inshallah
-
Posts
153 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
PW Shop
Posts posted by inshallah
-
-
How would they know about the conditions on the moon if noone has ever been there? You could hardly dispute it could you?
Like I said, the conditions we are talking about are things like distance from the sun, mass, bulk composition, amount of water, temperature etc. You don't need to go there to find these things out.
-
Please, show me one bit of real evidence that global warming exists - you will not be able to I am certain - even the fella from East Anglia University that was given a huge amount of dosh to prove global warming managed to leak the conclusion that it does not exist - we are being asked on a daily occurence to fork out more money to save the planet by scientist led evidence that is in line with natural evolution of the planet - earth is not heating up any quicker than a million years ago and the tech heads can prove it - they are just not encouraged because it means less of an argument to get more money out of us. Global warming is usuually proven to us Mongs by pictures of icebergs falling into the water and dolphins swimming in the english channel - well, that **** has also been going on for the last million years as well. Global warming, my aaaaarrrssseeee
Sorry, me again. Loving this thread. Guess what I did after running out of funding as a planetary scientist. I worked on a space mission called CryoSat. This was designed to measure changes in the ice sheets and glaciers. So, I know a fair bit about the whole global warming thing. And yes, the ice sheets are melting dramatically. I've measured it myself. Have a look at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8200680.stm, which was my research. (Sadly, my name doesn't appear on the BBC article - I lost my job after getting a serious illness before that came out and the boss decided not to credit me. But I'm on the original article http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL039126.shtml). Basically I measured the thinning of a major glacier that drains 1/3 of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and found that the thinning was accelerating rapidly, and that it would float away in 150 years. That's 1m or so of sea level rise, enough to sink a lot of coastal cities.
So what bit don't you 'believe' about climate change? Are you saying
i. CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas? - It's been known for over 100 years, and every physical science undergrad probably does the experiment where you measure absorbtion of electromagnetic radiation in various gasses at different wavelengths.
ii. Burning carbon based fosil fuels doesn't release carbon dioxide?
iii. Humans don't burn fossil fuels?
Presumably you are also saying that the published measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere are lies.
Sure, the climate has changed throughout Earth's history, but it's beyond doubt that the current warming is due to us burning fossil fuels and that the rise in CO2 is shockingly big in comparison to previous natural events. Do you want your children and grand children to live through that?
Don't believe all the rubbish that the antis say. It's just that. Complete rubbish. Just as the anti hunting/shooting crowd keep spouting rubbish about shooting. One of my neighbours (who's a nice chap, but also a member of all the animal rights organisations) told me the other day that 98% of shot pheasants are just buried in big pits after driven shoots, and almost none of them are eaten. These 'facts' get started by people with an agenda, and get recycled until people start to think it's true.
-
So, every NASA scientist knows the above and so goes round looking for a rock to fit the spec'. Let's face it, if you don't have a control sample it's all guesswork and speculation.
Yes. Exactly right. Spot on. (Well, the every NASA scientist knows the above and goes looking bit). Don't you get it? The conditions I gave were the conditions on the Moon. The rock couldn't have formed on the Earth, or any other planet or asteroid, because only the conditions on the moon could have produced those rocks. And yes, they went looking for it. In the late 60's, Early 70s. It was called the Apollo Program.
-
Are you seriously saying that the rock purporting to be from the moon
examined by the scientists is totally different from rocks found elsewhere? If so, how can they identify it as moon rock given no control sample
OK, you don't need a control sample. Rock forms in a particular way because of the conditions present when they form. So, when you are looking at a planetary body, you have to look at the mass of the body, which determines gravity and pressure, distance from the sun, bulk composition (which you can get from Earth using spectroscopy and a telescope - even local composition), etc.
One thing that's very good at distinguishing rocks from different planetary bodies the the ratios of various isotopes of the elements, Oxygen being a favourite. An isotope is a different form of an element (say Oxygen) that has a different number of neutrons in the nucleus, and so it is heavier. Isotopes in the early solar system didn't mix evenly, and so different planets have different ratios of isotopes. This is pushing my geochemistry a bit, but I think you can tell the distance from the sun that a planet formed from isotope ratios, so, for example, I think you can tell a bit of rock from Mercury from a bit of Mars from basic physics and isotope ratios.
