|
|
I saw an old special about this yesterday and fell in love with the fact that nature will never run out of ways to whip our asses. I made this thread because not many people know about lake overturn, let alone talk about it. Have any of you heard of this natural disaster? Or the possibility of overturn at Lake Kivu? Edit: I guess it would help to explain it.  Basically Lake Overturn occurs when a lake contains high concentrations of CO 2, released by a trigger. It's alot like opening a bottle of soda. If you could slow down the process, you'd see a plume of gas escape the top of the bottle followed by the rising of the bubbles. In the case of a lake, the upset can be caused by anything large enough and heavy enough to pentrate the layers of CO 2 at the bottom. For Lake Nyos (home to 1800), the trigger was a landslide. As the rocks pentrated the first layer of carbon-dioxide, gases were released and forced upward. With such a high concentration, all these gases formed a cloud that covered 18 square-miles before dissipating. This cloud, being heavier than our own breathable air, worked it's way toward the ground while pushing any available oxygen above it. This event alone killed off 99% of the population at Nyos. But, this is only the first step in the process. Next the rocks penetrate the bottom layer of the lake, where CO 2 concentration is at it's highest. This tremendous release in pressure blows the water sky-high, soon followed (in the case of Nyos) by a wave believed to be over 80 ft. sweeping in-land; dragging trees and sediment back into the lake. There's actually a picture of the aftermath on Wikipedia.Now, here's the interesting part, Lake Kivu is 2000 times larger than Lake Nyos, and with a population of 2,000,000. And here's where it gets really bad, Kivu sits right next to an active volcano. A volcano that's rocked the ground so much it's actually created a fault, soon to feed lava directly into the lake...and it gets even worse, Kivu is also home to high concentrations of methane, meaning explosions.
Last Edit: Feb 19, 2007 15:24:39 GMT by Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
|
Never really heard of the Chris, myself.
|
|
|
|
|
Jesus - whenever someone needed money for food or drink, they'd always bum it off me (that was back in junior high) That's about it. Not much comes with a name like "Aaron."
Last Edit: Feb 25, 2007 14:17:28 GMT by Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
First of all, I specifically stated the story of Creation, not just Genesis in it's entirety (thus the apple story is void). I have no idea what you're getting at with the end of your post other than trying to support me. You were being sarcastic, but that sarcasm did nothing more than point out how foolish the Bible really is. Also, it doesn't matter how long a day is. The Bible says the Sun came AFTER the Earth which we know isn't true. How foolish the Bible really is? How about the person that is foolish enough to try and read the Bible like a fact book? Only the most close-minded Christians believe in the Creation story in a literal sense. I may not be able to tell you the meanings of the creation story, but I'm sure there is someone who can. My biblical studies aren't deep, I'm not Christian. However from the look of it I've studied deeper than you. It's disappointing that are close-minded enough to get tripped up by the first few lines. If you try hard enough, you can find an alternate meaning to anything. Let me show you: "She dropped her purse." The purse represents the elements of this person's life. When she "dropped" it, she lost control of those elements. However, if she attempts it, she CAN pick herself back up again. Wasn't too hard...so tell me, how do you know God wanted you to read between the lines? Maybe the text was meant to be taken literally...maybe the writers actually meant every word they said...you can't do that shit. The only reason anyone ever tried to re-interpret the bible is because they didn't agree with it or they wanted to make it sound less rediculous. It's just a sad attempt to try and save a religion that's already been disproven.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time is only CONSIDERED a dimension. And uh, technically, "theorizing" is "making shit up" (just not out of thin air).
|
|
|
|
|
What you're talking about seems a different theory entirely. As if it's not etchy enough already...the last time I read up on this was when m-theory was only recently being considered. As I recall, the 11th dimension is a membrane where universe's float freely, clashing ocassionally and connected through wormholes. This theory was thought to explain the big-bang in that two universes collided like thick pools leaving the patches and bubbles that create the empty space of our universe today. Time travel is a theory is only valid in the sense that you consider time a dimension. Otherwise everything falls apart and spacetime is non-existant. You can't justify time with the very theory that relies on it. Much like you can't use the bible to say god is real.
Last Edit: Jan 30, 2007 1:26:17 GMT by Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
|
I never said they weren't.
I know what a traversable wormhole is. But that's got nothing to do with time travel. It's got to do with "universe travel."
