Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dinosaur-Bird Flap Ruffles Feathers
Yahoo!News ^ | October 10, 2005 | E.J. Mundell

Posted on 10/11/2005 4:07:11 AM PDT by mlc9852

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-331 last
To: newsgatherer
if you believe that, it is understadable that you believe in the theroy of coming from a rock, a rock that came from nothing.

There is no theory that states any such thing. You are once again lying. When you lie so brazenly and blatantly, why should we take anything that you say seriously?
301 posted on 10/14/2005 8:20:16 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
But Kuhn was mostly wrong. Quantum Mechanics was accepted almost universally within a year of Heisenberg's ans Schroedinger's papers.

With a name like Stochastic who am I to argue.

I do remember from my physic text that Einstein was a difficult sell. But Richard Feynman was the man who put Quantum physics over the top.

Kuhn was mostly right however. IMO.

302 posted on 10/14/2005 8:28:36 PM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan ("Memos on Bush Are Fake but Accurate". NYTimes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Birds are also predators, even though cats aren't usually on the menu.

Predator or Prey?

Somewhere there's also this picture of a samll optimistic just-out-of-kittenhood cat leaping at a huge Japanese Sea Eagle

303 posted on 10/14/2005 9:59:31 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Paging Nehemiah Scudder:the Crazy Years are peaking. America is ready for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
But Kuhn was mostly wrong. Quantum Mechanics was accepted almost universally within a year of Heisenberg's ans Schroedinger's papers.,

I haven't read Kuhn in decades, so I'm going on memory. But I don't recall a lot of discussion on quantum theory. I could be wrong.

That said, I thought about the fact of quantum theory being excepted relatively quickly and how it relates to Kuhn's thesis. Kuhn stressed the "priority of the paradigm". He cited as an example the over throw of the geocentric paradigm by Kepler and Galileo's heliocentric paradigm as an example.

But an essential part of his thesis was that a new paradigm would not be established until a superior one was well vetted and excepted. Excepted mainly by the younger scientists who don't have a vested interest in the old paradigm.

Most anyone who has spent a career in engineering and/or science can vouch for this as a fact of human nature. How does the saying go? "You can't teach and old dog new tricks".

As far as quantum theory goes it never replaced existing paradigms. It was a new theory of the subatomic world. Just as Einsteins theory of relatively never replaced Newton's laws of motion, quantum never challenged either, except in special circumstances. I see the theory of relativity as an addendum to Newton. We will still us Newtonian mechanics to get us to the moon.

Although quantum theory was and still is a radical break from Newton it's essentially limited to the micro world although it does have macro world applications.

There was never a fundamental replacement issue, although it did give Einstein heart burn. Remember his famous quote: "

..God doesn't play dice with the universe".

304 posted on 10/15/2005 8:14:03 AM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan ("Memos on Bush Are Fake but Accurate". NYTimes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
"That was funny, and sad, and poingent all rolled into one. I don't know what word I'd use to describe it, but thanks for sharing it.

My pleasure. Thanks for the good review. I still haven't told the story of the headless chicken who knew where she was going, or the territory squabble between my wife and a Canada goose.

"I can't top it, but I do have a little story from when I was about the same age as you were. I was kind of a city boy, but my uncle and grandfather were outdoorsmen so I've hunted and cleaned game fowl. One day I invited a friend over for dinner. My grandmother was making roast dove. My friend has never had dove, but I guaranteed he would like it because grandma was such a good cook.

"As soon as the plate was set in front of him, we all instantly knew something was wrong. There was no outward expression, but his eyes betrayed something deep welling up inside him. He excused himself and made a beeline for the bathroom. I don't suppose he had confronted the idea of where food came from, and to his eyes he was looking at nothing but a crispy bird carcass with the head and feet lopped off. Grampa and I spilt his portion (not wanting it to go to waste) while grandma went to go check on him. We cleared the table, and I think grandma boiled him a hot dog.

LOL!

Did anyone ever think to show him where the material inside a hot dog comes from? Or would that be too mean?

305 posted on 10/15/2005 10:02:04 AM PDT by b_sharp (Making a monkey of a creationist should be a natural goal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
"He replied: "Because a chicken only has one left thight, or one right breast, so if I order two of the same parts from the same side of the chicken, it requires two chickens, not one. Thus, it assures the maximum number of chickens had to die to serve my meal, and there's nothing in this world I hate more than a live chicken!"

Im-peck-able logic.

It doesn't really ensure a higher number of chicken deaths though, they'll just serve the next customer the remains of both chickens. Probably make him feel much better though and that is more important than the actual number of dead chickens roaming around in restaurants.

306 posted on 10/15/2005 10:08:04 AM PDT by b_sharp (Making a monkey of a creationist should be a natural goal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
When I was 5, what I thought was my pet rabbit that we kept at my Grandmother's house turned up on the dinner table one Sunday.

It wasn't my best Sunday.

307 posted on 10/15/2005 5:34:53 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan
As far as quantum theory goes it never replaced existing paradigms.

Maybe not in the eyes of the public, for which it's all mysterious, but it was pretty wrenching for the community that actually had to understand it. As you have noted with the case of Einstein.

308 posted on 10/15/2005 5:42:44 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

Placemarker
309 posted on 10/15/2005 6:54:29 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (No response to trolls, retards, or lunatics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Maybe not in the eyes of the public, for which it's all mysterious, but it was pretty wrenching for the community that actually had to understand it. As you have noted with the case of Einstein.

Indeed it was. But we will still use newtonian mechanics when we return to the moon.

310 posted on 10/16/2005 7:45:33 AM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan ("Memos on Bush Are Fake but Accurate". NYTimes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan

The computer chips that calculate the Newtonian trajectories will be designed using quantum mechanics.


311 posted on 10/16/2005 7:58:43 AM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: js1138; Donald Rumsfeld Fan
The computer chips that calculate the Newtonian trajectories will be designed using quantum mechanics.

And indeed, to get to Mars Newtonian mechanics is insufficient. Mars probes have to correct for Einstein. Likewise GPS gives the wrong answers unless you correct for relativistic effects.

312 posted on 10/17/2005 12:16:25 PM PDT by Thatcherite (Feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

We could get to Mars with Newton, perhaps not as directly or efficiently. We could probably do it with vacuum tubes and slide rules, also. It's a matter of decimal places.


313 posted on 10/17/2005 12:46:32 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: Rebelbase

bookmark


314 posted on 10/17/2005 12:49:25 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: js1138; RadioAstronomer

I imagine that you'd get to Mars in the end if you course corrected on the way and used more fuel than the most efficient trajectory. If you aim from earth using Newton you'll miss Mars orbit. I have this on authority from Radio Astronomer, whose job it actually is to calculate the orbits.


315 posted on 10/17/2005 12:51:14 PM PDT by Thatcherite (Feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
For your amusement.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/HohmannTransferOrbit.html

I had a lunar lander game for my Trash-80 that used this equation to tell you how you were doing with your burn times and fuel. You could play with parameters before committing to a burn, but the game continued in real time, so the time you spent testing your estimates also changed the situation.
316 posted on 10/17/2005 1:19:26 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Well, there is the rocket science almost done. Of course rocket engineering is much tougher .
317 posted on 10/17/2005 1:29:26 PM PDT by Thatcherite (Feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite; js1138

http://public.ccsds.org/publications/archive/500x0g1.pdf

http://hpiers.obspm.fr/webiers/general/syframes/convent/CONV.html

http://www.agi.com/resources/help/stk613/helpSystem/whatsnew.htm

"High Precision Orbit Propagator (HPOP) has been updated with relativistic accelerations to model the effects of general relativity in accordance with IERS, Technical Note 21, IERS Conventions (1996)."

Side Note: A non-relativistic orbit propagator (Newtonian only) should get you there, however, for VLBI, GPS, timing, high accuracy, etc. relativity is taken into account. :-)


318 posted on 10/18/2005 7:49:18 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
The museum argument I don't know about. Until I check it out myself ether side has equal validity.

Please check it out and let us know your conclusions.
319 posted on 10/18/2005 8:58:46 AM PDT by Stone Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
And indeed, to get to Mars Newtonian mechanics is insufficient. Mars probes have to correct for Einstein. Likewise GPS gives the wrong answers unless you correct for relativistic effects.

Well...yes. They will fine tune their calculations to be more precise. But they will still use Newtonian Mechanics in their calculations. Newton's laws are still valid in normal circumstances. But sometimes requires tweaking. That was the point I was trying to make.

Newtonian Mechanics are still taught in engineering schools. As opposed to say 'phlogiston theory'.

320 posted on 10/18/2005 9:02:39 AM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan ("Memos on Bush Are Fake but Accurate". NYTimes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan

I guess there is quite a nice analogy here between mechanics and biology. It is possible that the equivalent of general relativity will come along and alter how we see evolutionary theory at the edges and in extreme circumstances. But evolutionary theory is so well verified by millions of real-world observations that our current understanding would continue to be valid under normal circumstances.


321 posted on 10/18/2005 9:52:54 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: Stone Mountain

;)


322 posted on 10/18/2005 9:53:39 AM PDT by RunningWolf (tag line limbo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf

Well, newsgatherer sure isn't going to... : )


323 posted on 10/18/2005 10:09:44 AM PDT by Stone Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: newsgatherer; RunningWolf; Ichneumon; js1138; From many - one.; joeclarke; Oztrich Boy; jayef; ...
You guys want to see something funny? Check out this Jack Chick tract, Big Daddy. Scroll down about half way to where a museum guide is giving a tour to a bunch of Christian children. Does this story sound familiar to you?
324 posted on 10/27/2005 3:22:10 PM PDT by Stone Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Stone Mountain

My bad - he wasn't a museum guide - he was a teacher. Same deal though.


325 posted on 10/27/2005 3:41:30 PM PDT by Stone Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: newsgatherer
"But the things they come out with are so outlandish that it is hard not to egg them on."

If you think that's outlandish you should see the people who think all that there is and all that one can know can all be explained by one old book mostly written by folks who took 40 years to make a three week hike through the desert.

326 posted on 10/27/2005 3:49:00 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Your post was fascinating. Thank you.


327 posted on 10/27/2005 5:06:13 PM PDT by Tymesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Stone Mountain

Thats funny!!

and true,

Wolf


328 posted on 10/27/2005 5:23:57 PM PDT by RunningWolf (tag line limbo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
If you think that's outlandish you should see the people who think all that there is and all that one can know can all be explained by one old book mostly written by folks who took 40 years to make a three week hike through the desert.

Ah, but that is not nearly as dumb, no dumb is not a good word, STUPID, ya, stupid is a better and more accurate desciriptive word, as believing that Billlions and billions of years ago in a galaxy far, far away there was nothing....

Ah, no wonder they call them the Darwin Awards!

329 posted on 10/28/2005 6:32:24 AM PDT by newsgatherer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]


 GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach
Thanks mlc9852.

Note: this topic is from 10/11/2005.

Blast from the Past.

Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.


330 posted on 11/05/2011 7:30:09 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (It's never a bad time to FReep this link -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: metmom

Why are there flying squirrels? (Yes, you asked about feathered wings, but I will get there via squirrels.)

Because it is safer to glide, tree-to-tree, than to scamper down to the ground and risk death just to get to another tree. When a mutation occurs with a squirrel having skin flaps allowing it to get some lift and glide between trees, that genetic adaptation is passed along to its offspring. All are more likely to survive than a squirrel running a terrestrial gauntlet of predators.

Squirrels haven’t developed wings but they use the extensive skin flaps between foreleg and rear leg, right and left, to glide between trees.

The same survival need probably provided the opportunity for a mutation, which normally would not be of any import, to become the impetus for winged dinosaurs.

There are fossils of winged dinosaurs that used skin, similiar to squirrels, instead of feathers. These creatures were quite large and ungainly on land, but from where the fossils have been found, they flew huge distances across oceans, breeding in one geographical area (fossil remains of nests) and traveling to other continents for feeding, a migratory pattern seen today in many animals.

Mind, you asked about why feathers exist. Feathers seem to be an adaption to cold weather, a mutation of scales (feathers and scales are made from the same material as our fingernails), and functioned as insulation to trap air and maintain body warmth. Later, insulating feathers developed into stiff feathers beneficial to flight, and it may just be luck for those creatures, or the intervention of God, that the adaptation occurred.

Yes, I believe in God. I also believe that the laws governing the functioning of our universe come from God, and that scientists, knowing or unknowing, are discovering those laws.


331 posted on 11/05/2011 8:56:39 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS U.S.A. PRESIDENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-331 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson