Argent

It is small and so the interior cooled more rapidly than the Earth. I think there is evidence for some geologically recent activity and the atmospheric methane that has been detected could indicate current active magma bodies, but you are correct that the Earth is volcanically much more active. There was extensive volcanic activity "at the beginning". The majority of this activity had ceased by about 3.7 billion years ago. There was some debate as to whether or not the core of Mars was still molten, but this has no direct connection with the presence or absence of volcanoes. As Strange pointed out Martian vulcanicity is not connected with evolution. This has been explained above. The Earth is large and carries more internal heat, the driving force for plate tectonics, than Mars. And evolution can contribute nothing to this explanation. There is plenty of information on this online and geothermal gradients, globally, are well known.

This is probably a mistake, but. . . . What is "socialogical reality regulation" and "placed anomoly configuration"? (I guess you meant sociological and anomaly respectively, but that doesn't help.)

So you deny the seriousness of Einstein-Rosen bridges, you object to the concept of closed time-like loops, you consider the detailed mathematical considerations in this field by experts to be trivial, and the consistency of these concepts with General Relativity you reject as irrelevant?

I think you have envisaged an impossible combination of conditions. The only thing likely to be able to pass through would be a small black hole. That would combine the high mass required in combination with small diameter. Any other scenarios leave Jupiter relatively untroubled or semi-demolished in the way the proto-Earth was during the formation of the moon. Anything asteroid sized, of normal matter, simply could not make it through.

It was most assuredly not a waste of time. I was unfamiliar with strombolite/spurrite, so I learned that and I was able to get confirmation that stromatolite was the correct term. Now we can return to the main thrust of the OP. which generates two sets of thoughts for me. I'll aim to express them when they are clearer in my mind.

I agree with the last post, but I think it is not uncommon in informal conversations to refer to other planetary systems as solar systems. I'm not saying I agree with that approach, just noting that it does occur.

You seem to be saying the reverse of what I am saying. While acknowledging the possibility that Strombolites may contain fossils, I am stating that the only evidence to that effect is Dr. P's reported comments from a fossil seller. You say you have read citations that mention Strombolites as containing fossils. Please post a couple of those.

Interesting, but Strombolite is composed of the mineral spurrite, which is a silicified carbonate. There is no mention in your two references (thank you for those) that mentions Strombolite. I imagine it would be possible for a fossilised Dasycladales to be subject to thermal metamorphism and converted to Strombolite. What I am doubting thus far is that Strombolite equates to fossilised algae. Perhaps Dr. P's fossil salesman intended to say "here are some fossil algae preserved in strombolite". Sorry to divert your thread DrmDoc, but I'm not going to forget this name and I want to be sure I'm associating it with the correct thing. I'm quite nerdy about things like that.

I have noticed on forums that posters do not always say thank you when someone answers their question. So I say a double thank you to you for the acknowledgement. Have a great day.

It seems a reasonable and relevant question to me. Indeed, it seems to strike straight to the heart of the matter. I see no evidence that Bender is trying to discredit you, but he is trying to discredit your idea. That is entirely proper. It is the scientific approach. Any claims should be challenged, especially when they conflict with established science. He is providing you with the opportunity to substantiate your claim. If you fail to do so my conclusion, and I think the conclusion of most others, will be that your claim is empty.

The only online links I have found so far to Strombolite were New Age mumbo-jumbo about "healing crystals". In some of these they note it is composed of the mineral Spurrite. That does produce a wealth of online information. Everything I have looked at so far says it is produced by thermal metamorphism of carbonates. That makes perfect sense. I am not saying you are mistaken, there are probably thousands of obscure rocks and minerals whose names I do not know, so I would be interested to have some reference to their identification as fossilised algae. When I search for Strombolite and Algae the only returns I see are for Stromatolite.

Strombolite is a carbonate mineral. I presume you meant stromatolite. The full Nature article is available here.

Good examples. I hadn't thought of those. However, the OP seems to be seeking the impossible. Freedom to read exactly what he wishes, get paid for it and offer nothing in return. Perhaps he could go into politics.

How true. Deprived of the opportunity to lose other peoples money; unable to lead an ostentatious lifestyle; denied the chance to flaunt his narcissistic personality in the media. That's no way to live.

