Ophiolite

I suspect that dreams may well have several of the functions proposed by various researchers. I have used events in dreams to facilitate my waking life. Only last night I dreamt of restructuring one of the courses I teach and fortuitously woke up mid-dream, so I was able to capture the new structure. On reflection the ideas I was working out in the dream are probably the best way of proceeding and are quite different from how I had been planning to approach the issue. Now I am fairly certain this is not the primary function of dreams, yet clearly they can be used for such a practical purpose.

The 'catch me if you can' model is a wau of explaining the physics without mentioning the physics. I recall it in the following version. Imagine a tall tower with a canon on top. Fire the canon and the ball will follow a curved path towards the ground, landing some distance from the tower. Apply a larger charge, or a lighter ball and it will travel further. The larger charge has given it a higher velocity, so that it can move further horziontally in the time it takes to fall vertically the same distance. But if the distance is substantial because the velocity is high, there will come a time in which the distance fallen vertically matches the curvature of the Earth and the ball will now be in orbit. (Obviously in this simple mind experiment ari resitance is ignored.)

Then you would likely appreciate the coverage of US news in the Economist. Many decades ago I gave up Time and Newsweek for as sources on the US when I realised The Economist did it so much better.

It is observationally interesting and scientifically inconsequential.

Hemanth you have a noble goal, to reduce the death and destruction caused by earthquakes, unfortunately your plan will fail for several reasons: The fundamental reason your plan won't work is that expansion of gases has absolutely nothing to do with plate tectonics. Plate tectonics are related to convection currents, but these are most certainly not caused by expansion of gases. Let us pretend that earthquakes are caused by gases. Let us pretend that we could develop the technology to drill an 1100km borehole. The permeability of the rock at that depth is close to zero. Any gases present would be from a few metres from the borehol only. 99.99999999% of the gases you think are in the mantle would not be accessible from this borehole. The impact on earthquakes would be zero. Why would a flow of magma from the mantle deliver pure metal? (Here is a hint: it wouldn't.) It is a comparison that is not valid. Earthquakes are not caused by expanding gases. The Earth does not have a problem. If we did not have earthquakes life as we know it on the Earth would be impossible. Earthquakes are an essential part of plate tectonics and without plate tectonics the continents would long since have been eroded below sea level. If you wish to have a mitigating program then look into how earthquakes may be encouraged to occur more frequently so that their magnitude is less. Finally, your proposed drilling program is wholly impractical on almost every level. I applaud your enthusiasm for this project, but the aim is fundamentally flawed and the details impractical. I recommend you put your energy into exploring how to ease movement along fault planes by the injection of water.

No frigging way. Proud of our initiation of the fifth great extinction event in the Earth's history? Proud of our willfull destruction of species for sport, or pseudo-medicinal benefits, or because they are in our way? Proud of our destruction of multiple environments? Proud of our inane messing with the balance of the Earth's climate? Proud of our reduction of biodiveristy? No frigging way. You ask me why do I use an emotional expression like "rape the entire biosphere". The answer is simple, if you are not emotionally, intellectually and logically opposed to that rape then you are a massive part of the problem and a serious threat to life on the planet, including all human life.

Fine. So show us those plots. It is your hypothesis. You have to do the leg work, not us. Otherwise it is just arm waving on your part.

I agree it is counterintuitve. I am accustomed to working with sonic travel times through formations in oil and gas wells as a means of determining compressive strength of the rock. The sonic travel times are generally lower, i.e. the velocities are higher, in the rocks with a greater density. But that density difference is due to a difference in porosity. Sometimes you can't see the woods for the trees.

I think it's sad that this gives foxes a bad name. (I suspect a chicken conspiracy.)

On the other hand, while many species have been capable of destroying their own local environment, we may be the first that has had the ingenuity to rape the entire biosphere. Credit where credit is due.

Until you can provide an answer to my question as to the number of earthquakes of the stipulated magnitude occuring in a ten day period (within the circum-Pacific belt) your prediction has zero value. If you do not understand why this is the case you really shouldn't be playing at science - you aren't equipped for it.

I simply have no idea what you are talking about. I believe you are sincere, but your statements simply make no sense. You refuse or are unable to summarise your thesis in a couple of simple sentences, or at most paragraphs. I'm giving up for the moment, but because it is rude to swear on the forum. If I can find the moral fibre to return I shall do so, but man you need to sit down with someone who can write English and explain your ideas to them and get them to summarise them for you. The present approach is fruitless. Good luck.

Should there not be a rule that says threads based on faulty dimensional analysis don't even get the luxury of the Speculations sub-forum? Just a thought.

