Area54

Thank you. If I ever make a court appearance I may call on you as a character witness. My first step with most such articles is to read the first paragraph, if it interests me then track down the original paper. Half the time the link to it is not even provided, or worse - the scientists are not named, other than top scientists at MIT, or wherever. Most papers that attract 'public' attention seem to be, fortuitously, open access. Once I've gone through the paper I might return to the popular article, but mainly to see to what extent they distorted it. This is why @hypervalent_iodine I am rather taken aback that you would focus on a popular review of the subject, rather than the subject itself. Exaggeration or misunderstanding of scientific findings by the popular media are surely a given. So, staying on the subject: was the SO2 simply hotter? The technicality of the detection isn't just above my paygrade, its in a totally different currency, but I'm working on the basis that one or two of the authors of the paper are well versed in such matters and unlikely to make such a fundamental oversight. (Notice I said unlikely, not impossible.)

I have not read and assimilated enough material on the subject to have a properly informed opinion, but I do find it interesting. Well the Younger Dryas is interesting in and of itself, and I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a bolide impact. I am not convinced that the Carolina bays are evidence of such - in fact I think that been adequate;y disposed of. (Nor was the impact involved in the death of Elvis, for the obvious reason that he is alive and well and living in Bogota!) Your thoughts?

No. It's not philosophy either. It is a cross between pseudo-science and pseudo-philosophy, No one should waste any time in reading the document and Tony (The author) shouldn't waste any time summarising it for the forum. (Of course Tony, if you can actually produce evidence to support your claims I shall be happy to remove the pseudo's from my above comment.)

Where is the overstatement? (I don't intend that as a belligerent observation, but a genuine query as to what you think was overstated.) They do not 'headline' the possible evidence for life - the title speaks of the detection of phosphine They refer in the abstract to the apparent presence of phosphine. They detaill the abiotic routes to phosphine they have eliminated and note that a biotic source is suggested through analogy with its terrestrial production, not via any demonstrable pathway. They searched carefully all current databases for other possible chemical species that might have been responsible for the transition signature. They discuss at some length within the paper and the supplementary material what abiotic processes they have considered and why they have rejected them. They caution that other phosphene transitions should be sought in order to solidfy or disprove their belief that phosphene is responsible They note that "Even if confirmed, we emphasize that the detection of PH3 is not robust evidence for life, only for anomalous and unexplained chemistry." Where is the overstatement in all that? i genuinely don't see it.

I wasn't sure if anyone would pick up on that, but it just didn't work using Spengler and the Decline of the West.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-020-1174-4.pdf Extract from abstract: Measurements of trace gases in planetary atmospheres help us explore chemical conditions different to those on Earth. Our nearest neighbour, Venus, has cloud decks that are temperate but hyperacidic. Here we report the apparent presence of phos-phine (PH3) gas in Venus’s atmosphere, where any phosphorus should be in oxidized forms. . . . .The presence of PH3 is unexplained after exhaustive study of steady-state chemistry and photochemical pathways, with no currently known abiotic production routes in Venus’s atmosphere, clouds, surface and sub-surface, or from lightning, volcanic or meteoritic delivery. PH3 could originate from unknown photochemistry or geochemistry, or, by analogy with biological production of PH3 on Earth, from the presence of life. And from the discussion: If no known chemical process can explain PH3 within the upper atmosphere of Venus, then it must be produced by a process not previously considered plausible for Venusian conditions. This could be unknown photochemistry or geochemistry, or possibly life. Information is lacking—as an example, the photochemistry of Venusian cloud droplets is almost completely unknown. Hence a possible droplet-phase photochemical source for PH3 must be con-sidered (even though PH3 is oxidized by sulfuric acid). Note the caution exhibited by the authors that one hopes, but rather doubts, will be echoed by the popular press.

Perhaps it can. Perhaps it cannot. That, however, is not relevant. I am applying it to your idea. Sidetracking into vague comparisons and loose analogies merely reflects the paucity of support for your proposal. That is a claim for which you have provided zero support. Without that support it is of no more value than an assertion such as, "breeding unicorns should reduce global warming". Because this is a science forum and speculation is meant to accompanied by technical justification, through reasoned argument, or quality research material from reputable sources. Such support informs and provides a basis for interesting, robust discussion. It is also an implicit requirement of the rules. (Mods, please correct me if I have that point wrong.) You just keep making the same assertion, while offering nothing substantive to support it. I would have thought, given your interest and belief in the concept, that you would have made an effort to assemble some data or argument to address at least one of the weaknesses I have noted about the project. Just repeating your beliefs doesn't work.

Or a future Gibbon will write of The Decline and Fall of the West.

You seem to be assuming that: there are only two genotypes that the genes responsible for one or other are always grouped together that none of these genes are related to other traits with survival, or counter survival value and that, consequently, you have ignored how genetics actually works in practice

I suspect @drumbo has overlooked the fact that some asteroids and comets can pass within the orbit of the Earth.

So you wish to extrapolate the views of some three and a half billion people globally on the basis of a mere 150 million locally. What makes you feel that is justifiable? More to the point, on what basis do you assert that a feminist would prefer a feminine man over a masculine man? RElated to that, what do you think the respondents to the Pew poll understood by feminist? What do you understand by the term?

If all women were feminists your argument might be worthy of fuller consideration. Since they are not the incongruity you imagine is dispoosed of.

It's an amusing perception. Do you have any evidence to support it. For example, how many wealthy people did you interview to arrive at this conclusion? The wealthy have fewer children largely for two reasons: they no longer need to ensure sufficient numbers to support them in old age; they wish to use their wealth for their personal pleasure, not to support large numbers of offspring. I see you didn't get the e-mail about the evolutionary pressures to breed.

That reads more like unsupported optimism than a thoughtful and informed analysis. For one thing, just because something is possible does not mean it will necessarily be economic. Until you put some meat on the bones of your idea and address the problems that exist for it then all you have is a highly speculative, vague notion. Thus, the answer to your question, can fracking extract gold, is probably, but not economically and not without major environmental concerns.

While some humour can be cruel, most forms are quite different from sarcasm. Humour, gently applied and inclusive, not discriminatory could help to persuade, something I thin sarcasm can rarely, if ever, achieve. I thought schadenfreude would be the more usual word choice, rather than epicaricacy. The latter, given its recent currency, appears to be more an affectation than sound lexicography. (That's an informative statement, not a sarcastic one. :))

Sarcasm feeds the attention the conspiracy theorist welcomes and lacks the evidence that a formal disagreement could deliver. I suggest it offers only a momentary satisfaction to the deliverer, while cementing the beliefs of the theorist.

Don't the French have an official Institue that is meant to safegaurd the language, stamping upon such usages as "le weekend"? And Arabic, while not protected in any official way, has the formal written language referenced to the usage and style of the Koran. The spoken language can difer quite dramatically from country to country.

Funny how you seem to think I offered an analogy. I didn't. I've addressed the possible impact of your concept upon religions. I understood that is what you wanted us to focus on. I have respected that wish. Funny you chose not to respond to my comments in that regard. I don't understand where you get that from. I have considered your "theory", but find insufficient reason to find it convincing. You have declared, quite strongly, that you do not want to debate the theory. Such debate would be necessary if I were to stand a chance of being convinced by it. You have closed the door to that option in this thread. So, I have - for sake of argument - considered its possible impact on religious believers. Exactly what you asked for. BigQuestioner, a dialog involves both parties paying attention to what the other says. You have ignored what I did say and imagined me to have said things I didn't. If you wish to offer an explanation for that I am ready to listen.

Context.

The difficulty is that discussing the impact of a hypothetical concept that one finds either wrong, meaningless or trivial is not overly exciting. My view is that your concept would not be perceived as compatible with the majority view of of the major religions. The only one I can see a possible match (and that a slim one) is with bhuddism.

Thank you for clarifying. Would you like to address my reservations, which I repeat below for your convenience: The first method is feasible in terms of well placement, but the fracturing pressures required would likely make this a non-starter. You have overlooked the significant strength difference between the comparatively weak sedimentary strata containing oil/gas and the much stronger metamorphic or igneous rocks that are gold bearing. You have also ignored the greater cost of drilling wells in rock that is much harder and more abrasive than those encountered in oil/gas drilling. (Not to mention the greater challenge of achieving good directional results.)

I need to improve my writing skills. That point has been explicit or implicit in each of my posts in the thread.

Just shy of two hundred sovereign countries in the world and seven of them have aircraft carriers. The prosecution rests its case. Note also that: The two UK aircraft carriers are not yet operational and the government audit office has questioned whether they can be effective due to the lack of adequate support ships or a proper compliment of aircraft. The Thai vessel, HTMS Chakri Naruebet, has the capability to deploy fixed wing aircraft, but has none. The French have only a single carrier, which means they will be without one for as much as 20% of the time. Not a strategically desireable situation. Ths Spanish, Juan Carlos I, is more of an amphibious assault vessel than an aircraft carrier - and one carrier does not provide 100% availability India currently suffers the same problem - one carrier only, though this should be addressed if the long-delayed new build is actually commissioned next year. The Russians have a single carrier that is currently non-operational and unlikley to be active again before the end of 2021 Which leaves us with two serious players: the Chinese, who currenly operate two with a third on the way and plans for two or three more; and the Americans who have twelve. Those dozen along with the host of protective cruisers, destroyers and frigates, the support vessels, the amphibious assault ships and landing docks and helicopter carriers, make the USA the only country capable of a serious projection of naval force anywhere on the planet.

That was exactly my point. Your other observations were pertinent and accurate. It seems a shame not to extend it this terminology. I would also re-emphasise that the majority of navies do not possess large warships. (A word you might favour over battleship.) Take a look through a recent edition of Janes - even a nation like Indonesia, with thousands of islands and a pivotal position between Indian and Pacific oceans and South China Sea has barely half a dozen frigates of 2,500 ton displacement, plus a plethora of smaller craft.

Battleships? No. Battleships were large gunned (12" +), heavily armoured vessels. Most navies field nothing larger than a frigate, though the modern frigate has a displacement more akin to a WWII destroyer, or even light cruiser. Armour is minimal or non-existent.