<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That article was a bit vague. but it rather sounds like there is some sort of hexagonal boundary, and not what I would call a "hexagonal storm". That said, this might just be Benard cells, which often have a hexagonal shape (the hexagonal boundary is normal to the flow however). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A9nard_cellshttp://www.etl.noaa.gov/about/eo/science/convection/RBCells.html <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Would this mean that the saturn's surface is like very flat like marble or ball? Then that hexagonal in the infrared spectrum is being caused by gravity. Our surface is not flat and therefore, the anomoly would get disorganized because of our crust not being flat, maybe much like the surface winds might be like 10 km/h, then maybe 30,000 feet higher, the winds might be like 100km/h, because of gravity. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> We always walked on water, like skating! </div>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Would this mean that the saturn's surface is like very flat like marble or ball? Then that hexagonal in the infrared spectrum is being caused by gravity. Our surface is not flat and therefore, the anomoly would get disorganized because of our crust not being flat, maybe much like the surface winds might be like 10 km/h, then maybe 30,000 feet higher, the winds might be like 100km/h, because of gravity. <br />Posted by Aaupaaq</DIV><br /><br />Saturn has no solid surface, so your question has no meaning. Waaaay inside the planet, there probably is a rock core, but it is so far down it can have no affect on the atmospheric winds.</p><p>Wind speeds on Saturn have been shown to be as high as <strong>1800</strong> <strong>km/hr</strong></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Saturn has no solid surface, so your question has no meaning. Waaaay inside the planet, there probably is a rock core, but it is so far down it can have no affect on the atmospheric winds.Wind speeds on Saturn have been shown to be as high as 1800 km/hr <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I knew it! Jupiter, I bet is also almost the same story, but because of the different composition of the crust, we see strips, I am also guessing are being caused by gravity, because of 3d effect, and not 2 dimensional, of the ongoing force. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> We always walked on water, like skating! </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I knew it! Jupiter, I bet is also almost the same story, but because of the different composition of the crust, we see strips, I am also guessing are being caused by gravity, because of 3d effect, and not 2 dimensional, of the ongoing force. <br /> Posted by Aaupaaq</DIV></p><p>The bands of Jupiter aren't different colors because of gravity...they're just cloud bands. The color is dependent on the temperature of that band. It's not even entirely certain that Jupiter has a rocky core at the moment. Most people think there probably is one, but it is less certain than the other planets like Saturn and Uranus. You can't say Jupiter has a different crust composition when we don't even know if it has one. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I knew it! Jupiter, I bet is also almost the same story, but because of the different composition of the crust, we see strips, I am also guessing are being caused by gravity, because of 3d effect, and not 2 dimensional, of the ongoing force. <br />Posted by Aaupaaq</DIV><br /><br />What part of "There is no solid surface" do you not understand???? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What part of "There is no solid surface" do you not understand???? <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Hey buddy, nice to see you again. I should have said the surface, but I guess I'm causing a lot of commotion just by saying crust. I did say the composition of Jupiter is different than Saturn, and other planets. Temperature might play a role in creating all those squiggly lines up there, but I think gravity is playing some major part like we have atmosphere, stratosphere, ionisphere, etc. </p><p>Maybe this should explain a little bit of how gravity should react.</p><p>http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/VZ/zeroenergytube.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/vacuumenergy2.htm&h=310&w=841&sz=22&tbnid=w40VPMWNuKEJ::&tbnh=53&tbnw=145&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtwo%2Bbar%2Bmagnet%2Bdiagram&hl=en&usg=__VF869PRTRQj-VDqPchNLudXJVoI=&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&cd=1</p><p>I think it's the same one, but it talks about how gravity is, almost as close as I think it is. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> We always walked on water, like skating! </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/VZ/zeroenergytube.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/vacuumenergy2.htm&h=310&w=841&sz=22&tbnid=w40VPMWNuKEJ::&tbnh=53&tbnw=145&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtwo%2Bbar%2Bmagnet%2Bdiagram&hl=en&usg=__VF869PRTRQj-VDqPchNLudXJVoI=&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&cd=1<br />Posted by Aaupaaq</DIV></p><p>that is your problem. you are trying to learn from quacko sources.