I saw this health aid today, it said this dish helped millions of people for thousands of years. Amazing. It must work well if they are so strong they all lived for thousands of years!

What is it when you have a watch in the vitamin store and it sails away? Time released!

Global Warming

Greenhouse theories of global warming are where the radiation comes in through the optical atmospheric window of the earth, and, once inside the heat is unable to re radiate through any window of higher bandwidth, like a greenhouse where the radiation of light goes through the window but can't reradiate out in heat once it's scattered inside by contact with surfaces like the plants and walls of a greenhouse. This belief that the heat can't re radiate may be untrue because the earth has just the two wavelengths of radiation (of light and heat) and radiant energy once inside the earth's atmosphere can reradiate at these wavelengths. Although the light realm is small, the heat wavelength is much more substantial in size so whatever would stop the reradiation out would have to be of much more bandwidth to stop the release of a lot of the heat as the wavelength of the scattered light is reduced once the light is in the atmosphere. If the heat wavelength was opaque to radiation, we would be unable to listen to the radio or receive radiant heat. Change in the ability to receive radio and other signals of this sort over time such as years may thus be important proof or disproof of the greenhouse theory.

FOLLOW THE CO2 WHERE YOU WANT TO BE

Another correlation of the ability to receive radiance like this may be that it transmits the radio and other waves better far out in the country away from the sources of CO2, As they change ability of the radiation to be absorbed may change. If the CO2 is causing the change in radiation, the change always may follow the CO2, not with the change first, then the CO2, if the greenhouse emmissions are actually the cause of global warming. And if the sun has always been radiating out at the same temperature, with the heat retained by the green house gasses the earth would be more and more heated, and we would be in more and more shade by clouds. The most important greenhouse gas other than nitrogen and CO2 is water. Water is active more than CO2 about the greenhouse effect. If hot weather moves more water into the air with more heat, more heat is retained, so over millions of years by the greenhouse theory alone the whole earth would be much hotter than it is.

GPS Has A Weather Map!

Forest fires are of import about the amount of CO2 in the air. In ancient ages many more forests were in the world and lightning and other sources of fire were about the same. There would have been more forest fires with more heat caused by the CO2. Over millions of years of this if the greenhouse effect was of import with more heat retained and more fires and more CO2, the world would have overheated like with atmospheric water, so either the greenhouse effect is not involved or there is something else keeping the world from overheating regarding greenhouse warmups. (I think this may just be that the world's ocean water is a giant heat sink, more about this in a moment.)

WHY I CAN AFFORD SWIMWEAR AT CHRISTMAS IN YAZOO

Data about the world's heat input and output may be of use for all global warming science. The heat lost from the earth by the pressure and friction from the moons tides would be a component of the total heat out, the total heat in would be subtracted from this. Obviously some heat must be lost or the world would continually overheat, so more than the greenhouse motif must be going on about the worlds heat levels. While some had said that Venus would be a good way to prove global warming theories they have actually seen with probes that the heat flowing out is actually more than the inflow! My theory has been that the actual global warming that's been observed has been caused by the boost of solar power. (Like in the 11 year Solar Heating Cycles, and over more historic and prehistoric time) Recent studies show that Neptune and Mars heat up when the earth heats, and this would be explained by the solar heating. The 11 solar cycle is at an all time high, rising higher with each successive peak. Another problem that's worth the math about the Co2 and global warming connection is about Mars which has an atmosphere that's almost all Co2, if global warming is caused by CO2 mars should be warmer than without a greenhouse effect, and the amount of the heat should exactly fit the greenhouse causology if it's true; thus the weather of Mars may be a real way to prove if greenhouse CO2 is about the rise in global temperatures on earth. The heat in is known, the CO2 is known, so it may exactly fit the causology if true, if partly true, other science may be of worth.

A Heat Wave Of The Woman Who Lives In The Village URL!

..The usual proof of global warming has been that when the world heats up a certain amount, for say a few months of the year, the CO2, a greenhouse gas that allows in light but is opaque to heat, increases proportionally for about the same number of months. The CO2, produced by such as automobiles and burning of oil is used to explain why just now the weather is too hot in summer; the burning of fossil fuels is up in the last 100 years so global warming is up. In general it's not out of the question that global warming can be caused by other motifs than this. Over geologic time the earth has warmed out of ice ages perhaps 20 times, including the archeozoic, when the ice age was so extensive it's named the snowball earth theory. There were no SUV's being started up at the start of the recent age of warm weather 10,000 years ago. (If your VW starts it starts!) Other greenhouse gasses are water and nitrogen, 600 times as greenhouse as CO2. The world is using much more nitrogen for fertilizer to have enough to eat, so if the greenhouse effect was the real source of global warming, heat would have risen in a much steeper and higher curve than it would with CO2, but this still wouldn't explain the revivified ice ages because if the warmup was enough to revive the world, why didn't the heat just continue to rise? A solar power boost may be of more worth. Another problem with a greenhouse theory is that volcanic eruptions cause greenhouse emissions.. If the greenhouse effect is real we would expect to see a short boost in global temperatures once most of the dust had settled down and the greenhouse emmisions were still in the air. While this may be used in proof or disproof of the greenhouse theory, it can never have overheated too much. Life has survived continually for 4 billion years, and the history of the ice ages and the giant volcanic eruptions in the Jurassic in Siberia would seem to imply that while cooling of the earth is allowed like in the times of our own evolution in the ice ages, general global overheating by greenhouse gasses is limited. I think this may be simply via the oceans; the water is a giant heat sink, only 1/100,000 of the worlds water is in the air. Greenhouse emmisions are trivial compared to the vastness, as wide as the ocean, as deep as the sea. Lower than a few hundred feet, the ocean is a sort of perpetual N pole where light is stopped. This as well as nutrients is why almost all marine life lives within just a few miles of the sea. Water also absorbs heat, and water's heat balance would be why the earth has never overheated much in geologic time. If there was some world heating by greenhouse gasses such as from the nitrogen or water from the Jurassic eruptions, this would cause more evaporation of the oceans water from the tropics, the air can hold just so much water, so it would move North perhaps in many cyclones. Tropical cyclones freshen the air like rain, and sooner or later the rain would wash out all the greenhouse gasses, cooling the earth so it would never overheat anytime in the history of the Earth.

SOLAR STORMS, BASIC AND HIGHER DEGREE

A distinction between the greenhouse explanation and a solar one of global warming may be that the solar theory has the upper air more warm with more heat from the sun and perhaps the air near us here on the land (wherever we go AirPeru we are!) is shielded by more dust with increased output by machines. So Solar Heat as Power has the upper air hot and the ground somewhat warmer than expectation, while the usual greenhouse explanation has the same amount of solar heat as in ages before, used better to heat up like a greenhouse. So the upper air is the same as always and the air near the earth is warmer, the opposite of what Solar Heat as Power predicts in general. Global warming via solar heat can explain the confluence of CO2 with the specific changes in weather. When the sun would heat up more, the plants would respire more and release more CO2 and water, not caused by the greenhouse effect but just associated with the heat. If global warming is caused by CO2 or other greenhouse gasses, the global changes in temperature from month to month would follow after a given rise in CO2 instead of before it if the sun is powering global warming. A greenhouse can heat up in the daytime, but if the heat is off it cools by the day after, so the distinction between a theory of the heat caused by the greenhouse and one caused by the sun is that the heat is general and radiant if by the sun, and just heat of efficiency if powered by the greenhouse effect. The air being of low thermal inertia can't store the heat well so it must be stored in the rocks and seas of the world. If a greenhouse has less heat it won't heat up, but if the solar heat is up it reaches more of the world. So global warming caused by solar power and not other causes has the regions of higher latitudes warmer where it's 80 degrees latitude of the heat. And Solar Heat as Power would predict that the global warming would show at least some correlation to the 11 year cycle of solar heat that has changes in such as the fields there. The solar cycle is of smaller amounts of energy than the general amount the sun radiates, but in a Solar Heat as Power theory of global warming some causal association would exist.

The main changes found in the weather where I live in VA are warm summers where steady wind is blowing, so it feels not much hot but no rain like before with no summer wind much of this sort in past years when the weather was more old time. The cloud formations they find are more unusual. The summer sky seems more hazy than in the days of youth, the edges of the clouds seem usually more fuzzy (this may be found with old photos). The storms that hit by Insurance Vendors are more substantial in power but less numerous, in winter there is reduced ice and the general world heat level is up. All this can be explained as I say by more solar power and this combined more dust in the air from agriculture in the summer mostly. Warm air holds more dust because it is more energised so the dust is lifted up higher. Both more dust and more heat to move the clouds may explain the unusual cloud formations. The whole sky seems more like one big fuzzy cloud in summer. This would shield the earth from more heat caused by the increase of radiation from above so there would be air of higher heat at the top of the air and the ground by global warming would just be somewhat hotter. Since the general temperature is higher, and more dust smooths the temperature, this would be why the wind now blows more constantly than before in summer when the dust is higher. In summer in the US there's naw a constant mild summer W wind at the surface not present in Europe. Each year a large amount of dust reaches the US from Africa. This may cause the wind by drawing the heat to the East and not above the Alps, the greenhouse emmision is more uniform and so wouldn't seem to be either the cause of the constant winds or the lack of them in Europe. With the wind and the large mist of summer on high the air wouldn't feel so hot generally in summer as many have said. It wouldn't rain as much in summer because rain needs more unlike temperature of the clouds and the air that surrounds the clouds. This is also why even with the overall temperature higher, the winters have been colder even with global warming. Global warming! Ha or Ho! Ho! Ho!, they say at christmas. The greenhouse can't explain this but if there's more dust, tilting the angle makes a longer path for the light to reach us in winter, so the winters would be better explained. Another example of reduction of weather power by the dust is about how lightning is found to be reduced in storms where the air has much dust like in storms near large cities. It wouldn't snow as much in summer (or winter no doubt) because the dust would have settled so the temperature would be constant of the whole atmosphere but the heat would be warmer from the sun with the sun more in power. Larger but fewer storms, seen in summer may be because of more dust making the large shield that rarely lets lots of heat reach the ground even with overall heat of the earth higher by more solar power. Once in a while just by luck some of the clouds may allow more of the heat to reach the earth and this would be via greater solar radiation and so would build up a storm of more power. The big storms would be around March and September just as they were before, except with more dust from agriculture and business in the spring and more heat to power the storms, the difference in temperature in the spring and fall, particularly around March would be more sharp, my explanation of storms like the blizzard of '93 that hit the east coast of the US. Because particles in suspension in the air settle more gradually than they rise, there would be more of these big storms around March. If greenhouse gasses were the main cause there is no explanation for either the cold winters or the more unpredictable weather and unusual clouds. a gas without dust is simple and tends to stabilize but like the quantum mechanics of solids being much more complex than of gasses or liquids air with dust is much more complex and tending to unpredictablity, especially if with more heat in general. Greenhouse gasses would have a simpler trend, after all the greenhouse would be the simple heating of gas. At the least all the unpredictability must have another cause, possibly the greenhouse to a less degree combined with the sun and dust, even so this seems improbable due to problems like the 600 times greenhouse curve of nitrogen unobserved and the other objections above. After all you can wash your car on the weekends more probably because of industrial output, on the weekdays it's being built up, the dust may cause rain and cooling but the CO2 would make the weekends hotter not cooler, ect..For my general site about Weather and the possibilities of weather or even earthquake control in the future being developed, click here.

