Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Big Bang and Conservation of angular momentum??
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 76 of 99 (565869)
06-21-2010 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by dennis780
06-21-2010 8:03 AM


Re: OK Fine
But I can tell you what I do NOT see. You have all these formulas, but I do not see any calculations.
They'd be over your head. If you really like, I'll dig you out links to the relevant scientific literature, but I don't anticipate you getting much out of it.
I have no idea what magnetic coupling is, and I googled it, but it's over my head, probably because there is some schooling required prior to learning it. I don't mind if you want to respond, but could you dummy it for me so I can understand your points?
Sure, let's explain this at least as it relates to the Sun.
The Sun emits charged particles (the solar wind). As you should know (Newton and all that) if no force acts on these particles, they should go off in a straight line at a constant velocity.
But there is a force acting on them, because they are charged particles in a rotating magnetic field. This accelerates them sideways relative to the axis of rotation of the Sun, meaning that they acquire non-zero angular momentum (taking the center of the Sun as the origin of our co-ordinate system). So the law of conservation of angular momentum means that the Sun must slow down.
This might be simpler for you if I explain using an analogy without magnetism.
Imagine a figure skater spinning clockwise. In her right hand she has a bunch of pebbles, and in her left hand she has a ping-pong bat. Every now and then she throws a pebble straight out in front of her, and then whacks it sideways (to her right) with her ping-pong bat. You can see that this must slow her rate of spin: you can see this either by considering the law of conservation of angular momentum or just by thinking about Newton's Third Law.
The ice skater stands for the sun, the pebbles stand for the solar wind, and the ping-pong bat for the action of the magnetic field. It's not a perfect analogy, but it should give you some idea of what's going on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by dennis780, posted 06-21-2010 8:03 AM dennis780 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Coragyps, posted 06-21-2010 5:20 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 77 of 99 (565870)
06-21-2010 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Dr Adequate
06-21-2010 5:09 PM


Re: OK Fine
Very nice analogy, Dr A!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-21-2010 5:09 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 78 of 99 (565874)
06-21-2010 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by dennis780
06-21-2010 8:03 AM


Re: OK Fine
Haha, okay Lynx. I'm an oilfield worker, so if you are going to assume I know what any of the above is, then you are mistaken.
I assumed you’d know it based on your disagreement with it. Were I to tell you that there are surer methods of attaching the kelly than you’re currently using, wouldn’t you assume I knew something of what I assumed to speak? If not, should I be correcting you?
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and further assume that you screen is displaying this gibberish: "Lsys = constant ‘ext", and rewrite in almost English.
That was originally entered as unicode. It should have shown up as delta (915) L sub-sys = constant two headed arrow (8596) Sigma (931) tau (964) sub-ext. This means the change (delta) in a system's angular momentum (L) is to a constant not withstanding the exchange of the sum (sigma) of the external torque.
This means you can spin up or slow down a bowling ball if you apply the right force upon it with you hand, but if left to itself in the void it will continue to do whatever it is doing forever.
but I do not see any calculations.
Calculations are used to solve for specific examples. We are not solving a specific example at this time. We are discussing a generalization; to wit, How does the Sun have 97% of the mass and 2% of L in the system? The answer is: The Sun and planets are not the entirety of the system you are considering. You neglect the nebula it was formed out of.
Magnetic Coupling
Get yourself a bowling ball and two supermangnets. Fit one of the supermagnets into the thumb hole of the bowling ball. Now sweep the second supermangnet passed it. The torque you felt in you hand was magnetic coupling. Keep sweeping past the bowling ball in the same direction. Eventually the bowling ball will be spinning quickly in that direction. Now change the direction of your sweep. Eventually the ball will be spinning quickly in that direction.
I assume you don’t actually need to preform this experiment to know it’s outcome. You didn’t skip childhood and go straight to the oil fields, did you?
The Sun has a magnetic field. Ionized gas of the nebula has a magnetic moment. The source of work necessary for the gas to constantly realign with the Sun's constantly rotating field is the Sun's angular momentum.
(easy shot, I set you up!)
As a grandstander of the first order, I can unequivially state, set-ups take all the joy out of it.
Edited by lyx2no, : To repair the damage caused by my earlier rush to publish.

