Ophiolite

My area of expertise does not lie in relativity, or particle physiscs, or cosmology. I do, however, have a deep appreciation and passable understanding of the scientific method. I therefore accept, provisionally, the conclusion reached on these topics by the relevant scientists. This is not because I have faith in the scientific method, but because I have used the scientific method successfully in my own field and have seen it repeatedly demonstrate its capacity to derive meaningful explanations of nature. It has been shown to work with such a remarkable consistency that it would be bizarre to reject its findings in any area without substantive evidence against those findings. If I intended to challenge conventional theory, as you are doing, I would first ensure I had a thorough understanding of Maxwell's equations, Einstein's theories, etc. You seem to think this is unecessary. As it happens I have a suspicion that there is an aspect of evolution that has been overlooked. Let me be clearer - I am 90% certain this is the case. Search through every post on this and every forum I frequent and you might find two references to it, as gaurded and circumspect as this one. Why? Because until and unless I can demonstrate that I have a thorough grasp of those aspects of evolution impacted by my speculation it would be the height of arrogance and stupidity to place it before an audience, especially if I were to claim it was almost certainly correct. Instead I am doing my utmost, through detailed self study and probably in the near future distance learning courses at the OU, to prove that my idea is wrong. When and if I fail to do so, after using the best of current thinking, research, observation and experiment on the matter, then and only then will I present it for consideration by others. It is this kind of approach that I, and others, are urging you to take. There is no indication that you are listening.

There seems to be some misunderstanding on your part. Let me try to clarify a few points. I think you have covered this point with your parenthetic comment, but let us be clear: man did not evolve from the monkeys. Man and monkeys evolved from a common primate ancestor. There is absolutely no need that the ancestor's environment be 'super isolated'. All that is required is a degree of separation that allows a favourable gene to build up in one part of the community. Further favourable genes arise and the sub-community begins to isolate itself through behaviour, geography, or sexual selection. This is exactly what we see in the fossil record - a transition from more ape like forms towards more human forms. (Let's be clear, also - we are apes, so I'm using the word in the preceding sentence in the lay sense.) See my earlier comments to appreciate why this is wrong. This is a good question. Perhaps the central point is that intelligence is extremely costly in biological terms. The vast majority of the animal kingdom manage quite well without it. (Plants don't even bother with the tiniest amount and most weeds in my garden outwit my intelligence every day.) It was likely chance that meant a small group benefited more with it, than without it. Chance. Intelligence begets adaptability and tool use. (Or did tool use beget intelligence?) I don't think there is any mystery here, just a lack of detail in which we can currently be confident.

Several members have been patiently explaining to you from the start of the thread that you do not understand current theory and that your thesis is contradicted by evidence. You have ignored all of these statements. Until and unless you appreciate the depth and range of this material, that has been validated by repeated experiments from multiple directions, then you will continue to be competent only at deceiving yourself. In the incredibly unlikely event that even a smidgeon of your thesis is valid the only way you have of demonstrating this is to first understand current theory and evidence, then to demonstrate how your thesis offers a superior explanation, not in words, but in better predictions of experiments and observations. Some members have suggested ways this might be achieved. You have ignored this advice also.

nikk, about five or six years ago at an international conference on exobiology the participants were asked to offer their definition of life. Around one hundred differing definitions were offered. Perhaps once we have encountered other lifeforms and noted their similarities and differences to our own the definition will become easier. (It will never be perfect: this is science.) On the other hand, if some life is so different from us we may not be able to recognise it.

Science has explained this to the satisfaction of everyone who has approached the evidence and the explanation with an open mind. It seems, so far, that only those who have an incomplete understanding of the theory and the evidence have a problem with this.

That is illogical. By the same argument, since you don't know whether or not there is a set of the fourth season of Stargate it probably means that there isn't. That is simply an opinion. You have no idea what the thought processes of a God would be. You even make the assumption that this God would be intereseted in humanity. Why have you made the assumption that a kind hearted God exists. Surely the pain and suffering in the world is strong evidence for a cruel and sadistic God and therefore you should be a theist. It is clear that you have decided the Christian god does not exist, but have done so with very little thought.

Outstanding post.

Everyone so far seems to be labouring under the common misunderstanding that the Drake equation was designed to predict the probable number of intelligent civilisations in the galaxy, or the universe. This misunderstanding eventually overtook Dr. Drake himself, but that was not its original intent. Drake created it to provide a simple framework or agenda for a meeting on extraterrestrial intelligence that he had organised at the Greenbank Observatory in the early 1960s. It was meant to lay out the sort of topics we would need to know more about if we were to be able, eventually, to assess probable numbers. To repeat, it was designed as an agenda, not a meaningful calculator. Therefore to call it rubbish is to fail to understand its purpose. To call its misuse rubbish, I could probably agree with.

I'm forced to go with inow's conclusion - you just look human. There is a hint of Japanese, but also of Mediterranean (both north and south shores), and I don't disagree with the person who thought you might be South American. Hell, my daughter looks Chinese, even to some Chinese, but she's no more than 1/16th, the rest being Malay, Scottish, English and Indonesian. (I've separated out the Scottish element because of the genes for red hair.) With luck, in a couple of hundred years, everyone will look as mixed up as you and her.

With the hope that I do not sound patronising may I commend you on being astute enough to recognise a weakness and courageous enough to publicly declare it. As to the topic I think there is a problem. If you wish to run a sub-10 second 100m you need the right genetics, the right attitude and years of training. The same is true of achieving a deep understanding of many aspects of science. Most people will fall short in one or other sphere. I agree with you that education of the lay public is hugely important, but I'm not sure what the best way is to achieve that.

Let me be clear: we are talking about the same Einstein who was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize for Physics largely for his work on the photo-electric effect which was the foundation for quantum mechanics, but he didn't know about this subject? Is there some conflcit there?

Three points: 1. Africa is arguably the least overpopulated of the continents. 2. Your statement is implicitly racist, suggesting that continued malarial deaths would be useful in reducing the alleged overpopulation of the continent. 3. What evidence do you have that limited and controlled application of DDT in Africa would have a longterm global impact? OK. I think I see your thesis. You are opposed to altruism and have many selfish genes.

How do you plan that the atomic explosion will create a pathway for lava? Some decades ago the Soviets used subterranean nuclear explosions to kill blow outs on oil wells, not to facilitate production. Actually, they tried that too. Killing blow outs worked perfectly; trying to frac the formation didn't.

One phrase kept running through my mind as I read this thread and swanson has introduced it: risk/reward, or cost-benefit analysis. Greg, do you accept that the scientists who developed DDT and the people who introduced its use wanted to help communities and simply lacked the vision to appreciate the potential damage DDT might cause? Here is the problem - discoveries can be employed in such diverse ways that it seems improbable that all the potential downsides of any discovery that might arise from particular research could be properly investigated. Could the researchers into lasers have predicted some of the benefits, such as bar code readers? They might have realised the potential for a powerful laser to act as a 'death ray', but would they have thought of laser targeting for smart bombs? So should the laser research have been conducted? Do you really think in the 1950s and 1960s the implications could have been properly assessed?

Sorcerer, you appear to be proposing a variant of Steady State theory, of which Fred Hoyle was the main champion. However the discovery of the cosmic background radiation, by Pennzaias and Wilson, which was predicted by Big Bang theory, is generally thought to have put the nail in the coffin of SS. How do you explain CMBR with your hypothesis.

I am not sure where you got this idea, but you are mistaken. Keep in mind that on the Earth the outer molten core is separated from the crustal plates by a couple of thousand kilometres. I'm not sure what mechanism you were thinking of to provide the causal connection? Mantle plumes perhaps? Well, it is the only planet we know of that seems to have currently active plate tectonics. There is some evidence for it in the early stages of Martian history; Venus underwent a resurfacing event some 600 my bp; Mercury seems to be inactive in that regard. This is certainly true and the discussion so far has focused on only one aspect.

Please reread what I wrote. Or, better yet I'll lay it out for you step by step. Mars is only 10% the mass of the Earth. The Earth has retained sufficient heat from formation and from the decay of radioactive elements in the mantle, so that its core remains partially molten. This molten core is responsible for the Earth's magnetosphere which helps to protect the atmosphere from erosion by the solar wind. Mars, because it is much smaller has not retained its heat and that is why it has no partially molten core and no magnetosphere. I hope this is clearer now. It is the size of Mars that has led to the loss of atmosphere.

cofu, I appreciate the difficulties you are having working in a foreign language, but you are misusing the word prove. If DM has proved the things you say it has then you would be able to show , in detail, how the evidence leads to that conclusion and only that conclusion. More than this you wold be able to show that other researchers had been able to duplicate your observations and reach the same conclusions. You have not done any of this. You are simply making statements without any justificaiton. That is not science.

While agreeing with most of what you wrote I must take exception to this: Mars is an order of magnitude smaller than the Earth. It is half the radius of the Earth, but only a tenth of its mass. It is this smaller size that is responsible for the barren condition of the planet today. Small size means rapid cooling, means no sustained magnetic field and so atmospheric erosion.

You are correct. However, I think you have fallen into the same trap. For example, you say: " It is possible that given the right circumstances, a massive eruption could make the earth mostly uninhabitable for a long time." Possible? No eruption in the hostory of the planet has rendered it uninhabitable. It is true that one ore more past major extinctions may have been wholly or partly the result of volcanic eruptions (plural) extending over thousands of years, but none rendered the planet uninhabitable. You go on to say: "By somehow (there has to be a way) tapping into the pressures beneath the earth, we could create pores on the planet's surface, so it's skin could sweat, releasing balanced amounts of pressure." Volcanic eruptions are more about transfering heat than reducing pressure. Unless you wish to find a way of stopping plate tectonics (Google Kardashev Type II civilisation to grasp what might be involved) then, despite your wishes, it just isn't going to happen. That said, perhaps you would like to prove me wrong in this way: Estimate the amount of heat to found in a typical magma chamber. Calculate how much heat could be extracted by pumping water through boreholes in the vicinity of the magma chamber. Deomonstrate that the magma can be cooled to the point of crystalisation in a practical time frame with a practical number of boreholes.

Think it as much as you like - you would be wrong. Cite me a single climate or weather model that results in smooth weather. Opinions count for very little in science. That's all your pushing here. Of course there are differences. There are also similarities. But that is not the point. The point is that on Jupiter the weather is hugely variable. You appeared not to realise this. Why is it variable? Because of variable thermal input to a naturally chaotic system. I am at a loss to why you favour personal feelings over objective evidence. It puts you in a bad light.

You are not making sense. I accept that if U1 particles exist that thermal energy might increase their rotational speed. (Later I will want you to explain the mechanism.) However this does not mean that rotational energy and thermal energy are equivalent. Thermal energy is about random motion of particles, not rotational motion. So, I ask again, why are you equating thermal energy with rotational motion? NB:I shall be offline shortly for two days +.

Yes. -------------------- Weather works like a chaotic system. If the solar system is not chaotic' date=' including planet Earth, why is the weather chaotic? [/quote'] You seem to be unaware that Jupiter's cloud system is decidedly chaotic and stormy and the winds just keep on blowing.

Mike your idea seems both plausible and unecessary. I arrive at this provisional conclusion from a handful of thoughts. 1. We do see depression in animals, but it most commonly is only present to a significant degree when animals are in captivity. You may be able to point me to research that contradicts this view. I have an amateur's exposure to ethology and have formed my opinion from that limited stance. 2. We see depression in humans when they are afforded time to worry. I'm thinking Maslow'sheirarchy here. Their physiological needs are being met by society, but they are unable to satisfy there higher needs and so they become first frustrated, then depressed. 3. To illustrate this, I used to run after work as a way relieve tension. When you are fighting pain and struggling to breathe you are down and fully focused on the physiological level, so you cannot think about whther or not you are satisfying the higher levles. 4. Many of the problems of humanit have arisen because we evolved in small tribes, but we live in vast communities. (We are, in some ways, animals in cpativity.) Put these disparate strands together and I find neither independent evidence for your thesis and a satisfactory explanation for depression without it.

I take it you doubt the explanations. You don't think there are variations in thermal input as a consequence of diurnal and seasonal variations, plus variations in cloud cover, atmospheric humidity, aerosol content, dust content, etc,? All of these cause the temperature of the ground and hence of the air to vary from location to location and within a given location. You don't believe these variations can account for the weather? What evidence do you have that they do not produce these effect?