A lot of geology is like that. You find a bit of limestone and you know it formed in a marine environment, not a volcano. Likewise, you can get a bit of moon rock and after a lot of prodding you'll come up with saying it's from a planetary body, say, about 1737 km in radius, a mass of about 7x10^22 kg, about the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is. Hmmm. Let me see...
-
I shot a rabbit the other day at 3000 yards with a home made wind powered elastic band Kryptonite catapult. I can't let you see the weapon, it's classified
Sounds great. You should publish your results. Then there will be a copy in the British Library that we can all access freely, just like all scientific publications.
-
I've got some Blackpool rock here. I know it's genuine because it has a little label with Blackpool Tower on it.
I liked that one.
-
Inshallah your rock scientists studied samples that they gathered from the moon them selves?Or the samples given to them that could have been meteorites but they were told was moon rocks.
Like I said, they could tell the difference between a Moon rock and the local granite. Similarly, they could also tell the difference between lunar basalt and a carbonaceous condrite (a type of meteorite). My background was physics, not geochemistry, but even I could figure out the difference before too long.
Science is about understanding how things work, not just classifying things. A geochemist could tell a bit of moon rock, not just from the label stuck on it, but from its properties, and those properties will have been determined by the conditions under which the rock formed and will have been unique to the moon. Those bits of moon rock have been probed, studied,sliced, dissolved, heated, melted etc. by thousands of researchers over the last 40 years. That research has helped scientists to understand how the moon formed and it's 4.5 billion year history. If the moon rock was anything other than what it claims to be, the world's scientists would have figured it out in something more like 40 minutes than 40 years.
-
In my previous life as a planetary scientist, I used to work with people who studied bits of moon rock collected during the Apollo missions, and other 'space rocks' (i.e. meteorites). Believe me, they would know a moon rock from a bit of the local granite. So either:
a) The Apollo missions happened.
I'm part of the scientific conspiracy, and I'm doing my duty and trying to perpetuate the belief that the faked moon landings were real on my special undercover assignment to infiltrate pigeon watch.("Sorry, who's that? Oh, Elvis. Oh, you want to come round later with a couple of the aliens from Roswell? OK, no problem, I'll put some beers in the fridge")
-
I have notice the last few weeks how noisy they are
And i dont even live near the sea
I know they come inland during the winter (well they do round here)
But i have never heard them in the summer.
Do you think it could be something to do with global warming
Or the fact they have got fed up with ******* on the bedsheets of Clacton.And have decided to come **** on mine instead
xxxxSuzy
P.s i have tried seagull
And it made me very
.We're inland and they live here permanently, and they are always noisy between mid Summer and Autumn. But this year is extreme. There seems to be more of them and they're a lot noisier than any other year. They also do seem to be noisier in hotter summers, so maybe I'll sell the Volvo and buy a nissan micra and do my bit for CO2. Yes, I bet they taste 'orrible.
Anyone got any nuggets of phosphorous then?
-
Anyone got any ideas on how to deter noisy gulls? I live on a narrowboat and our mooring seems to have become a gull colony. They don't shut up all night, and make a hell of a mess on the boats. Shooting them is not an option - we don't own the land or have permission to shoot on the mooring or the buildings where they seem to nest. Anything that could scare them off?
-
I very often see a police car down the lane to my club (AC sporting Targets) which is next door to the West London Shooting School. Often wondered if they are on 'official' business or if they just pop in to bust a few clays.
-
Having looked at the thread where iphone users are telling us all how fantastic their toys are are I wondered how many PW users are android users? (I've always resisted the lure of apple out of some perverse refusal to submit to the hype)
I'm on an X10 and I find it brilliant - it really is a "proper" pocket pc and I'm finding more and more uses for it all the time.
Anyone got any apps they think are "must have"?
Try the tricorder. It's brilliant.
-
I'm useless with windows - I'm a UNIX man, but is it maybe something to do with your TCP/IP settings? Perhaps your nameserver isn't working? I don't know how she connects to the interweb, but maybe try renewing DCHP for the network
-
For about the last year I have been buying Shooting Times most weeks and I feel that often they have had some sort of letter or article speaking against BASC. I was suckered at first, thinking that BASC were getting it wrong, but the more articles and letters I read, and the more I considered the issues, the more often I agreed with BASC's point of view. I enjoy ST, and still buy it most weeks, but one thing that puts me off subscribing is the constant BASC bashing. I wonder if the sporting press is responsible in some part for anti-BASC feeling amongst shooters.
