1

The Environment / Flat Cloud Bottoms - Temperature or Air Pressure?

« on: 07/01/2007 01:22:46 »

I've just discovered the general consensus says that the flat bottoms of clouds are governed by the air's temperature.

Now, the trouble is I've seen eagles soaring on warm thermals even on overcast days. Days overcast with flat-bottomed clouds. Having observed this, I suspect that temperatures are not constant enough over large areas and that they are in fact, quite variable. Temperature fluctuations like these would make for lumpy and boiling looking cloud bottoms.

The only constant with respect to the flat bottom seems to be the altitude. (More curious since the "flattnessness" always appears level too.)

Now I've never read this anywhere, but it seems to me the drop in pressure with increasing altitude (not air temperature) is why clouds have flat bottoms. The air pressure at the cloud's base marks the level where water vapor finally saturates and condenses back to it's liquid state. A visible cloud with a well defined lower boundary at a uniform altitude.

Is this right or have I had it backwards all these years?

Mike

2

Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology / Central Andean Rotation Pattern

« on: 12/11/2006 20:51:50 »

The west coast of the continent of South America looks like it is smashing into a gigantic telephone pole.

The landmass to the North of the Peruvian/Chilean border is rotating counterclockwise many degrees, and to the South of that same Peruvian/Chilean border, is rotating clockwise.

That point isn't strictly standing still. Bolivia, due east of the Andes at that point is riding up onto something and has had 4.6 Kms of up-lift!

Paleomagnetic data suggest that the Andean range was once a straight line of mountains.






I don't see the "giant telephone pole".

Any ideas as to what could be hanging up the tectonics at this point?

Mike

3

General Science / Dark Matter and Relativity

« on: 25/08/2006 20:26:58 »

On Aug. 21, Robert and Neilep shared an exciting press release from NASA that suggested proof of Dark Matter. It included what I would almost discribe as a throw-away line that said;

"This result also gives scientists more confidence that the Newtonian gravity familiar on Earth and in the solar system also works on the huge scales of galaxy clusters."

I'm a big fan of Newtonian gravity. I understand its effects. It is at the root of every childhood injury I can remember.

On the other hand and only occasionally, I nearly understand Special Relativity. When I really "see it", it is quite elegant, but its an unnatural way to think about real, everyday mechanics.

Will NASA's new findings impact Relativity in any way?

Mike