</p><p>try a high school physics textbook instead</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>that is your problem. you are trying to learn from quacko sources.try a high school physics textbook instead <br /> Posted by rubicondsrv</DIV></p><p>Maybe they're like outdated? The high school years. Just think, how much science has progressed. And it's going to progress no matter what you think, and it's going to keep on discovering awesome things. Science is awesome, but, sometimes, it's just so close, that it's debatebale, I think. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> We always walked on water, like skating! </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Maybe they're like outdated? The high school years. Just think, how much science has progressed. And it's going to progress no matter what you think, and it's going to keep on discovering awesome things. Science is awesome, but, sometimes, it's just so close, that it's debatebale, I think. <br />Posted by Aaupaaq</DIV><br /><br />No, it is your ideas that are outdated. They are at least three centuries behind current knowledge. That is the major problem with your posts. You choose to ignore everything that has been learned about physics since the dark ages. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, it is your ideas that are outdated. They are at least three centuries behing current knowledge. That is the major problem with your posts. You choose to ignore everything that has been learned about physics since the dark ages. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>O.k. Thanks for clarifying your mindset. I'm just saying, science is still discoverying things and it's not being idle. But if you're insisting that the information is still valid, I don't think it's going to be long before science does another discovery, and does its updating. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> We always walked on water, like skating! </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>O.k. Thanks for clarifying your mindset. I'm just saying, science is still discoverying things and it's not being idle. But if you're insisting that the information is still valid, I don't think it's going to be long before science does another discovery, and does its updating. <br />Posted by Aaupaaq</DIV><br /><br />Science is always searching to learn more. But that does not imply that the foundations of physics will be overturned. Gravity and Magnetism are well understood and proven concepts that have centuries of real observational data to support them</p><p>Yes there could be some MINOR tweaks as things such as the apparent dark energy and dark matter are researched. But to within many decimal places, the fundimental formula for gravity will not change. The fundimanetal formulae of magnetism will not change. They have been very successful.</p><p>A good example is our visit to the moon when I was young. It was done with slide rules.</p><p>Today we can calculate the same items with hundreds of times more precision, but the answer is still the same as it was back them, which is why those missions succeeded.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Science is always searching to learn more. But that does not imply that the foundations of physics will be overturned. Gravity and Magnetism are well understood and proven concepts that have centuries of real observational data to support themYes there could be some MINOR tweaks as things such as the apparent dark energy and dark matter are researched. But to within many decimal places, the fundimental formula for gravity will not change. The fundimanetal formulae of magnetism will not change. They have been very successful.A good example is our visit to the moon when I was young. It was done with slide rules.Today we can calculate the same items with hundreds of times more precision, but the answer is still the same as it was back them, which is why those missions succeeded. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Good for science, as I love science, but sometimes, it has a little bit different dialect, sometimes. What would you say if there was no moon for earth? That is why I think, gravity is something like alive. It can move, relocate, manipulate physical features here on earth. If there was no gravity, from earth and moon, we'd see no tides. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> We always walked on water, like skating! </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Good for science, as I love science, but sometimes, it has a little bit different dialect, sometimes. What would you say if there was no moon for earth? That is why I think, gravity is something like alive. It can move, relocate, manipulate physical features here on earth. If there was no gravity, from earth and moon, we'd see no tides. <br />Posted by Aaupaaq</DIV><br /><br />Of course we wouldn't, since the tides are caused by the gravitational attraction of the moon's mass.</p><p>Gravity is not "alive" it is a fundamental force that shapes the Universe.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><u>Maybe they're like outdated?</u> The high school years. Just think, how much science has progressed. And it's going to progress no matter what you think, and it's going to keep on discovering awesome things.</DIV></p><p>Outdated? WTF? That link takes you to a quacko crapo garbage-fest of garbage. WTF is "levity?" "Consciousness Units?" It's garbage. It's junk. It's complete nonsense. It is intellectually insulting pap. It is without merit. It is less than nothing and demonstratably degrades and humiliates the very concept of <em>inane</em> by being orders of magnitude worse than the word "inane" ever thought of being in its life. It's worse than bad. It's a criminal affront to the senses and a fraudulent, insanely diaboloical attempt at mimicking coherent thought. </p><p>Yet, you think it has merit? <br /> </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Science is awesome, but, sometimes, it's just so close, that it's debatebale, I think. Posted by Aaupaaq</DIV></p><p>Stop thinking. Really. It's obviously not doing you any good. You need to go somewhere that teaches people how to use their power of intellect appropriately. You're doing it wrong.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
<p>*ahem* Rabble! Rabble rabble!</p><p>Aapy, please, for the sake of humanity go back to school, and take some science classes. I have searched the lexicons of my people for a word to describe how sad you make me, but I could only find a picture of drowning puppies.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">I don't think I'm alone when I say, "I hope more planets fall under the ruthless domination of Earth!"</font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff">SDC Boards: Power by PLuck - Ph**king Luck</font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>*ahem* Rabble! Rabble rabble!Aapy, please, for the sake of humanity go back to school, and take some science classes. I have searched the lexicons of my people for a word to describe how sad you make me, but I could only find a picture of drowning puppies. <br /> Posted by neuvik</DIV></p><p>Thank you. I made the mistake of trying in vain to search for words which described my despair when I should have just turned to powerful imagery instead. I am humbled.</p><p>Yes, drowning puppies.. that is very appropriate.</p><p>Sometimes, I feel like "Napalm Girl." Not that I'm a woman but, the sadness, despair and fear she must have felt after her village was bombed and she was forced to strip away her clothes to survive is something I feel when I read that people actually believe some of the psuedoscientific pap that others promote. I DO want to run howling in fear and despair sometimes...</p><p>(Napalm Girl) </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
<p>FTM I'm sticking with this ...</p><p><br /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/2/4/5258fb8e-1289-4c9a-947f-a7553f70a53b.Medium.jpg" alt="" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Good for science, as I love science, but sometimes, it has a little bit different dialect, sometimes. What would you say if there was no moon for earth? That is why I think, gravity is something like alive. It can move, relocate, manipulate physical features here on earth. If there was no gravity, from earth and moon, we'd see no tides. <br /> Posted by Aaupaaq</DIV></p><p>Gravity isn't alive -- in fact, gravity is remarkably constant. It doesn't change. Every bit of matter has a gravitational field. I think that's really cool, quite honestly.</p><p>Science doesn't have a different dialect, exactly, but it is clear that there is a language barrier here. I know English is not your first language, and would guess that your first language is something like Inupiaq, which is pretty darned cool too. ;-) Still, the concepts should apply.</p><p>Science is a discipline, not a set of beliefs or understandings. Science is a means of systematically exploring the world around us. It means not just running off on a tangent about any old thing. It means formulating questions as concrete, precise hypotheses which can be tested, and then testing them. After testing them, we either adjust the hypotheses and retest, or we discard them and start anew with a totally different hypothesis. The process repeats again and again, indefinitely. The advantage is that it helps us guard against mistakes and self-deception (which all humans are prone to).</p><p>Now, as to gravity and magnetism....</p><p>Gravity is the property of any two objects to attract one another. They attract one another with a force proportional to the product of their masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. What causes gravity to be is not clear, but we can definitely observe the action of gravity, and so far it has been totally consistent with that basic law of gravitation. Gravity is the weakest of the known forces, but on large scales has really amazing effects, such as gravity lensing.</p><p>Magnetism can seem superficially similar, especially since it also obeys the inverse square rule (the force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the thing generating the field) but it's much more powerful. Take fridge magnets. Their magnetic fields are enough to stick themselves to most metals. But you can't stick them to a tree, or other non-magnetic surface. Their *gravitational* fields are absolutely insignificant, completely overwhelmed by more powerful forces.</p><p>You mention "what if there were no moon?" Scientists have long pondered that question. The ocean tides are not the only thing we'd lose. Tidal interactions between the Earth and Moon have slowed the Earth's rotation over the past few billion years, and it's also helped stabilize the Earth's axial tilt. It's hard to say for sure what life would be like without the Moon, and even whether or not there would *be* life on Earth. But things would definitely be very different. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em> -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p>Posted by CalliArcale</DIV><br /><br />Thanx Calli. A very clear statement of what is needed in this situation. </p><p>Whether it will help or not remains to be seen.