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by dennis780, posted 06-21-2010 8:03 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by dennis780, posted 06-21-2010 10:28 PM lyx2no has replied
 Message 86 by Percy, posted 06-22-2010 7:49 AM lyx2no has not replied

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 79 of 99 (565891)
06-21-2010 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by lyx2no
06-21-2010 5:45 PM


Re: OK Fine
"I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and further assume that you screen is displaying this gibberish"
No, it read correctly, but when I copied and pasted the formula, it did that.
"This means you can spin up or slow down a bowling ball if you apply the right force upon it with you hand, but if left to itself in the void it will continue to do whatever it is doing forever."
I follow. My question is, what is me? What do I represent? Since I have to act on the bowling ball. I think Dr. Adequates explanation was better.
I have a few questions first, feel free to jump in Dr. Ad.
Does magnetic coupling affect the earth and other planets as well? And if so, why less than the sun?
Does the entire milky way effect every celestial body inside it? Or is there a relative distance that the effects would be minimal or zero (depending on size and energy)?
Okay. Your next points lyx.
"Were I to tell you that there are surer methods of attaching the kelly than you’re currently using, wouldn’t you assume I knew something of what I assumed to speak? If not, should I be correcting you?"
I'm going to assume you are talking about a kelly hose? Or a kelly pump. Either way, one can draw natural assumptions based on very minimal reading. It is not a requirement to hold a doctorate in any particular subject, or else even I would not be allowed to talk about the oilfield. Experience and training are two key elements to general knowledge. By informing myself (reading books), I believe my opinion can be heard. I'm going to assume that you do not hold degrees in every subject you respond to, and using your logic, only the most knowledgable is allowed to argue. But then whom does he argue with?
"You didn’t skip childhood and go straight to the oil fields, did you?"
"Calculations are used to solve for specific examples."
The sun is not specific? I'm confused. Can you not use the formulas provided to calculate the loss of rotation due to magnetic coupling inside the tachocline? If not, explain. It seems that we can calculate the earths loss of rotation, so why not the sun?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by lyx2no, posted 06-21-2010 5:45 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Coragyps, posted 06-21-2010 11:03 PM dennis780 has replied
 Message 82 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-22-2010 2:19 AM dennis780 has replied
 Message 87 by lyx2no, posted 06-22-2010 9:01 AM dennis780 has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 80 of 99 (565894)
06-21-2010 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by dennis780
06-21-2010 10:28 PM


Re: OK Fine
Does magnetic coupling affect the earth and other planets as well? And if so, why less than the sun?
I'm going to say, without reading up on it, that it's way less for planets because they don't send out a charged wind. Planets' magnetic fields certainly would interact with the solar wind, but a big difference there is that the solar wind is all from one "side" of a planet, where it's all headed straight out from the sun. I'm not sure what that difference really means......
Some of my best friends and customers are frac and cement hands, by the way. A few of them in your province, even.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by dennis780, posted 06-21-2010 10:28 PM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by dennis780, posted 06-22-2010 2:15 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 81 of 99 (565922)
06-22-2010 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Coragyps
06-21-2010 11:03 PM


Re: OK Fine
how do you know what province I'm in?? What the hell.
"frac and cement hands"
I'm in production, so I work with fraccers often. Cementers are here either before or after I leave, depending on the scope of work.
What frac company?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Coragyps, posted 06-21-2010 11:03 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-22-2010 2:21 AM dennis780 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 82 of 99 (565923)
06-22-2010 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by dennis780
06-21-2010 10:28 PM


Re: OK Fine
No, it read correctly, but when I copied and pasted the formula, it did that.
Try using the peek mode before copying.
Does magnetic coupling affect the earth and other planets as well? And if so, why less than the sun?
As Coragyps says, they don't emit charged particles.
Does the entire milky way effect every celestial body inside it?
In what way?
If you're still thinking about magnetism, I gather that the average magnetic field of the Milky Way is of the order of one-millionth the intensity of the magnetic field at the surface of the Sun.
The sun is not specific? I'm confused. Can you not use the formulas provided to calculate the loss of rotation due to magnetic coupling inside the tachocline?
Well, here's someone doing the math. I'm not sure that it will leave you any the wiser.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by dennis780, posted 06-21-2010 10:28 PM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by dennis780, posted 06-22-2010 2:25 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 85 by dennis780, posted 06-22-2010 2:26 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 83 of 99 (565924)
06-22-2010 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by dennis780
06-22-2010 2:15 AM


Re: OK Fine
how do you know what province I'm in?? What the hell.
All evolutionists have psychic powers, didn't you know?
You're located in Alberta.
For my next trick I shall need to borrow a pocket handkerchief. Thank you, sir. Observe that there is nothing up my sleeves ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by dennis780, posted 06-22-2010 2:15 AM dennis780 has not replied

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 84 of 99 (565926)
06-22-2010 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Dr Adequate
06-22-2010 2:19 AM


Re: OK Fine
Dr Adequate writes:
"Well, here's someone doing the math. I'm not sure that it will leave you any the wiser.
No, it read correctly, but when I copied and pasted the formula, it did that.
Try using the peek mode before copying.
Does magnetic coupling affect the earth and other planets as well? And if so, why less than the sun?
As Coragyps says, they don't emit charged particles.
Does the entire milky way effect every celestial body inside it?
In what way?
If you're still thinking about magnetism, I gather that the average magnetic field of the Milky Way is of the order of one-millionth the intensity of the magnetic field at the surface of the Sun.
The sun is not specific? I'm confused. Can you not use the formulas provided to calculate the loss of rotation due to magnetic coupling inside the tachocline?
Well, heres someone doing the math. I'm not sure that it will leave you any the wiser."
Google books won't let me see the pages. I'll take your word for it.
Edited by Admin, : Add quote to the portion copied from another message.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-22-2010 2:19 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 85 of 99 (565927)
06-22-2010 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Dr Adequate
06-22-2010 2:19 AM


Re: OK Fine
oops I copied the whole thing. Just read the last part of the above post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-22-2010 2:19 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 86 of 99 (565957)
06-22-2010 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by lyx2no
06-21-2010 5:45 PM


Re: OK Fine
lyx2no writes:
That was originally entered as unicode. It should have shown up as delta (915) L sub-sys = constant two headed arrow (8596) Sigma (931) tau (964) sub-ext. This means the change (delta) in a system's angular momentum (L) is to a constant not withstanding the exchange of the sum (sigma) of the external torque.
You might give the [] dBCode a try.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by lyx2no, posted 06-21-2010 5:45 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 87 of 99 (565963)
06-22-2010 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by dennis780
06-21-2010 10:28 PM


Re: OK Fine
My question is, what is me? What do I represent? Since I have to act on the bowling ball.
From Wiki:
A T Tauri star is a type of pre-main sequence star that is being heated through gravitational contraction and has not yet begun to burn hydrogen at its core. They are variable stars that are magnetically active. The magnetic field of these stars is thought to interact with its strong stellar wind, transferring angular momentum to the surrounding protoplanetary disk. This allows the star to brake its rotation rate as it collapses.
The surface friction of the ball/hand junction is the magnetic coupling, and you are the protoplanetary disk.
I think Dr. Adequates explanation was better.
Just as well. I’ve been under the impression that the magnetic interaction that slowed the star’s rotation was between the star and the material of the disk that the star was blowing back into space by the stellar wind, not with the stellar wind itself. (I’m looking into it rather than insisting that I’m right and giving Dr. A what-for.) However, the princilple is the same: look for the missing L in the ejected material.
Does magnetic coupling affect the earth and other planets as well? And if so, why less than the sun?
The Earth and other planets have only the puniest of magnetic fields and eject next to nothing by comparison.
Does the entire milky way effect every celestial body inside it?
The question is vague to the point of meaningless. Does doffing ones hat slow the rotation of the Earth? (Yes.)
Or is there a relative distance that the effects would be minimal or zero (depending on size and energy)?
Buy discriptive nouns on eBay.
I'm going to assume you are talking about a kelly hose? Or a kelly pump.
I just typed oil drilling terms into my search box and picked one from out of the middle. Just a little reading is all it took me to find out that there is no such thing as a kelly hose or a kelly pump. I can draw natural assumptions based on very minimal reading.
Either way, one can draw natural assumptions based on very minimal reading. It is not a requirement to hold a doctorate in any particular subject, or else even I would not be allowed to talk about the oilfield. Experience and training are two key elements to general knowledge. By informing myself (reading books)
How’d it work for me? Don’t think you did better.
I believe my opinion can be heard.
I generally prefer to not be heard spouting rubbish, but one man’s meat as they say.
I'm going to assume that you do not hold degrees in every subject you respond to
I hold no degree of any kind. Not even a high school diploma.
and using your logic, only the most knowledgable is allowed to argue.
My logic demands no such thing. It does demand that one not be wrong if one wants to be right.
But then whom does he argue with?
It’s the being right bit, not the arguing bit, that makes demands upon ones education.
The sun is not specific?
Your argument is about conservation of angular momentum negating naturalist hypotheses of creation. The Sun is only being used as an example. Would your arguement faulter if applied to the Beta Carotene system in the Carrot Nebula?
I'm confused.
I already told you: making it easy spoils the fun.
Can you not use the formulas provided to calculate the loss of rotation due to magnetic coupling inside the tachocline?
Not me. But I don’t have to be able calculate a specific to understand a general. By observing an apple I can surmise what keeps the moon in tow. And then I can go read Newton’s Philosophi Naturalis Principia Mathematica and see if I’m not right.
If not, explain. It seems that we can calculate the earths loss of rotation, so why not the sun?
We can’t because those mean spirited physicists who can won’t include our names as contributors to their papers.
You should really try to get Dr. A’s link to render. It's better too. It’s got me buying yet another book. (Thank you, Dr.)
I'll take your word for it.
Take nobodie’s word for it. That seem’s to be how you got yourself into this mess. Learn to understand it, and the creationists or we can’t lie to you anymore.