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've studied this as well and seen several specials on the science channel (with several top scientists) focused durectly on the subject. It's not "time" travel. To say that would mean to completely change the MEANING of "time." All they speak of is jumping to a parallel universe where actions are taken just as our own but at a much later state. So yes, we ARE practically reliving the moment, but in reality we haven't gone back in time, we've simply gone to another universe.
|
|
|
|
|
Alright Slip...you can't say Kahless is right and say his point is theoretical at the same time. And what you're talking about involves string-theory's newest dimension, and traversing worm-holes to reach parallel universes. It's not technically time-travel. Calm down, he's far too lazy to o write all that out himself. It's off wikipedia.  Edit: Too many 'o's
Last Edit: Jan 26, 2007 1:43:37 GMT by Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
I personally believe time is just something we made up to mark the rising and setting of the sun. In reality it just keeps track of the repititions of an on-going process. We could do the exact same with anything constant. Let's take a guiser for example. We may find that it blows in same intervals. From this we could say every time we see a spray, it's been a...spray-day. Again, time is a man-made invention that does nothing more than keep track of how many times an event occurs in an on-going process. To reverse "time" would mean to make every atom---every piece of existance---move in reverse. Which would require an immense amount of energy (more energy than exists in the universe).
Last Edit: Jan 24, 2007 23:09:56 GMT by Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
|
I never said that. And if you read that whole paragraph you'd see I said, "even if a few got out of hand, that's no reason to damn all the rest."
You said to stop the debates. That IS banning.
You're playing with your words now. You never said any of this initially.
It's called life. In life there are disagreements. Believe it or not, people have varying opinions. So when you tell someone to stop doing something and they see it differently, you can expect them to tell you that.
That's fair enough.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not saying ban them, I'm saying keep them to one a month Well then I guess I wasn't talking to you.
|
|
|
|
|
It's not about what people believe. No one is being forced into these debates and no one is being asked to change their beliefs. And by the way, ALOT of people care what others believe. That's why you get people kocking on your door with pamphlets asking you to consider conversion. That's why so many people got beaten and killed in the middle ages over their beliefs. That's what the holy wars are all about. That's why we have a fucking homosexuality "crisis" in the U.S. No offense, but come up with a better reason next time. It's every person's right to argue the beliefs of another. Conflicts can't be avoided, and even when they are it just makes matters worse. Therefore they should be embraced. Again, no one asked you to join so you have no right whatsoever to complain. No offense but your stupidity runs off the scale. For one thing, it's the people that make the religion. Not the book. That's why holy texts get re-interpreted so much. Secondly, the whole point of a debate is to influence and enlighten someone to your point of view (or get enlightened yourself). Show me. I've never once seen that happen. And besides, that's not even a debate and even if a few got out of hand, that's no reason to damn all the rest. You're making quite an outlandish generalization here. Sounds to me like this is more personal than anything. That's because you're on forums. Probably proboards at that. You can't expect to have a civilized debate when you're around uncivilized people.
As a final statement, the issues you're all complaining about apply to ALL debates. Religious or otherwise. So if you decide to ban religious debates, ban debates altogether.
Last Edit: Jan 23, 2007 22:07:57 GMT by Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
secondly, are you trying to tell me that some person found a ray of light, said it was from the big bang, and won an award? So if i go find a pile of crap and claim it was crapped out by George Washington, will I win an award? Thirdly, Light goes in straight lines until it bounces off of something an it eventually dies out. The only way this perosn could find htis ray of light would either be.. A. He went faster than light and went really far and then took this light or B. The light bounced around alot and luckily came to him. and finally, ligght wouldn't last as you as "6 billion years". Alright, no offense but...get off this thread and go read a book. You obviously have NO idea how energy works. This is a debate. Don't take part if you're just going to make shit up. How much do you want to bet that you post again? To eat, have sex, and complain. A debate is a debate. The point is the same for every one of them: to debate. Just because I don't need a cruch in my life doesn't mean I don't believe in something. And i'm not so weak-minded as you as to need hope and false promises. I can accept death. I'm not afraid of it, it happens to everyone. Besides, i'm sure once i'm dead "hope" will be the last thing on my non-existant mind. Death is the worry of the living. Think about that.
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, sure. I can't prove there isn't a god. But that's only because "god" could be anything and mean anything. But we're talking about the CHRISTIAN god here. And there are plenty of contradictions and fallacies to disprove him. Edit: uc, you're completely off track. Again, in the sense he speaks of, "God" could be anything from the big ger bang to the invisible man in the sky. But we're only talkig about one definition of "God."
Last Edit: Jan 21, 2007 15:43:36 GMT by Aaron
|
|
|
