Ophiolite

My statement was not an attitude, but an objective assessment of your hypothesis, which entirely ignores established observations.

I suppose some of your best friends are lesbians. do you wish to comment on the administration of hormone blockers?

Some background information, including magnification used would be helpful.

The two parallel lines are infinitely far away and as you can see they do not meet.

I do not see how something that is generally known by anyone who has taken a serious interest in such matters requires 'proof'. This is established science. The data are just about as solid as anything can possibly get. Baric has very kindly provided you with those data and a simple explanation. In my view he need not have done so, but it was certainly thoughtful and productive for him to have done so. You suggest a comparison with politicians debating. What you are asking for is equivalent to an MP in the House of Commons complaining that he was unaware of the role of the Speaker of the House. If he is an MP it is his duty to be familiar with how the House operates. If you are proposing an alternate view of planetary formation it really is incumbent on you that you be familiar with current theory and associated science. Apparently you are not. There is nothing wrong with that until you start complaining about it. The responsibility to be informed in those matters rests with you, not with others. You say you have offered this alternative as a consideration. That's all well and good. So , why won't you accept that it fails as a consideration?

Baric's statements are based upon established science that has undergone the rigours of peer review and validation by many independent tests and observations. Therefore baric does not require to offer proof of such statements. Since you know that you are offering a non-standard explanation you must be familiar with the current consensus view. Therefore there is no need ofr baric or anyone else to direct you to current conventional wisdom. On the other hand you are proposing a radical departure from conventional wisdom. That certainly requires more justification than a mere statement from yourself. You have done some arm waving about "minerals growing from a certain molecule in water". Quite rightly we are asking for some details that would be consistent with your hypothesis. I know of how several minerals can grow from certain molecules in water, but none of these would provide the mechanism you are looking for. so, if you cannot provide a plausible explanation then that avenue is closed to you.

Starting to get annoying?! Your patience and diligence here have been outstanding. Respect for your diplomacy prevents me from saying what I am thinking about The Light Barrier's 'theory'. I know you are smart enough to imagine it. Job well done, let him sink without a trace.

You seem to be hung up on the invalidity (alleged) of the nebular hypothesis. You have given absolutely no explanation of why the speed of the star is significant. The star and the accretion disc both condense from the same cloud and so their relative velocity is small. There is simply no problem. what do you think the problem is?

And once we have overcome personal death we would then be faced with the ultimate death of the universe. In addressing that problem our descendants might come full circle around to ...... the Big Bang, thus uniting science and at least some religions.

I believe I have found the problem. I searched on Bing for "Unicorn Transformation Programme" and received this notice : "Your current Bing SafeSearch setting filters out results that might return adult content. To view those results as well, change your SafeSearch setting." Clearly Yaniv has encountered the same difficulty, but has been unable to remove the adult filter. This would be consistent with the observation that his posts have generally been childish.

One of the following: 1. Nothing, because it will turn out to be a methodological error. 2. Nothing, since it will turn out that some neutrinos are tachyons. 3. Utter, complete, delightful chaos, leading to a radically improved understanding of what we think is reality.

It has never been considered an explosion by anyone who had more than a cereal packet understanding of the process. The explosion metaphor was used to simplify the concept for the lay public. If by recent evidence you are referring to the detection of an accelerating expansion rate this had no effect on our perception of the process as an explosion, because it wasn't an explosion. We don't think of it as an explosion. We have never thought of it as an explosion, except in seriously dumbed donw explanations. On reflection the metaphor has probably done more harm than good.

After reading the thread I felt strongly inclined to agree with Greg and hypervalent. The only justification for the method I can see is that it might be quicker. As a simple test - not scientifically rigorous - I timed myself drawing phenylethylamine by both methods. It took 13 seconds in each instance. Now, vasten, you might argue that familiarity with the conventional system would allow me to draw that more rapidly. Perhaps. However, the last time I likely had occassion to draw an organic molecule in that way would have been in 1967. I don't think I've retained much motor memory of the process over the intervening forty odd years.

I would first ask on what basis do you say that most banana leaves are torn? How are you defining torn? Is this applicable to all varieties of banana, in all geographical locations?