I was unfamiliar with the term "constitutive defense", so thank you for adding to my knowledge. Now that I do know its meaning I agree with your choice of E, although I would rather it had been phrased " trichomes are probably constitutive defenses while “inhibitors” appear to be induced defenses". The version that is offered seems to definitive based on only a single suite of experiments.

The difficulty is that you appear to be using the words free will, and perhaps also control, in a completely different sense to how I have ever seen them used in informal discussion, or scholarly writing. Perhaps this is because I have not read widely enough. Or perhaps it is because you have chosen a personal set of definitions then failed to attach a very large warning sign to them.

This seems to me a badly phrased question and so I understand your uncertainty. I also agree with your conclusion: Predators consume their prey Herbivores consume plants Parasites consume (part of) their hosts Prey does not, in context, consume anything, but is itself consumed Host plant consumes only non-living material. However, strictly speaking everything on the list consumes something, hence the uncertainty.

Is there an echo in here?

I believe fiction publishers employ people to read and comment on manuscripts submitted to them. I have no idea how one goes about getting such a job. I suspect many in the role do so in addition to their "day job". Perhaps Strange's suggestion of proof reader would be one route. My next comment is meant to be positive criticism. In any job involved in reading you will be expected to comment in some way on what you have read. That means you need to make improvements in your own writing. I counted ten stylistic and grammatical errors in your post. That's a lot for a ninety two word post.

Online tests are not well suited to anyone in the top 20%, or thereabouts. They tend to give an inflated number. I'm pretty certain I don't really have an IQ of 153. As String Junky pointed out the test has to be the right one, administered in the right way. Online tests are amusing but don't mean much. Come to think of it, "proper tests" don't mean too much either. This is just a passing thought: knowing the limitations of online tests, if I only scored 120-139, I would be keeping quiet about it.

You have repeated and failed to address my objection to your use of the word convince. The function of such "experiments" is to demonstrate conservation of angular momentum, not to convince people of its reality. Surely that follows in other ways. Is there a reason you have not set up an experiment to demonstrate (and convince) that the postulate is flawed?

The paper does not use the word construe at any point. Will you please state clearly what you mean by the statement. "Also, neuroscience parlance shows that beliefs construe delusions." This could have been sorted several posts back if you had answered the question directly then. Please do so now and stop equivocating. I would definitely appreciate it. Surely you wish your audience to understand your argument?

There seem to be some assumptions in your post. I am always nervous when an argument, or its defense is laden with assumptions. I think you are mistaken in believing that the intent of the experiment is to "convince students of the existence of angular momentum". No proper science education would use an uncontrolled "experiment" of this sort to convince anyone. It is a useful demonstration of the principle, nothing more. Conviction must arise from a properly constructed experiment with appropriate measurements made to a requisite degree of accuracy. I have not claimed that the demonstration is flawed. (Actually, that is not an assumption on your part, but a misreading of what I have written. Sorry I wasn't clearer.) I have claimed that is a demonstration. Again, you have taken a convenient classroom demonstration and assumed it is something more than that. One is only misled if one assumes that a simplified demonstration meets the same criteria as a rigorously conducted, accurately measured physics experiment. I am guessing (not assuming) that you don't have much experience with teaching. Simplification and generalities are important aspects of teaching at the basic level. OK, another point that is not really an assumption. If the magnitude of any difference between predicted and actual values exceeds what theory would expect then, regardless of that magnitude, it is correct to call it anomaly. As an example it does not support your argument. You have yet to provide any evidence that supports your argument. Until you do there is no sound reason to entertain it beyond conducting this dialogue for a short time more. Edited Comment: I have cross posted with Strange. He has said about the same as I did with fewer words. You might want to reconsider.

Any time I have seen, or performed, the ball-on-a-string experiment the centre point of rotation does not remain fixed. but moves. Unless you can show that movement does not occur, or provide the mathematics to demonstrate that alone cannot account for what you assert is an anomaly, you claim can be dismissed.

With the typo removed your statement reads "Also, neuroscience parlance shows that beliefs construe delusions." Unfortunately that statement still makes no sense. I repeat one of my original questions. How can a belief construe (interpret, understand) a delusion? I am trying to understand your argument, but if it contains nonsensical statements that becomes a difficult goal.