Why The ROOM BETWEEN The STARS Is TRUE BLUE

If "god gave us the darkness so I can see Star Researchers with a heavenly goddess bodice" why is the room between the stars unilluminated? If there were an infinite number of stars the whole sky would be ablaze. We can see about 10,000 stars on a clear night at the beach with our eyes, about as many as sand grains in your hand. It's not because of dust because interstellar space is far emptier than the highest vacuum they can yet achieve in the lab. If the dust was so we couldn't see more of the Milky Way stars we would be unable to see farther also. Carl Sagan says the skys of planets near some stars are ablaze with stars, when you look up day or night where globular clusters, the giant spheres of stars that are perhaps 30 about the Milky Whey. "What a view life on these must worlds have" he sighs in Cosmos. The ancient Greek Democratus thought the reason we see just a few stars is there are many more, they are just too far away. So the space between distant galaxies isn't actually just black. This has been well proven because the mind of Democratus was more of a high resolution lense than even many generations of astronomers after him could build.

Another reason the sky is not lit up with an infinite number of stars so not in darkness is that the same idea about the dust between our near stars may hold but not so much of it, because research proves the room between the galaxies has vast magnetic fields. If the fields are present, they must be composed of particles, and the particles would act as a mist so the more distant a galaxy was, the more fuzzy it would be. Beyond a certain distance no more galaxies would be visible. The light from the many stars visible would light up this haze a bit just as the lights of a store make it fuzzy in the rain. Einstein thought the light from a distant source would change frequency in the field with friction to it's motion through the waves. So we would find light of a great distance would be of reduced power when we receive it. And either the distant light is disconnected by this or shearing of the light of ancient photons by the huge number of photons that could interact with them between there and here with just inelastic collision from the side, or other interaction of this sort.
.

I read about how "sheep herders in the plateau of Tibet stay warm by wearing stoves inside their coats." I think the reason it was in the book was because it's such a good idea, and why haven't almost all the other people in the world in history of the higher latitudes up to these times put heaters in their coats? I put socks filled with oats in my microwave and put them in my well insulated pockets when I go out. The heat rises up to my hands so this is better, how could they keep the fire going without going up in heat? Add more Fizz at Christmas!... and I have warm hands and stomach for hours because the insulation holds in the heat, and they go in pockets lower than my hand pockets so my hands won't have too many beams of the stove's heat when my hands are in the pockets. When I want to use hands out of the coat, I use the warm socks in the low pockets to heat my hands by a squeeze of the heat. Instead of sewing the sock to hold in the beads that store the heat like oats a fast method is just to use a piece of string of usual sort. This ties the sock off and if you decide you also want toasty warm socks in March-the heat will be in your celebration.

Another idea are time released packs you just heat in the oven, then the packs would fit in your pocket or warm your hands or feet wear in pockets.This would an application of the science of time release beads and embedded in a general orientation toward the hand, some of the beads would re radiate out fast and others with more hours. I put the heaters in in the AM and am comfy in a comparable number of hours as hand warmers that use compounds that cost and may be harmful to the environment.. Other types of pocket warmers may be ones that heat up when you squeeze or windup warmers for outdoors.

In the desert there are animals that actually take in more water from the air than they put in through their skin so they never dry out, some may wonder if there might not be the equivalent of a sort of chemical heat pump that also wouldn't just shield the heat but that would actually always keep you either cool in the heat or reversed around to keep you warm in the winter, a chemical heat pump that could always save you heat, and this would be good for insulation of houses and other insulation. They had shirts like this by the 1980's but they were just insulation for the heat and reversed in summer the heat would flow out, some say this wouldn't be the same as a permanent chemical heat pump, useful also to heat the house, saving huge amounts of power like for houses in the weather. This isn't like other chemical heat pumps lsited on this page http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4441484.html. that seem to be just better solar collectors. While the invention described on the link is good for solar heating, like houses, a more portable chemical heat pump has been invented that would collect the heat itself and make best use of it and also that would perhaps be in actually sprayed on lighter clothes that could then be used for comfort without heavy clothes or too much heat.

Why do we like sad songs? Asks musician/neurologist Charles J. Ling, who is using MRI to see what happens ot the brain during improvisation by musicians, this seems to be an unanswered question. As a musician/scientist myself I believe the answer is about why we like music so much in general. As I say on this page in evolution we couldn't close our ears to defend against predators at night and we may have sought magical control over sound, regularity is power, a unified sound is much more soothing than a random sound (defined in physics as "noise"). Some great musicians I've read the volumes of who would know say emotions are essentially add ons to the basic skill of the song, or at any rate other musicians I've known like owners of music stores who played drums with greats in earlier days say the general structure of music is real simple, sort of all or none about emotion, if you love a great song you love aloud, "emotion to add to a song" seems simple too. Architects and others like Phillip Morris say, "God is in the details." Both of these ideas seem true, that music is generally simple in outline, yet exact details are needed for a great song, even as simple as it may seem, I would argue more for the latter beyond the basic simplicity as a musician because this is like how they say life works out the best for those who make the most of how it works out, ect. Other research finds that the most great and classic songs have simplicity as the common union.