This is my hobby.

When do you expect to complete it and present the results?

Thank you for your kind remarks. There was no ad hominem in my post. (That would be unnecessary as your posting style addresses your character far more effectivley than I ever could.) My post was in response to one of yours that paid no attention to actual subject matter yet seemed to merit a response.

I have examined this situation in detail and am forced to conclude (reluctantly) that you are 100% correct, with not even a glimmering of a chance of error. This has meade me feel quite ill so I am going home.

That wouldn't be telepathy, that would be clairvoyance. I don't think he's claiming to be clairvoyant, is he? . Also, to the other proposed tests, it does rather strike me akin to the following: Mr. A - I can read you no. Mr. B - Read! Don't be silly. You can't read. Mr. A - No, really, I can. Mr. B - OK then. See that big building over there. Tell me what it says on page 42 of the third book on the fourth shelf of the third rack to the left on the second floor. Aha1 I thought as much. You can't read.

That's a great question. Here's one for you. How do you handle humour? Ah, we already have the answer to that, don't we. You take some gentle admonition for nitpicking as a 'sarcastic snark'. How would you handle an actual real world situation?

As I believe I indicated in an earlier post, that depends upon how you define dominant and superior. If you set the ground rules from an anthropocentric viewpoint then it will not be surprising if humans seem to come out on top. I was rather hoping for a more objective approach. Well, you have certainly presuaded me that humans possess immense destructive power. In my definitions of superiority you will find that creativity outweighs destructive capability by an order of magnitude. You have also demonstrated that your grasp of facts is weak. You have placed so many caveats on your first point as to render it valueless. You might also want to check how many people are killed by mosquitoes every year. They make Al Queada look like pansies. We can kill most bacteria. We are fast approaching a point where more and more resistant strains arise and dominate our health landscape. Apparently you have never heard of MRSA. I don't think your cobalt encrusted H-bombs would do much to bother the subterranean lifea kilometre or so down, feeding quite happily of the rock as it has done for billions of years. Certainly humans are different from other animals. Did you know this? Kanagaroos are different from other animals too. And tigers. And rabbits. Each animal is different. That's why we invented a classification system with species and genera and families and orders, etc. Acknowledging that we are animals is only downgrading us if you have an inflated sense of self worth and don't like animals. A chimpanzee cannot do orbital analysis using tensor calculus and neither can I. The chimp can, however, survive in a jungle that would kill me in a few days, at best. True, with time I might learn to survive there, but I'll never master the chimp's clibing skills, nor match his pound for pound strength. Noting that we are animals is not belittling us. Noting that we may not be superior is not belittling us. Noting that we may not be dominant is not belittling us. Having the destiny of a planet in our hands and screwing up that destiny is most certainly belittling us. I do wish we would stop.

And relative to everything else, which kind of makes it absolute.

I completely agree with you that classification of humans as dominant or superior depends upon which criteria you use. While one can argue the case for different criteria, I really don't think it is valid to compare humans (a species) with families, classes, order or phyla. You could certainly argue for comparison with genera, but going beyond that you are comparing apples with orchards.

Unfortunately there has not been any science from one side of this 'discussion' since the outset. Failure to close down a thread where one participant is either actively trolling, or is devoid of logical thought and either way continually repeats nonsense, strongly suggests that the field is open. Open for what? Open for the use of satire and irony to supplement the logical arguments by which the opposing view has been dismantled. These are valid tools in the armoury of scientific discussion, as illustrated by many brilliant exchanges in the pages of peer reviewed journals. I think they should be equally welcome on scienceforums. I'm not replying to a mod comment, which is certainly a reprehensible act, but replying to a reply to a mod comment, a right enshrined in the Magna Carta. Het is indrukwekkend om te zien iemand die onzin spreken in twee talen.

@36grit I imagine you made the post in order to share an idea that is important to you. Just as a reference point for you, I found it totally incomprehensible. It has the apperance of word salad, though lacking the nutrition value of a true salad. Perhaps the failure is mine and others will grasp your meaning at once. Perhaps not.