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Gravity isn't alive -- in fact, gravity is remarkably constant. It doesn't change. Every bit of matter has a gravitational field. I think that's really cool, quite honestly.Science doesn't have a different dialect, exactly, but it is clear that there is a language barrier here. I know English is not your first language, and would guess that your first language is something like Inupiaq, which is pretty darned cool too. ;-) Still, the concepts should apply.Science is a discipline, not a set of beliefs or understandings. Science is a means of systematically exploring the world around us. It means not just running off on a tangent about any old thing. It means formulating questions as concrete, precise hypotheses which can be tested, and then testing them. After testing them, we either adjust the hypotheses and retest, or we discard them and start anew with a totally different hypothesis. The process repeats again and again, indefinitely. The advantage is that it helps us guard against mistakes and self-deception (which all humans are prone to).Now, as to gravity and magnetism....Gravity is the property of any two objects to attract one another. They attract one another with a force proportional to the product of their masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. What causes gravity to be is not clear, but we can definitely observe the action of gravity, and so far it has been totally consistent with that basic law of gravitation. Gravity is the weakest of the known forces, but on large scales has really amazing effects, such as gravity lensing.Magnetism can seem superficially similar, especially since it also obeys the inverse square rule (the force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the thing generating the field) but it's much more powerful. Take fridge magnets. Their magnetic fields are enough to stick themselves to most metals. But you can't stick them to a tree, or other non-magnetic surface. Their *gravitational* fields are absolutely insignificant, completely overwhelmed by more powerful forces.You mention "what if there were no moon?" Scientists have long pondered that question. The ocean tides are not the only thing we'd lose. Tidal interactions between the Earth and Moon have slowed the Earth's rotation over the past few billion years, and it's also helped stabilize the Earth's axial tilt. It's hard to say for sure what life would be like without the Moon, and even whether or not there would *be* life on Earth. But things would definitely be very different. <br /> Posted by CalliArcale</DIV></p><p>This is what I've been saying all along, both gravity and magnetism have almost the same properties, that, I am starting to think that the young galaxies, which form in a very magnetic area, retain this magnetism, which probably evolved into a word called gravity, and we don't fully understand it. But my own definition and not other Inuit, is that alive means an object can contract and expand, even if it gets help from the sun! When it is dead, I think that it would not be changing any property it has. </p><p>We can melt and freeze any gold and silver, and these are part of the crust, of the earth. We're making these elements, we mine to become alive, and changing it's properties. I think we're like a soup, but, we've never really evolved, but degenerated, and depleted 
</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> We always walked on water, like skating! </div>
</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> We always walked on water, like skating! </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#ff99cc"><font color="#ff00ff">This is what I've been saying all along, both gravity and magnetism have almost the same properties, that, I am starting to think that the young galaxies, which form in a very magnetic area, retain this magnetism, which probably evolved into a word called gravity, and we don't fully understand it. But my own definition and not other Inuit, is that alive means an object can contract and expand, even if it gets help from the sun! When it is dead, I think that it would not be changing any property it has. We can melt and freeze any gold and silver, and these are part of the crust, of the earth. We're making these elements, we mine to become alive, and changing it's properties. I think we're like a soup, but, we've never really evolved, but degenerated, and depleted </font> <br /></font>Posted by <font color="#ff00ff">Aaupaaq</font></DIV></p><p>Sweet zombie jesus what does all that mean!?!? What makes you think young galaxies form in very magnetic areas? Are you sure that matter under intense compression from the forming of galaxies is not responsible for the magnetic field? Perhaps how the atoms of a particular element are aligned? What makes you think the word magnetism evolved in to gravity? Did you mean the concept? If so, how are they related, as you opened with, they are "almost" the same.</p><p>Referring to the sentence after you said we melt and freeze gold and silver; how are we making these elements? Can you please send just me the information on creating the elements gold and silver....I seem to have misplaced my copy. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">I don't think I'm alone when I say, "I hope more planets fall under the ruthless domination of Earth!"</font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff">SDC Boards: Power by PLuck - Ph**king Luck</font></p> </div>