I'm happy for BASC to speak for my shooting interests. I have nothing against the CA, but as someone interested in shooting rather than fox hunting, I decided to put my money with BASC and joined last week.
-
Glad you enjoyed the day, and I hope you enjoy the pigeons, the pictures look good and you can see how pleased you were at getting your first pigeon.
It should be noted that you actually shot 5 but could only pick up 3 due to be being able to find them in the crop of the neighbouring field. Keep your FOC priest to hand as evry thing that comes down is not always done for, plus I hope the vouchers come in useful.
I look forward to going out with you again and of course with any one else who would like to try pigeon decoying and shooting for the first time.
Cheers
bakerboy "terry"
Thanks Terry. And yes, I'm looking forwards to coming back for another go. Went up to Mum's in Leicestershire yesterday and we had one of them. And very nice it was too with homegrown veg from her garden.
And thanks to everyone else on PW who gave their support and kind comments. I feel more part of the crowd now that I've had a proper go at decoying. Roost shooting with an air rifle is OK, but this was much MUCH better.
David
-
It might only be a bag of three, but it made my day.
Shot during a fantastic day out with Terry (Bakerboy) Humber.
If anyone wants an introduction to pigeon decoying, then I'd recommend giving this a try.
I'll be back
-
I grew up in rural Leicestershire. Lovely county in the right places. Wouldn't mind living in Earl Shilton either and be able to walk to Mallory, but then I'm a bike racing fan.
-
-
Do the black ones taste any different?
/S/
No. But their winkies are bigger.
-
Or... Does he pull the trigger and his hat springs up with a 'doiiiing' sound and an orange grinning jack-in-the-box springs out of his head.
-
i think the camera pans down a bit and we see the farmers wife
:lol:or the camera pans down a bit and we see the stockings and suspenders.
Maybe it is Norfolk.
-
I've been thinking this through for hours now and the internet seems to have a severe lack of information on this...
Does a pressurised tank of helium weigh more or less than its empty weight, when it's full (say 200-300 BAR)
Think of it this way. Helium would fall towards the ground if it wasn't for the other components of the air (Nitrogen, CO2, Oxygen etc.). It's just that it 'floats' in air. Just like a piece of wood falls to the ground in air, but floats in water. If you were somehow able to 'compress' wood so that you had a lot more of it in the same volume, it would eventually sink in the water, and would also be heavier and more dense. Wood isn't very compressable, but gas is.
-
Why ban guns when there are other solutions...
"We could go to Dallas in November, 1963, stand on the grassy knoll and shout "Duck!" ... I'm sorry; I must have bypassed my Good Taste Chip."
-
is the book worth the money, about £18.00 delivery
I got mine from Amazon - £10.50 I think, including delivery.
It's a very well written book, concise, with good information needed for the shooting newcomer. I'd probably seen 90% of the information given in the book from other sources over the last 18 months or so that I've revived my interest in shooting - interweb, pigeon watch, sporting magazines, my local clay club etc., but it's nice to have it all in one source, and makes a good reference book. I think it's best feature is the continued theme throughout the book that emphasises the correct attitude to shooting, very important.
Conspiracy theories - what's the best one
in Off Topic
Posted
Nobody is disputing that the Earth's climate has changed constantly for that last 4.5 billion years. In fact the only reason that YOU know that is because scientists have done the reseach and figured it out. But just because the climate changes constantly doesn't mean that humans can't have a big effect and that current warming MUST be natural.
Think of the CO2 in the atmosphere as being like the amount of water in a bucket. When it rains, the bucket fills up. When it's dry and sunny, the level goes down. It's all changing completely naturally. Then someone puts the bucket under a tap and turns the tap on and the level suddenly rises dramatically. But that can't have had any effect on the level because all previous changes have been completely natural, right?
Digging up a good portion of the Earth's carbonate rock and mixing it oxygen (what we call burning) to produce CO2 is just like turning the tap on. To argue otherwise, you'd have to agree that
i. All the billions of tons of CO2 relased from burning fosil fuel somehow disapears instead of getting into the atmosphere.
Do they turn into marmalade tarts, grow wings and fly to jupiter?
ii. The extra CO2 in the atmosphere comes, instead, from some mysterious natural source that nobody's noticed.