Hi Percy
I’ve not been able to find the time to learn [] yet. Do you have a handy totorial perchance? Thanks.
Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.
Edited by lyx2no, : Waiting for the dentist. Magnetic coupling

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by dennis780, posted 06-21-2010 10:28 PM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by dennis780, posted 06-26-2010 2:30 PM lyx2no has replied

  
dennis780
Member (Idle past 4775 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 88 of 99 (566741)
06-26-2010 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by lyx2no
06-22-2010 9:01 AM


Re: OK Fine
"Just a little reading is all it took me to find out that there is no such thing as a kelly hose or a kelly pump."
Kelly Hose: A large-diameter (3- to 5-in. inside diameter), high-pressure flexible line used to connect the standpipe to the swivel. This flexible piping arrangement permits the kelly (and, in turn, the drillstring and bit) to be raised or lowered while drilling fluid is pumped through the drillstring. The simultaneous lowering of the drillstring while pumping fluid is critical to the drilling operation.
Kelly Spinner (or Kelly Pump): A mechanical device for rotating the kelly. The kelly spinner is typically pneumatic. It is a relatively low torque device, useful only for the initial makeup of threaded tool joints. It is not strong enough for proper torque of the tool joint or for rotating the drillstring itself. The kelly spinner has largely replaced the infamous spinning chains, which were responsible for numerous injuries on the rig floor.
I hope your research for evolution exceeds that of drilling processes. I don't even work on a rig, and I know that.
"The question is vague to the point of meaningless. Does doffing ones hat slow the rotation of the Earth?"
I meant by any meaningful amount? By your definition, nothing is a closed system, since the shockwave from my sneeze will effect earths distance from the sun.
"I hold no degree of any kind. Not even a high school diploma." Thats reassuring.
"My logic demands no such thing."
It demands that one interpretation of data is absolutely correct.
"It’s the being right bit, not the arguing bit, that makes demands upon ones education."
Back to the interpretation thing.
"But I don’t have to be able calculate a specific to understand a general."
You do have to calculate it. Or find calculcations for it. Since this was your rebuttal to my rotational energy point, this is how debate works. I say something, you prove me wrong.
"Take nobodie’s word for it."
Your spelling says it all, and so does your logic. Take nobody's word for it implies that I should believe no one. So, I cannot believe what scientists say (whether they argue my view or yours), since I should not trust them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by lyx2no, posted 06-22-2010 9:01 AM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by lyx2no, posted 06-27-2010 12:23 PM dennis780 has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 89 of 99 (566747)
06-26-2010 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by dennis780
06-21-2010 7:48 AM


Re: Just to confuse things further...
I cannot find your post where you "demolish everything you have said here"
My apologies - I missed your request. Thanks to Huntard and Percy for stepping in, but once more for completeness: Message 46
And you still seem to be clinging to your Solar ang mom delusions, so here's a complete paper from 51 years ago that what was part of the early work on the issue. Can I say that again? 51 years ago... and you heard that this was an issue, when?
Title: On the Transference of Angular Momentum by Hydromagnetic Waves in a Primeval Nebula.
Authors: Kendall, P. C.
Journal: Astrophysical Journal, vol. 129, p.194

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by dennis780, posted 06-21-2010 7:48 AM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by dennis780, posted 08-20-2010 10:17 PM cavediver has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 90 of 99 (566793)
06-27-2010 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by dennis780
06-26-2010 2:30 PM


Re: OK Fine
If you enter [qs]Material to be quoted.[/qs] you’ll get
Material to be quoted.


Let me see if I get this straight. You suggest that all you have to do is a little reading and you can argue cosmology with experts. I do a little reading yet am unable to argue oil rigging with someone who doesn’t even work on a rig.
You say that my logic demands that only the most knowledgable is allowed to argue. I tell you I have no qualifications whatsoever.
Do you think there might be a point that you’re missing?
[Lyx’s logic] demands that one interpretation of data is absolutely correct.
Where do you get this absolutest stuff from? My logic demands that Occam’s Razor be used. Occam didn’t suggest that parsimony eliminates all possibilities but the more likely, but that the parsimonious solution is the more likely.
Do you argue that all interpretations are equals? If not you’re not really making an argument at all, but filling space so that no one will notice it’s empty. If you are arguing that they’re equal then you’re just plain ol’ nuts.
Directly to your argument: your solution to the Sun’s slower then expected rate of rotation is not the most parsimonious because you (stubbornly) haven’t taken into account all credits and debits; i.e., magnetic coupling.
I meant by any meaningful amount?
Your question was vague. If cavediver, in Socratic elenchus, had asked the question, it would have been vague. However, cavediver doesn’t have a history of basing whole slabs of his arguments upon the wisperings of gnats, leaving me able to understand where he’s leading. You, on the other hand
But I don’t have to be able calculate a specific to understand a general.
You do have to calculate it. Or find calculcations for it.
Do you understand the difference between a calculation and an equation?
H=½(v2sin2θa-1) is an equation. It indicates that the ultimate ballistic hight of an object can be determined if said variables are known. But it is not without value if absolute values are not known. I know that Mars has a lesser gravitational acceleration than Earth; therefore, I can see that, other parameters being equal, an object on Mars will reach a grater hight then it would on Earth.
Or, knowing Mars has .11 the mass and .53 the radius of Earth, I can, using another equation, calculate that Mars has .38 the gravitaional acceleration of Earth. I can then consider that under the first equation and calculate the object would go 2.6 times higher on Mars than on Earth.
And even though Mars is a specific planet, and Earth is a specific planet, and ballistic trajectories are a specific action, my generalization is of signficant value to Michael Jordan in the 25th century.
this is how debate works. I say something, you prove me wrong.
Shift the the burden of proof much?
How about you establishing that there are no factors influencing the Sun’s rotational rate other than CofL. You have on more than one occation been given evidence, specific and general, that that is not the case. You have ignored it each time. I can asure you that that is not how debate works.
Take nobodie’s word for it.
Your spelling says it all, and so does your logic. Take nobody's word for it implies that I should believe no one. So, I cannot believe what scientists say (whether they argue my view or yours), since I should not trust them.
I know that your correction was not ment in good faith, but I’m a pernicious pedant and appreciate it anyway. Especially as it’s a systematic error.
Again you presume too much about my logic. It implies that you should recognize that people err. You know spelling mistakes and such.
I unabashedly follow cavediver around like a puppy (If I don't he'll poo on the rug), but that is because it would be foolish of me to think that I could understand the material with a little reading better than he can with lots of reading. Even then, if he starts telling me that something works this way or that way, let’s say how high a projectile will go, that violates what I do know about how high projectiles will go because I understand the equation, I will try to find the source of the error. I’d also trust the source is me for the initial investigation.
I hope your research for evolution exceeds that of drilling processes.
What in God’s green Earth does evolution have to do with conservation of angular momentum?

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by dennis780, posted 06-26-2010 2:30 PM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by dennis780, posted 08-20-2010 10:33 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024