerd puss face that the girls don't like.
After all, us in the know, know that girls hate smart people and like the dumb fucking idiots who use tired and lame comebacks.
Good one. Rich. Seriously, submit it to the joke institute. Got any other original slights?
Oops, I forgot about orbital resonance. My bad.
However, for low mass objects this effect is very small, so we can effectivel rule it out in this case. Someone had correctly pointed out that the moon is slowly getting closer. This is due to the affect described above.
Hmm. It doesn't mention solar wind pushing the earth. I think it refers to the reduction in mass of the sun and the resultant change in the major and minor orbital axis. Same result none the less.
I do see your point, but his was more about cockroaches and less about erosion of the atmosphere due to the absence of the magnetopause, bow shock and all those other interesting field related entities.
Yeah, I invoked the Roch limit to illustrate that the Jovian moons have one an order of magnitude lower than ours. So your comparison is IMHO an order of magnitude off= not really, but you see what i mean?
Hey thats kinda cool. How much though? What source?
Entomopter(a jpg not a pdf)
Video
Ah yes, "Worlds in Collision", wwhat a great read. Until you start thinking, hey if the Earth reversed direction in less than a week, wouldn't the conservation of angular momentum literaly boiled the planet?
perhhaps its a rift fault, we have several on earth. There are only two above water that I am aware of, the Afircan rift valley and part of iceland.
In fact it is the most unusual planet-moon system in the eintire solar system, most systems have Roch limits ranging from 4-1.5:1 whereas the earth-monn system is around 41:1 or 21:1 depending on which model you use.
I used to think the radioactic heating was from core material, but the bulk of it is from mantle material: primarily from Th, U and K.
Of course, many have different opinions as to the distribution of the radioactives and the need to assume the abundances others have put forth. This is an interesting article to show some of those assumptions.
http://www.mantleplumes.org/Energetics.html
Of course, the earth could get freeze if it gets knocked out of its orbit and wanders interstellar space effectively forever.
sayeth the great Wiki.
What I have always wondered, is how long is the duration of no field? Also, I think our biology has quite a few tools built in to deal with this exposure. I am sure that not all of us could handle it, but 10% should do just fine.
Yeah, if there was an atmosphere and oceans prior to the impact, there wasn't any after.
The temperature at the surface of the newly coalesced earth and moon, would have been large enough for most if not all lighter gaseous elements to acheive escape velocity and quickly been blow away by the solar wind.
Actually the moon formation by impact theory says that the moon is composed of mantle matrial.
There is no evidence that there even was a crust prior to the impact according to the theory and if there was, it would have been thorougly molten and mixed with mantle material after the impact. Then after geologic ages, the lighter material in the mantle would have floated to the to of the mantle, cooled and became crust.
The heat generated by the impact could account for the energy required to drive mantle convection, but remember that its probably radioactive decay that keeps the mantle temperature fairly constant.
Also bear in mind that life has largely dictated the nature of the crust. With out an oxygenated atmosphere, the trace iron being convected from the core, would have not oxidized into light enough molcules to stay in the crust. So say some.
Oh and BTW, I am not an idiot
Get it right, I am a functional idiot. Thank you very much. :)