</font> <br /></font>Posted by <font color="#ff00ff">Aaupaaq</font></DIV></p><p>Sweet zombie jesus what does all that mean!?!? What makes you think young galaxies form in very magnetic areas? Are you sure that matter under intense compression from the forming of galaxies is not responsible for the magnetic field? Perhaps how the atoms of a particular element are aligned? What makes you think the word magnetism evolved in to gravity? Did you mean the concept? If so, how are they related, as you opened with, they are "almost" the same.</p><p>Referring to the sentence after you said we melt and freeze gold and silver; how are we making these elements? Can you please send just me the information on creating the elements gold and silver....I seem to have misplaced my copy. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">I don't think I'm alone when I say, "I hope more planets fall under the ruthless domination of Earth!"</font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff">SDC Boards: Power by PLuck - Ph**king Luck</font></p> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is what I've been saying all along, both gravity and magnetism have almost the same properties,</DIV></p><p>"Almost the same" is not equal to "the same." A soccer ball is round like the Earth is almost round. But, because they are superficially similar, they're not the same. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>that, I am starting to think that the young galaxies, which form in a very magnetic area, retain this magnetism, which probably evolved into a word called gravity, and we don't fully understand it.</DIV></p><p>If you have a Grand Unified Theory in your pocket, I'd like to see it. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But my own definition and not other Inuit, is that alive means an object can contract and expand, even if it gets help from the sun!</DIV></p><p>A soccer ball can contract and expand due to the energy from the sun. Does that mean it is alive? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> When it is dead, I think that it would not be changing any property it has.</DIV></p><p>Are decaying radioactive elements "alive" then? Or, are they just simply radioactive elements... rocks. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> We can melt and freeze any gold and silver, and these are part of the crust, of the earth. We're making these elements, we mine to become alive, and changing it's properties. I think we're like a soup, but, we've never really evolved, but degenerated, and depleted Posted by Aaupaaq</DIV></p><p>I am really, really glad you aren't making any sense to me whatsoever.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
Posted by Aaupaaq</DIV></p><p>I am really, really glad you aren't making any sense to me whatsoever.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"Almost the same" is not equal to "the same." A soccer ball is round like the Earth is almost round. But, because they are superficially similar, they're not the same. If you have a Grand Unified Theory in your pocket, I'd like to see it. A soccer ball can contract and expand due to the energy from the sun. Does that mean it is alive? Are decaying radioactive elements "alive" then? Or, are they just simply radioactive elements... rocks. I am really, really glad you aren't making any sense to me whatsoever. <br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>http://www.livescience.com/space/081103-mm-magnetic-portals.html</p><p>we, as in earth, needs to do it's part in order for us to get replenished. Opening, may be, but the sun's always sending it to us, but for in order for us to get replenished, this opening of portals, is like transfering life giving particles to earth. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> We always walked on water, like skating! </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.livescience.com/space/081103-mm-magnetic-portals.htmlwe, as in earth, needs to do it's part in order for us to get replenished. Opening, may be, but the sun's always sending it to us, but for in order for us to get replenished, this opening of portals, is like transfering life giving particles to earth. <br /> Posted by Aaupaaq</DIV></p><p>By your definition, literally everything is alive. I am not aware of any material that neither expands nor contracts when heat is applied. My pencil is alive, a rock is alive, my desk is alive, EVERYTHING is. Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? Everything can't be alive, otherwise it wouldn't be necessary to have an alive/dead distinction. Even when a person dies they can still "expand" and "contract". </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>By your definition, literally everything is alive. I am not aware of any material that neither expands nor contracts when heat is applied. My pencil is alive, a rock is alive, my desk is alive, EVERYTHING is. Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? Everything can't be alive, otherwise it wouldn't be necessary to have an alive/dead distinction. Even when a person dies they can still "expand" and "contract". <br />Posted by UFmbutler</DIV><br /><br />So what you are saying this since dead bodies expand and contract that this is scientific proof of life after death. Or are you saying science is not equiped to tell when metal has died. We can tell when metal is fatigued but not dead. </p><p>I am of course just joking.... </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 12
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram