Ophiolite

Thank you for your replies. I am considering them. I have one further question at this point. Why are you equating rotational energy with thermal energy? They are definitely not the same.

I could very well be wrong, but I think this is also a temperature effect transmitted via the humidity. Thermal energy is transferred to the air mass via evaporation of ocean water, thereby maintaining or increasing the sotrms energy. Once over land, apart form frictional effects reducing velocity, this source of energy replenishment is no longer available. I stand ready to be corrected on this one, but that is certainly my decades old recollection.

Good. Then, for the third time of asking, please answer these specific questions: 1. Do the resonant frequencies increase in frequency with greater stimulation, or decrease? 2. In either case, why does that happen? 3. Are there more resonant frequencies when stimulation is greater, or do the number of resonant frequencies remain the same? 4. Does the resonant frequency with the greatest energy change to a different resonant frequency as the degree of stimulation changes? 5. What kind of energy will induce the stimulation? If we are going to progress in this discussion I must insist that you take me seriously. Choosing to glance at what I have written rather than reading it properly is not a way of doing so. I have not asked for proof. I have asked for evidence. Surely you understand the difference between these?

Thank you for your answers. Now would you actually answer each of my questions instead of making further general comments that raise even more questions. I am trying to take a genuine interest in your idea nad treat it and you with respect. I would appreciate a comparable effort on your part.

Indeed. It is the temperature difference that powers the winds. We see it at every scale. For example, the strength of hurricanes and typhoons is proportional to the sea temperature they pass over. The hotter the water the stronger the winds. (It's more complex than that, but I'm already pushing my limits on the topic.) I don't know if you live by the sea, but on days where there is little 'regional' wind one will often get a breeze coming from the cold air over the sea to replace the rising warmer air over the land. At night the wind direction may reverse as the land cools much faster than the sea.

Put very simply it is variations in thermal input from the sun. Some areas heat up, the air expands, becomes less dense and pressure falls. Other areas cool and the reverse occurs. since there is always an imbalance of thermal input based on latitude and complicated by day/night and cloud cover etc then there is no way in which a balance can be attained.

How do you know this to be the case? What evidence do you have for this? Do the resonant frequencies increase in frequency with greater stimulation, or decrease? In either case, why does that happen? Are there more resonant frequencies when stimulation is greater, or do the number of resonant frequencies remain the same? Does the resonant frequency the resonant frequency with the greatest energy change as the degree of stimulation changes? What kind of energy will induce the stimulation?

Rest easy brothers: the Matrix will protect you.

Several pages ago you took me to task for suggesting knowerastronomy should grow up. I've never felt any reluctance to say 'I told you so', for you seem to have formed a parallel opinion. The only justification for the ongoing dialogue with knowerastronomy - and it is excellent justification - is to ensure that lurkers and the inexperienced are not misled by his rhetoric and nonsense. He began by saying foolish things. His persistence in saying the same things in the face of contrary evidence demonstrates that he is a fool. This is not an ad hominem, but an objective assessment of his character as revealed in his own posts.

This looks like the OP was a hit and run post. It has been duplicated on at least two other forums, with no response from Martin on either of them.

I was just readng that new New Scientist issue over lunch. My own experience with lucid dreams is that it did not take long before I lost the awareness that I was dreaming. Consequently there would be little time to practice anything. I imagine with focused practice this obstacle might be overcome. I also found control of the environment difficult. I might try to conjure up a nice high speed jet to fly and it would appear as a badly serviced twin engined piston job. Clearly some people have had much more success. At least I can now explain to my boss why I am sleeping at my desk - "just rehearsing teaching to a hostile audience, boss."

I am not aware of any serious Earth scientist who disputes the role of large volcanic eruptions in tending to produce a drop in global temperature. Many Earth scientists, politicians, educated laypersons and viewers of the Discovery Channel are aware that very large volcanic eruptions could devastate large parts of the Earth and even throw the entire biosphere into crisis. You appear to be arguing that because volcanic eruptions can cause cooling that anthropogenic greenhouse gases cannot cause warming. If this is not what you are saying you need to clarify your argument. So, as SwansonT has requested political aspects of your post not be discussed here I am left wondering whether there is anything at all to say in this thread - except, perhaps, to point out that Lake Toba is in Sumatra, not Java and to wonder if that reflects on the quality of your research.

My advice still stands.

This is a common misunderstanding of the process of natural selection. The modern environment is different and therefore selection pressures are different. What was unfit in prior environments is now fit in today's environment. That is Darwinism working flat out, all guns blazing and similar mixed metaphors. As to the OP, the idea is plausible, but Tres Juicy's point about the apparent absence of geniuses in isolated tribes, living as our remote ancestors did, is a telling one.

1. To move your entire civilisation, or a significant portion of it from your home star system. 2. Recreational pursuits. 3. Perhaps the aliens are really big. (No. I mean really big.)

How then do you account for the abundant evidence that both modern humans and Neanderthals existed over the same time periods? It does not matter how much sense you think your version makes if it is not supported by evidence it is practically worthless.

We silicate based life forms laugh at your puny Mercurian temperatures.

You don't have to build one: it is much simpler to just convert a planet.

More details here: http://ammin.geoscienceworld.org/content/96/5-6/709.abstract

Thank you. That's a shame. I was looking forward to demonstrating a better prediction rate than he was capable of with his supposedly brilliant theory.

With reference to prediction number two, here is the first of two predicted 6.5 or greater quakes in Latin America. Magnitude 6.5 Date-Time Sunday, December 11, 2011 at 01:47:26 UTC Saturday, December 10, 2011 at 07:47:26 PM at epicenter Location 18.038°N, 99.796°W Depth 64.9 km (40.3 miles) Region GUERRERO, MEXICO Distances 42 km (26 miles) SW of Iguala, Guerrero, Mexico 56 km (34 miles) ESE of Arcelia, Guerrero, Mexico 62 km (38 miles) NNW of Chilpancingo, Guerrero, Mexico 166 km (103 miles) SSW of MEXICO CITY, D.F., Mexico I notice superball has gone very quiet.

@ G Anthony. I voted that your opening post was badly written. A simple vote does nothing to help you improve. This is why I voted negatively: 1) No central theme evident in the post. 2) No beginning, middle and end. 3) Numerous, disconnected pronouncements. 4) Verbose.

Exactly. See my post # 14.

Yes. For thirty four years. So you believe it is better to allow knowerastronomy to wallow in ignorance? You believe that is more humane? I am at a loss to understand why you should welcome ignorance in a fellow human. Since you seem to think this acceptable, even desirable I freely confess that I view the loss of your respect as a positive thing, much like being despised by Rush Limbaugh.

I find your repeated use of the phrase "give others a good laugh" to be offensive. If you trouble yourself to read what I have written objectively, and not with the knee jerk reaction that seems to have been the case, you will see that I reference that as the reaction we can expect from the less compassionate. Your use of the phrase implies that knowerastronomy's writings give me a good laugh. Since that is the exact reverse of my position I consider your use of this phrase in two posts is a deliberate slur on my character. As to your possible faults, you have identified these yourself. By your reaction you declare that you don't care that knowerastronomy is deceiving himself. Perhaps you think he is too old and senile to understand where he is in error. That is patronising in the extreme. I doubt my words will have the desired effect, but at least I gave it a try. And if your relationship with your wife is such that you cannot tell her when something doesn't match perhaps you should consider counselling. Again, your implication that the expression of my thoughts, designed to aid knowerastronomy, are equivalent to approaching complete strangers with commentary is ludicrous and offensive. You imply that this is exactly what I would do, or indeed have done. Knowerastronomy came here, to a public discussion forum and offered his thoughts. As such they are open to criticism. They have been criticised. Knower has ignored these critiques. Since he will not respond to reason, he may respond to raw emotion. You prefer to let him languish in his ignorance. How very humane of you.