Perhaps that's because thorughout history there has been precious little evidence for impactors. We could revisit Velikovsky, with a focus on his evidence, not his mechanisms. We could look more closely at the OP research. But I stick by my earlier comment: the success of the bolide impact in explaining the KT boundary extinction has made impactors a fashionable and sexy concept - an explanation in search of problems. In asserting that the Vostok temperature drops are the result of impactors what alternatives have you considered and why have you rejected them? How well are the Vostok data supported by other palaeoclimate data? (In other words do these data global, or regional conditions?) On a lighter note, I don't think anyone ever claimed that the lunar craters were made of rubber.

I still have no frigging idea what you are on about, unless it is this: it seems you are questioning the validity of how science is presently conducted. You think that too many irrelevant observations are included in hypotheses. You think that the only things that should be included are items/events/entities that are part of a cause and effect chain. Is that short description of your thesis correct? Please, if possible, give a yes or no answer. Let me try to deconstruct one or two of your paragraphs and show you what is confusing me. (It may not just be me. The absence of queries or comments from others suggests they have given up on you.) Grammatically the question referred to above is the it mentioned in the succeeding sentences. However none of those make any sense. It might make more sense if the it was the current model, but that is not what you have written. The end result is that I have no idea what you were trying to say and since this is the introduction to your response I am now adrift with no reference points as I continue deeper into your explanatory morasse. For me at least, you really need to get your act together and start expressing yourself clearly if we are to make any progress. Perhaps other members will post saying the they find your writing lucid. If so the fault will lie with me, but it doesn't look that way at present.

The orientation and navigation of juvenile alligators: evidence of magnetic sensitivity from Journal of Physiology A, 1984 Tenebrio beetle pupae show a conditioned behavioural response to pulse rotations of a geomagnetic field from Physiological Entomology 2007. Magnetoreception from Sensory Systems Neuroscience: Fish Physiology, v. 25, Elsevier Inc, pp. 335-374. As this random selection of journal articles shows this is hardly news. And as swansont points out, it certainly does not require a new model of the atom to explain it.

In the course of one year how many earthquakes of magnitude 6.7 or greater are there in any one ten day period?

You say this is your thesis, but this is just a statement of how the scientific study of ice ages works. I suspect the particular causes are buried in your subsequent posts. Here is the bad news: the structure of your writing makes reading it painful and understanding it difficult. Despite a sincere effort I cannot get through even a third of your post headed Final. Here is a single example: I have no idea what you are trying to say or how that sentence relates to what went before and what came after. I appreciate it is difficult when working in a foregin language - perhaps you could try writing shorter sentences. I remain willing to discuss your ideas and will be happy to do so once I know what they are.

I was not at all hurt by your remark. I thought it was foolish and uninformed - or in simpler English, wrong. I included it in my signature in order to ridicule you, which perhaps led you to think the remark had hurt me.

I want to repeat, so there is no doubt, the spherical nature of the Earth was fully understood when Bruno was alive, accepted by the Church and standard thinking for centuries. You almost certainly were taught that Bruno was burned at the stake for his support of Copernican theory. That's the simplified version that makes science look good and the Church look bad. It's part of the popular idiom. However, things are rarely that simple.

I suggest it depends upon which aspects of the world you are looking at. If you are looking at it from a purely mass perspective then it is, almost, a closed system. However, in most instances it is assuredly not a closed system since we have substantial thermal input from the sun. I'm surprised you've found textbooks describing it as closed. I suggest you take a closer look at the caveats they may have applied that would render it a closed system in the context they are considering.

Superball I want to communicate to you that your posting style is, for me at least, very frustrating. You still haven't given me any insight into what your thesis is. Please cut to the chase.

There can be no doubt on the part of thoughtful, intelligent, reasonable people that Apollo travelled to the moon on more than one occassion. Individuals who think otherwise are either rather young and enjoying the excitement of breaking free from metaphorical parental bonds by challenging authority, or they are suffering mental challenges, or they are in league with the space aliens who command this sector of the galaxy and faked the moon landings.

You don't recall correctly. Bruno was burnt at the stake for bucking the status quo and challenging the authority of the church. There was no issue as to the roundness of the Earth, which had been broadly accepted for many centuries. He did hold to the Copernican view of the Earth revolving around the sun, but this was likely a minor ingredient in his supposed heresies.

Superball, perhaps you have been so close to this study for the last two years that you have lost sight of the fact that it is all completely new to us - or rather your particular take on climate change is new to us. I still have no idea what it is you are saying. Could you summarise your thesis in a couple of paragraphs, so that we can move forward from that. You say this: I agree completely. will you now provide an outline of that model and explain the causation chain you are proposing?