Thus achieving control by general technical skill seems to be the main drawing card of music, in this respect like many other kinds of achievements in life, like science, exercise like a computer, or dream learning. Why do we like sad songs? Mostly because they have more skill than most people can achieve if they are being sold, they must be good enough to have reached us, right. The orginization to do a good song is out of the reach of most people, so they have lots of admiration for the genuis of great music, understood by all, written nowhere in memory of how to for most people. The ancient greek dude was saying what is great is acheived by few but understood by most or all, this seems especially true for music.

We read of the research where music can change your emotions and put you in a good mood. Only by most optimally starting at your level and then changing the music to more positive to then feel good or great. We resonate to the level we're at and then higher. It seems more of a leap to extreme levels to resonate both with a song that's more with celebration and all the amazing skill too, than just an already amazing sad song. Thus sad songs with lots of skill are nearer most peoples level of energy. If we took sad songs without skill, songs of celebration without skill, celebration songs with skill, and sad songs with skill (no goofs) my prediction would be that they would be favored most in that order by the brain, with songs of celebration without much skill actually higher up the scale than the sad songs without skill even though we like the sad songs with skill more than the celebration songs with skill. Because the sad songs without skill have no skill (what else) they would have the lower rating, because the real advantage of the lower skill songs would be at least that the cheer songs with no skill are with celebration! I used to play a lot of sad songs I was sad because at first I couldn't learn them and my fingers hurt. The higher level of the sad songs with skill may be the usual even though the lower level songs without skill would have more advantage if they are in celebration, not sadness.

To hear some of my own folk music, I'm pretty good, I actually get more clicks hear than onsite here that has 400+ pages! Click Here. .

For how I taught myself folk music click here.

\\.

WHAT CAUSED THE DINOSAUR EXTINCTION?

..No not just a weather woman who was a knockout! No doubt the comet may have had a lot to do with it, but there were worldwide climate changes before the dinosaurs were weakened and knocked out by the one two punch of first weather, then the comet. This is the consensus among the museums and world miners of our time. But why did just the dinosaurs go out and not the mammals and birds? I believed initially the comet might have hit the earth and tilted it causing the seasons and knocking out the (presumably) cold blooded dinosaurs. The mammals and birds would have survived because they were warm blooded. Something must have caused the seasons but it wasn't the comet because info from the impact site shows that it was just a mile wide and the earth has a huge 37,000 mile diameter. And if the comet had hit the earth enough to start the seasons it would have shaken the life of the world so much of the world's life would have literally fallen off the planet. For this reason and that the dinosaurs were showing signs of infirmity for millions of years before the impact, the asteroid may have been the straw that finished the dinosaurs off and started the dromedairys. The tilt of the world that caused the seasons may have had another, more ancient origin, the land bridge between the South America and the Antarctic, this submerged about 87 million years ago about 22 million years before the dinosaur met their fate. In this explanation the Land Bridge Dinosaur Bird Mammal Causology (LBDBM, or LBD) the land bridge when above the waves stopped the tidal bulge of the moon as it would go around and attract the waters of the ocean of the S hemisphere. When the land bridge submerged (it doesn't matter the exact date tens of millions of years before the dinosaur extinction is good enough) a complete flow of the water in the south in it's daily flow of the tides would allow it to flow without as much friction as the more restricted northern oceans were. In LBD this set up the slow precession of the earth in the 25,000 year cycle it's in now. The precession is to the west, and the earth spins to the east, so the precession was caused by other forces before the land bridge submerged. The S tides would just have amplified the spin. In the ages before this the precession would have been at a higher angle and with a reduced period so the momentum was conserved explaining with much more even heat distribution why the dinosaurs fossils are found in both the arctic and antarctic and all other zones of the world.
.

..When the earth was at an angle, the tropical zones may have gotten about the same amount of light via what astronomers assume, so the dinosaurs had reduced room. So this is why I call it the Land Bridge Dinosaur Extinction, or LBD. With the regions above and below the tropics, in the room left by the dinosaurs, with this the mammals and birds suddenly may have found a vast new living realm. Laterite (from the word for brick wall or "lateral") a type of rock only found in monsoon rains, is absent in the time before the late Cretaceous, the time of the dinosaur's doom. This would be because rain takes more temperature change and by the tilting of the earth the weather was more windy (like the autumn and spring winds of our times when the tilt of the earth is most changed) so the birds would have first used the feathers for warmth, and then a way to sail when they jumped farther than others, in the usual way it's believed they took to the air. And the mammals were also warm blooded and well adapted. The flowering seed plants would have also gone north and or south to the large land area left by the dinosaurs, with fast transport of the seeds both by more wind and by the faster animals. Although the flowering seed plants may have gone to the tropics with the dinosaurs they may have had it more of ease to go with the much faster motion of the winds and animal transport so there would be a relatively sharp seperation of the flowering seed plants and the dish of the dinosaurs of the time after the land bridge submerged. Why buy a Box of Cash for 50 when the shelf beside it has hot dish at no cost?
.
..The dinosaurs life in narrower land of just the tropics would also explain why the dinosaurs went extinct and not the mammals and birds. With the dinosaurs already reduced in room by the bad weather and perhaps poor food too, when the comet hit, it would have had dust and fire in a narrow band around the tropics, this perhaps mostly caused by the angle of impact of the comet, but also by the faster spin of the earth of 65 million years ago (it's slower now because of gradual winding out of the tidal friction of the ocean's attraction with the moon.) Why the crocodiles and snakes didn't go extinct but the dinosaurs did may also be of the sort of coincidence of geology about where and how the comet hit. I say coincidence because if the comet had hit either north or south, it would have presumably weakened the birds and mammals but left the dinosaurs mostly unchanged. And the other coincidence that may have saved the other reptiles than the dinosaurs could have just been that the crocodiles and other reptiles were of the opposite side than most of the dinosaurs, so the dinosaurs were hit more than the other reptiles, this is at least one probable explanation that would fit this the LBD causology. No causology other has this following from the main idea, and no other way than this explains both the rise of the mammals and birds and the dinosaur demise. With the dinosaurs being in a narrower and narrower tropical band, there is an explanation about why the dinosaurs of the later Cretaceous when the comet hit had all the plates and bones, otherwise why the late cretacious life like stagasaurus, triceratops, or the hadrosaurs were so unusual might be unexplained. With reduced room, there would have been more interbreeding. And if the dinosaurs were cold blooded and some were living in the northern tropical zones the weather would have been the worst for a dinosaur, so I would explain this by the combination of bad weather and interbreeding. The bones of the triceratops were thought for millions of years to be for fighting but the fossils show that there were so many blood vessels in the nose of the animal, fighting would have caused a sore nose. So they now say the triceratops had the unusual nose because of being like moose of our age. They have horns for finding their own among others in a big neighborhood of lots of wildlife. I think it may just be due to the bad weather, and bad food, ect. Another reason I think the bad weather may have had influence over the weakening of the dinosaurs is because of the stegosaurus, this is the usual dinosaur with plates on it's shoulders. It's thought the plates were to make the body temperature more constant with changing weather, and this is also in keeping with the idea that the weather of the late cretacious was bad for dinosaurs.

..The change in the seasons was caused in my causology by the tides and the tides flex the land in land tides when the moon goes above us. The land tides are the explanation of the power source of most vulcanism and earthquakes. Two thirds of the earthquakes and volcanoes occur within 10 days of the first of the month when the tides are higher, this has been known to geologists since about 1900. If the change in the tides and the tilt of the earth by the land bridge being submerged in the S ocean was associated with tectonics, this may be another cause of the dinosaurs unusual noses in the final dinosaur hours before the comet. With tectonics would be volcanic eruptions of large sort if the whole earth was tilting in a major sort of way, and this would pollute the air, causing the dinosaurs to evolve in unusual ways. So a prediction would be that in the late cretaceous and before perhaps starting somewhat after the time of the land bridge, many of the dinosaurs would have been developing breathing problems and many would have been trying to evolve ways like filters to breathe better.

..The idea of the whole earth tilting would explain why there were so many volcanic eruptions by the above in the age of the dinosaurs (and there would be less in other ages because the dinosaur extinction instability that weakened them wasn't present in other ages). Of course it's not as simple as this. For example the moon was much nearer and causing more tides in earlier ages, and radioactivity from the earth is unpredictable. In general however I think it may be more characteristic of the dinosaur's age than other ages.

..They haven't decided yet from the evidence not yet conclusive if the dinosaurs were cold blooded. In this causology they would be found in later and later ages to be more and more confined to the narrowing of the tropic zone. Since this confinement may also be used to explain the rise of the birds, mammals, and the flowering plants, and why the dinosaurs went extinct by my theory, it also predicts that the dinosaurs were not warm blooded. This would be what would have separated the dinosaurs from the birds, mammals and flowers (there may have been many flowers who evolved with the dinosaurs). So this explains why the dinosaurs went extinct and the birds and flowers and other life flourished.

..A way to prove that the dinosaurs were functionally cold blooded would be comparison with cold and warm blooded life of our era and changes with changes in general weather such as in the pleistocene. Warm blooded life will be able to stay further north. Cold blooded life would stay near the equator so when the N and S icecaps would be caused by the change in precession caused by the land bridge, the dinosaurs would have lived nearer and nearer the tropics, and have the territory like other warm or cold blooded life with the same weather of times like these.

..As you see on this Wikipedia link there is no sharp definition of warm and cold blooded. However there is general definition of worth to this argument. Warm blooded life slows and does somewhat worse in the heat, and cold blooded life can't do well without the heat. This definition is not precise (by the definition we are cold blooded ourselves) but if the dinosaur extinction was indeed related to change in the weather though general it would be a definition of use.

..If the earth was more level with the ecliptic in the Triassic and the Jurassic without the seasons, most of the world would have had year round weather like the tropics and the N and S would have been like california. By the general definition of warm and cold blooded the dinosaurs would have had a much more vast region of good weather in which to roam in what would now be the N and S temperate zones. It's possible like humans they would have had a level of heat above which they would have slowed metabolism. This would explain why there are no huge animals in the tropics at this time, and fewer, slower, giant dinosaurs in the tropics might be possible if they were indeed warm blooded and it was hot. Most of the dinosaurs may have gone N and S and been huge even if they were what's called cold blooded.

..The dinosaurs were the largest animals by far that have lived on earth. No other animals have reached near this size. Why is this so? "They were more by far than all other land animals before or since". If they had a larger gene pool from 228 million years ago because of one, more unified land (before contenental drift) the advantage of size would have been more of worth if there was more energy in the plants caused by the good weather when they were evolving in the Triassic to support the massive weight of the dinosaurs. This predicts that on islands where there were not many dinosaurs (the same with other animals) over geologic time there would have been smaller size. And if the land was then more seperated by contenental drift, this may have made the gene pool of the dinosaurs smaller and caused the peculiar skulls and other features like the plates of the stagasaurus not seen elsewhere in evolution (this may be caused by some unusual cause like changes in weather not common to evolution). At any one time, it's estimated there were just 5 or 10 T Rex's roaming around N. America. This may have caused fragility to the dinosaur ecology because predators are needed to keep an ecosystem from instability and then weakness (It's an old proverb that when the Boss is away, the mice will play, they are mice who save much!). With more ill health caused by this and other changes like the bad weather of the Cretacious, the impact by the asteroid would have been the knockout punch to cause the dinosaurs demise. (Land Bridge Dinosaur Extinction LBDE would also explain why the contenents began to drift at any rate, why not before? With the land bridge constantly causing torque and techtonics a prediction in favor of this cause of the Dinosaur extinction LBDE is there would be fewer global siesmic events before the land bridge. The continents have continued to drift since then because the seasons are constantly causing heating and volcanoes and earthquakes, why no more heat or less? A mild cause like the tides would be most optimal, with constant flow from then to now over geologic time. If it were caused by radioactivity, it would have overburned or underburned instead of the more constant flow seen with contenental drift, as if caused by a more continuous flow of heat, like the tides. This idea would seem to need an equivalent force to the heat output of the contenental drift, by energy conservation.)

..

.. The dinosaurs wouldn't have been evolved to adapt. The dinosaurs would have been more like an evolutionary dead end, like an overevolved battleship facing newer machines and the mammals and other life would have survived because they weren't so overprogrammed they would make a better start. They didn't have so much or so much to lose, rather like the Contentental Army in America's war in 1776 with the British. If the good weather was mostly before and when the dinosaurs roamed, it might be like our own evolution they now find there was no real definite divine right of humans to win over the rest of the world's life. Like business and the heartbreak of housatosis, no sure path may be for life in evolution. There was the great extinction that was just before the age of the dinosaurs at 228 million years ago. And at least 30 known ice ages of the Paleozoic are known, the age of fish and coal before the dinosaurs, this would limit the evolution. Some life had to be first, and the dinosaurs would have won first when weather was good. Later evolution would have always been limited by the winters in size of life forms like the mammals.

..While it's thought that the dinosaurs were mostly warm blooded because the most warm blooded animals, the birds, are descended from them, we're all descended ultimately from a common cell or ancestor and this is no proof the cell or ancestor was warm blooded. The dinosaurs would be more "cold blooded" and this would explain the extinction by way of the comet. The warm bloodedness of birds and mammals and feathers and air travel of birds in evolution would be an idea whose moment had arrived.

..While the amount of size a dino would put on a year was like a warm blooded animal, and this is the main evidence that convinces many of the dinosaurs being cold blooded, thanks to the good weather and range, I think they may have put on weight at a warm blooded rate without actually being warm blooded.

..Tracks may be of worth to find out if the dinosaurs were warm blooded. Mammals have typically a lower metabolic activity in the tropics and in the far N and S with a peak when the weather is moderate in the temperate zones (for example a human's metabolism is 25% lower in the tropics). Metabolism of cold blooded animals has a peak in the tropics and falls off more rapidly in the N and S zones. If you go out on a hot day you won't see many people running fast, if it's a high speed marathon, both the road and the runners walk, or in real hot weather the road is perhaps a lava flow where I live! Unlike reptiles, warm blooded mammals and other ectotherms have a fire burning inside so they have to slow up to not overload in the heat. Foot impressions (size triple 1000) may be a way to see how warm or cold blooded the dinosaurs were. A dinosaur in the tropics if warm blooded would have to slow down in the heat so would take fewer steps and the same dinosaur if in the zones of more heat but not cool would take more giant steps. A cold blooded dinosaur (in the more general sense of the definition) would take more steps in the tropics and it would follow the motif of metabolism in general. At night with more of their own heat to go on the dinosaurs if warm blooded would be more nocturnal in general all else the same. By comparing physiology of life adapted to nightlife and wild celebrations of the present, this could be used to prove or disprove this such as dinosaurs with eyes adapted just to see at night and would be evidence for or against this about the dinosaur's demise because of poor adaptation to the weather and thus the rise of the birds and mammals.

More About Ancient Weather;

About the tilting of the Earth, Did it Cause the Dinosaur Extinction?

Damping of Jupiter's Magnetic Field, The Ice Age Connection

Copyright 2008 by Charles Frederick Lawson

-

Dinosaurs And the Bevelled Earth

As I say on my page above (Dinosaurs, The Land Bridge, and Ancient Weather) I think the dinosaur extinction may have been caused by the submerged land bridge between antarctica and S.A. 85 million years ago; the mass of the water band around the southern ocean from then to now would have changed the precession and caused the seasons, weakening the (presumed to be) cold blooded dinosaurs. The comet would then have hit the tropics, killing the dinosaurs, and the birds mammals and flowering plants would have already had a large area N and S to live in already left by the dinosaurs. The crocodiles, alligators and snakes would perhaps have just been on the other side of the world, so they would have lived to better times.

Another possible way to explain the late Cretaceous has been devised by Donald L. Blanchard via changes in obliquity of the earth over geologic time. On THIS LINK the site author says the solar system may rotate around in cycles with the galaxies explaining the extinction of the "warm blooded dinosaurs as they are now believed to be by most" in cycles of about 190 million years. In this explanation the earth would remain stationary relative to the stars as it now does throughout the year to the N star, so when the solar system was at the maximum angle, the earth would then be with the N pole toward the sun and the S pole to the sun in each 6 month period. Before and after the late cretaceous maximum of 90 degrees, Blanchard says temperatures would have been cooler which would favor the warm blooded dinosaurs, but with more heat at the max, the dinosaurs being so large couldn't have stayed cool and might have baked in the heat.

One problem with this explanation is about Blanchard's conclusion that the current alignment of the ecliptic of the milky way with the plane of the solar system is not coincidence. If the rest of its period is just aligned one fourth of the time as the plane of the solar system pivots around, it would be aligned perhaps 40% of the time, so the chance that it's aligned may be more coincidence than not unless it's being held level to the plane by the gravity of the galaxy. While the moons of Jupiter and Saturn are considered to be a miniature solar system, they can't actually be used to prove if the Sun's gravity is causing them to go through cycles of obliquity just as the galaxy's gravity would cause the solar system itself to have these cycles, because all satellites in the solar system keep the same face to their parent planet due to unevenness of the mass of these moons. Even so the Sun, Mercury, the Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto would seem to precess like this in the obliquity and due to impacts with such as large impactors all of these bodies would presumably be at random in their cycles of this type of precession, with a 50% chance of obliquity because there are two poles and tropics twice in each cycle. Only one of these bodies, Neptune has much obliquity, one in 9 or just 11%, like flipping a coin 10 times and just the dime just with heads once or twice (if you used a great rich coin!). The larger the planet the less the obliquity seen by the Hubble and this could be because planets have more mass around the tropical zones and more mass attracts, aligning them with the central mass like the solar system is now with the center of the milky way. With the solar system never with its poles aligned with the center of the galaxy and usually flattened out nearer in, it might seem there could be precession of smaller planets like the Earth and Mars because they are smaller and so easier to move with the given force, they would give way by F=ma, smaller mass, more motion. This could seem to be be true even if the solar system is flattened out and would be how in a quantum well, with more pressure the fluid inside flows without much friction while the outside is more solid, and the particles precess. It seems more probable that while looser gravity like of Neptune allows the planet to be tilted if something hits it, the Earth would more probably just be aligned with Jupiter and the Sun. The sun has more influence on the Earth than the galaxy or inertia just as the moon has 600 times the attraction as the sun on the Earth, so like the disk that formed the solar system, it would mostly stay beveled where level.

If you have the earth at a 90 degree angle for half the year at the same time it's hot on the other side, the entire opposite realm has no light or heat whatsoever for months and this would be more complete than the most extreme winter now, not just the smaller area of our own far N and S winters causing the arctic and antarctic weather. Much more of the planet would be out of the heat leading no doubt to extreme high winds to adjust to the following hot weather months of the year, but the winds wouldn't be enough to moderate the heat. In our own time at random in the cycle a much larger part of the earth would be in extreme weather for more of the year. What you would see if the obliquity caused the dinosaur to go would be cycles of extreme heat at one of the poles, followed by much ice and darkness, disruptive to most life. The rocks at the poles would show lots of the most periodic shattering due to the extreme weather. And the high winds in many directions would cause great aeolian strata. This could be a way to prove or disprove the dinosaur demise via obliquity, except it may already be disproven because almost none of the earth had ice in the Jurrasic or Cretaceous.

The record of polar wandering of Mars has been found in the changes in the rocks like glacial strata on the earth. As the Martian poles moved they left proof in the rocks of where they were moving arouind the planet to many zones. The motion of the caps has been explained by just a shifting of the crust being somewhat loose. If obliquity were the cause, the motion of the crust would seem to be both a combination of the obliquity and the geotechonic processes that are common on the earth, so it would be more regular with a combination of both the more random wandering of the crust overlaid the more regular cycles of obliquity. and like on the earth there would be much more wind and windblown strata at the maximim obliquity of the earth's uniform heat.

If the large dinosaurs went extinct because they were warm blooded as via the obliquity, the small dinosaurs being like the mammals and able to cool off with smaller size wouldn't have had the same doom. A dinosaur is much like a crocodile or alligator, all reptiles for instance grow continually throughout their lives. Much of the same physiology is why dinosaurs were originally believed to be cold blooded like other reptiles, and there is no explanation of why the dinosaurs went extinct and not the snakes and other reptiles like alligators.

Another problem is about heredity being stored environment. We know that most of our ancient genes are a fused form of viral DNA, we got viruses, and their DNA is fused with us. If the weather changes drastically in long term cycles like 75 million years, it would be seen in the genome of all life in this time that has evolved before then, there is no evidence for this.

When the dinosaurs went extinct and not before is also disproven as I say in my site above by the rock called laterite, found only in monsoon rains when the seasonal temperature is changing, in the late cretaceous and after down to our own time. The even temperatures were before the dinosaur extinction not after (and not in long term cycles or natural history would be much changed) and gradually changing to more seasonal winds and rains before the dinosaur demise. The bevelled earth explanation would have there being presumably a gradual symmetrical peak of laterite at the end of the cretaceous, and with other regular peaks at the time of other extinction events. Instead, there are just three great layers of the strata, our is the tertiary, or third and higher layer, resting on the cretaceous chalk. There was thus a definite change in the weather of the late cretaceous, both about laterite and the chalk, and it's unsymmetrical. I think the change in the earth's angle caused by the land bridge and the tides might be the origin of the weather of 6 month cycles we now have via precession and laterite, and it seems to be evidence that the KT extinction was already part of the general change of the weather so the uniform temperatures in my causology were just caused by changes in the higher speed of precession, and this in turn would be caused by the more common gravity acting on the Southern water belt, and no outside cause may be necessary to explain the change.. the two extinctions of the dinosaurs in the precambrian Blanchard uses to fit in with the astronomical cycle may just be coincidence and this doesn't explain the 3 other great extinctions like the ones of the other creatures that the dinosaurs took the place of. Two samples are not enough to establish a link by the law of large numbers in probability. I agree with Blanchard about the disproofs of the other dinosaur extinction causologies others say are possible he disproves on his site, but the Land Bridge seems to be a better way for science as I say on the link, Dinosaurs, The Land Bridge.....

Click Here... For

~~~
Site Link About This Possible Cause of The Extinction (bevelling earth).

My Own Causology; Dinosaurs, The Land Bridge, and Ancient Weather

-

How To Make Your Machine Save More-I'm Positive...

Worth More Than A Palm XLV When Read

I disagree with the belief in science called positivism, which holds that any motif that can't be measured is not science. This has been used in quantum mechanics, and here especially is where this idea is more worth if augumented with philosophy. Science knows how quantum physics works but not how. In quantum mechanics and other realms lots of motifs have been proven that are unlike usual events of the usual size in our living world. The reason I disagree with positivism as the only way of worth in quantum mechanics is because much has been "proven" in quantum mechanics often not found in usual experience at our level of life and power. This violates the science which says the laws of physics are the same through all realms of the cosmos. In the overall the only way to retain this is if we find the unifying link that makes it so science is smooth and flows well. The best way this may be achieved may be by explanations that link usual experience around us to subatomic physics or other science. To say that measure of the world is limited is no proof it always will be. Mathmaticians have invented motifs that were proven hundreds, or thousands of years later. The problem with all being just based on experience and not as much in explanation is that it excludes more of physics or science than may be needed to find the most proof. The future of much of science thus not be as much in a materialistic proof as some would say. Science was named natural philosophy at the outset, it's not just "large as life, and twice as real". It's slowed by limited beliefs, just as nations have had reduced wealth when oppressive governments were in power.

If we accept proof based on authority alone this is a sort of disavowel of the method they now have of trying to simulate physics with physical experiments like water going at faster than a fish in it to see if some types of radiation are emmited from black holes, the water is the gravitational field and the fish is the light. By using many of these experiments we may find out much more about physics in many realms, but positivism alone would exclude them if the motive of those who believe in it is to be too much based on the physical and not the more loose conclusion that it improves the bet that the more distant physics is about the experiment. I've use this type of as if physics experiment often, but it's not measurement other than by probabilities used to see what the more general physics are, it's how to improve guesses about where and what to measure well, but it's not the measure of it.

To link the subatomic realm to the more substantial sizes is a vast unexplored realm, mostly the endeavor to explain solids as well as fluids with quantum mechanics has been unviable so far because solids with combinations of many particles are more complex in general than fluids, so fluids are more easily explained.
-

The standard theory of subatomic physics is considered perfect by many with no loose ends. In the standard theory the belief they would have us accept is that if any of it was changed all the rest around us would also be unlike it is. But if this were so and all was made of the standard theory, much of usual life would just have its motifs alone so I think of the standard theory as incomplete, and the source of our unifying the two by good motifs would be yes, more explanation a good bit of the time and with more evidence. We know it must add up to more mundane physics, but we aren't real sure how. You may say well both the standard theory and life around us are proven, and the quantum physics just cancel out at our range and energy, it's not that they aren't there. But it must not all cancel out or no physics would be left over to make the commonplace physics of life and the mass of boxes and cones and surround around sound when we go visit the air-rena! If some of the flow of the field leaks out of the subatomic realm to make the usual physics as it must, is the subatomic realm real if most of it cancels? If both are real we might say the uniformity of science is more of worth to say the subatomic realm is good via one set of rules and our world another, connected ultimately by many combinations and the conservation of all the fields by motion. All energy and all there is made of motion and the reason the subtomic realm is so unusal or even "ancient egyptian" and the usual physics wouldn't be because either is more fundamental, just that the subatomic realm resonates with its physics the most optimally at it's energy and ours at it's own level. The way to connect the two and unify would be by seeing how the fields at ranges between the two flow and follow the paths they take, both in and out of the more quantum realm. Explanations and causes based on the evidence are like other life around us so they are most true overall in a general sense. If solutions are just an option for belief it's of more worth if more saws are in the box.
.
.
Computer Repairs, "Cheap, Rich Savings! A 20U College!

Here's just how you may read me more...My machine was a bit alseep when I would type in my wire to the web. The first solution was just the having the vending machine saved as if sort of cheap. I just read a Consumer Reports .org and they say the way out of Spyware and other problems is running Microsoft Antispyware or Spybot Search and Destroy (with names like these, they must be good, or some sort of cleaning woman!) I got "Avast" softwear (it wasn't a scourge, many Coast Guards of the world own lots of antispyware). One of the sites I read was a name like Spybot Search but both the Microsoft and the Spybot are cost proof, and savings rich these may be of more worth because others of other names tried to bill me. They saved a bit and it was rich when they realized my on off operation control box is Bizz Rate Gold.
.
.

A Broadband Wire Without The Access Fees

How they may make a real good wire for computer chips and my mother -a real editor good!

Some say that we may take a dash of electrons, add in a pinch of alternate N and S poles to hold them together in a tube. Stretch the wire so the attraction of the electrons doesn't cause it to collapse. Add many of these wires inside a frame in parallel. To make a real small chip just add another frame of these wires at 90 degrees (This is known as the Molecular Wire Crossbar Memory, another inventor's bright idea). Because of quanta, most of the power of the current inside the wire is held inside the electron so no outward heat flow. (They say heat loss may be a big limit to high speed chips.) Blend well with solitons (waves that don't lose much power as they travel) also inside this wire when well cheffed. They make chips two or three atoms wide, but an electron, although of no definite size, can be much smaller with change of energy. (Alternately crossing proton wires may be of more worth for small size and speed of the wave which may be faster than light by Chin's tunneling experiment. And protons have more definite spins to control because protons are more definite and solid than electrons, so this may be of worth for more bits from each proton than electrons.) To anchor the wires at the start, protons of opposite charge of the electron wires could be small and the protons could be anchored to usual minus charged atoms that overlap. And my overlap PC with this diet is more insubstantial!
.