Ophiolite

I don't know this and no one who has studied the matter knows this. The roundness of the globe was known to the Greeks a millenium or so before Columbus. Any learned person in Europe at the time of Columbus and several hundred years before was well aware that the Earth was round. You are parroting nonsense that circulates among those whose education is acquired by word of mouth. You are mistaken. Science can disprove theories, but it cannot prove them. Some theories become so well corroborated that they are accepted as 'fact', but it would take only a single observation to falsify them, so that 'factual' status is always provisional. I recommend that until and unless you understand that basic characteristic of scientific theory you would be as well not to comment on the status of current theories. It might make you look foolish.

This is one of scores of papers dealing with the intensity of the Earth's magnetic field that demonstrates that field strength was the same or less in the past. You would be correct to accuse me of cherry picking: I have selected research that yields the greatest field strength from the range of values claimed within that research. Despite this attempt to select material that seems to support your prediction, it fails to do so. So one of your predictions has fallen at the first hurdle. This surely reduces the likelihood that your hypothesis is valid?

I understand that is a common practice along with odd grammar that is still intelligible.

May I make two observations here? If you ask a question, indeed start a thread with a question, and then ignore a significant number of points made and questioned asked, that is rude. When you then break off half way through that discussion declaring you have had enough, leaving questions unanswered and points not addressed, then that is very rude. You should be aware that such behvaiour may discourage people from engaging in discussion with you in future. I'm sure this was not your intent, which is why I am taking the time to make you aware of the issue.

Surely the answer is obvious! This is the era of Science Forums, The Original.

It would be more helpful to quality discussion if you did not answer a question with a question. I shall repeat mine. Could you give specific examples of individual, or groups, of elementary particles so we might better understand your intent. For example do you consider any nucleus to be an elementary particle? If not, do you consider an alpha particle to be elementary? I am not trying to trip you up: I am trying to understand what you mean and to bring clarity to your assertions.

Amr, you appear to be using elementary in a non-standard way. In my (limited) experience the terms elementary and fundamental are equivalent. Could you give specific examples of individual, or groups, of elementary particles so we might better understand your intent. For example do you consider any nucleus to be an elementary particle? If not, do you consider an alpha particle to be elementary? ..... and I imagine you can see the difficulty there.

That definition has the merit of matching pretty well to that of Karl Marx who most would concede should have a say in the matter.

There is more knowledge in the world than any one person can know by several orders of magnitude. Therefore we are all hugely ignorant. I participate in forums such as this reduce my own ignorance and, if I can, help to reduce the ignorance of others. Perhaps you have other motives. I apologise. I am truly sorry you are oversensitive. Would you prefer I had allowed you to remain ignorant? If so I can certainly oblige in future. (By the way if you had told me that I had ignored fifty things and each of your statements were accurate I should have welcomed your input, but if you want to use a different approach I'll try to respect it.) You are taking that statement out of context. Forty plus years in industry gives you an eye for bullshit.

Would you please tell me what was racist about my post? I shall be intrigued to hear you view. I deliver a damning indictment of racism, prejudice and strereotyping through a pastiche of Dekan's post that was arguably racist, and certainly indifferent to human suffering. My post was sufficiently pointed to garner two positive rep points until you came along and neg repped it, just because you couldn't recognise blatant irony. Feel free to apologise at any time.

In fairness to the rain, this was only because the British government took the view, ably expressed by Dekan that there was no use sending "aid" to these people. They seemed fundamentally incapable of doing anything, except asking for more aid. (They were just Irish after all. ) The government could keep giving them aid for a hundred years, and they'd still be asking for more. So, really, lets not blame the rain - either its over abundance in Ireland, or its shortfall in Africa. Let's put the blame squarely where it belongs on the uneducated, poverty stricken, debt ridden, resource deprived peoples of the Horn of Africa. And let's drink to that. A Napa valley Merlot from 2002 should be ideal.

Regretably I am also a layman, but I am satisfied that the experts making these declarations are doing so within the constraints of well defined theory. (Though a layman, I pride myself on being able to spot bullshit from 6 parsecs away.) As is often the case, Wikipedia is a good starting point and I offer these links, which I have found useful, as an introduction to the concepts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_timelike_curve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timetravel This is also a useful link, on Tipler cylinders: http://www.andersoninstitute.com/tipler-cylinder.html

To answer the OP, time travel may be possible. Time travel, to the future or past, appears consistent with the mathematics of general relativity. Whether such a process would be practical, or whether the theoy would be borne out by further study is another matter. 1. You have ignored the time compression that occurs as speeds approach that of light. 2. You have ignored the possibility of generation star ships. 3. You have ignore the possibility of suspended animation. 4. You have ignored the possibility of aliens with very long life spans.

Captain Panic makes excellent points. The obsession with terrorism when there are some real problems in the world is a serious barrier to a better world. For the record my family are under instructions that if I am killed in a terrorist attack they are to sue the pants off of any media that has the ignorance to describe me as an 'innocent victim'. By tolerating the injustices in the world through inaction I am anything but innocent.

What advantages does your hypothesis offer over current conventional theories? How would you go about falsifying it?

If these were simple questions how come you didn't know the answers? Don't you think it is rather arrogant to expect 'us guys' to have specialist knowledge that you lack. It's OK for you to be ignorant on these points, but we are expected to have the answers. Amazing! Members here are phsyicists and chemists and doctors and geologists and enthusiastic amateurs and astronomers and businessmen and biologists and students. Why the merry hell should they have specific knowledge about welding materials and polishing aluminium? Then, instead of accepting that you had been unlucky in finding anyone with this knowledge, you throw a hissy fit and get angry. I suggest instead you get real and do some rapid maturing. With an attitude like that I frankly wouldn't share the solutions with you if I knew them. Not as long as we can count on you as a member.

Several points arise, some of which have already been made. 1. No country has practised communism. The Soviet Union was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Socialism, as defined by Marx, was a stepping stone on the road to communusm. And, as has been pointed outthe implementation of socialism was haphazard, corrupt and ineffective. That is an argument against Russia, not against communism. 2. Marx thought the appropriate place for the initial steps towards communism were Germany or the UK, not a backward, despotic, feudal Russia. There is a scene in Doctor Zhivago where soldiers on the front learn of the revolution, the removal of the Tsar and the rise to power of Lenin. "Who is Lenin?" asks a soldier. "He's the new Tsar." is the reply. Russia never had communism - it never had true socialism - it simply had a new power structure. 3. The dislike of Communism arises from the fear of empire building on the part of the 'communist countries'.

Could you provide a citation for this please.

Hello xxx2000, first an off topic remark: using large font does not enhance your argument, it just makes you look like a small child with crayons. The evidence for the process of evolution is extensive. You probably don't understand how extensive. If you were eighteen and set out read all of it (not study it - just read it - not even understand it, just read it) you would be unable to complete reading it before you died. It falls into a variety of categories, including: 1. Palaeontology - multiple sequences of fossils, through time, showing changes in form and function. 2. Comparative anatomy - the presence of homologous structures in birds, bats, bulls and baleen whales is but one example 3. Embryology - the developmental cycle reveals evolutionary connections 4. Genetics - the character of the genome reveals not only the relatedness of organisms, but some of the means by which the differences arose Any one of these sets would be sufficient to demonstrate the reality of evolution. In combination they represent unassailable evidence for the reality of evolution and provide immense data from which the mechanisms can be progressively understood. What is it that makes you think a man is superior to a bacteria? That is very anthropocentric thinking. Bacteria were here long before man and will be here long after him. You have more bacterial cells in your body than you have human cells. If you are so superior, how come you tolerate that? Can you survive in suspended animation for a few million years? Bacteria can. Can you reproduce yourself every half hour, or quicker? Bacteria can. Can you survive in and flourish in acid? Bacteria can. Can you readily exchange genes with other bacteria to enhance your survival potential? Bacteria can. Etc. So where's the superiority? Oh, I know. Anything we can do is a superior, desirable, positive, first rate, did I mention superior, thing. If we can't do it, then it's not really important. Alive and kicking. Evolution is a very slow process, nevertheless we have observed it at work in the laboratory and in the field. (Incidentally, we've been using it ourselves as a species for several millenia, domesticating animals and plants. That domestication was evolution.) Wrong. Fortunately the reality of evolution does not depend upon your ignorance. We do see the process of evolution now. If you are open minded I, or another member will be happy to give you references. but you will need to convince me you are open minded enough to read them honestly.

Nonsense. Cite an instance where we have sufficient detailed data of the event to be able to forumulate all of it mathematically. We see the results of the process in the fossil record and can infer, to some degree, the steps from genome analysis, but to suggest we can currently deliver the necessary precision to do what you are claiming is simply not the case.

You have made your point clear, but that clarification was necessary because you had said you saw nothing wrong with the approach of "using the argument from personal incredulity". There is also a difference between well grounded scepticism and knee jerk, dogmatic scepticism. i am not saying you are practicing the latter, but I sense some of your objections come rather close to that position. This devalues such arguments as you may have.

However a few million years in the context of 3.5 billion years is nothing. Further, you are working - in each instance - with the same basic DNA and genes. It's not surprising that given a similar problem the solution would look similar.

I'm fairly sure i have around a 1,000 species of bacteria in my gut and like number on my skin, so that provides a good starting point. And to Dekan who, for some peculiar reason thinks humans are superior, please ponder this: if we ceased to exist the vast majority of bacteria would never notice. If they ceased to exist that would be the end of humanity.

I believe I have posted this in every thread in every forum on which this topic arises: you can't make a meaningful extrapolation from a sample size of one.

You are becoming tiresome. 1. Your initial statement "The scientists are quick to conclude that the sun was not formed by the same nebula based on the unproven fact that they did." is incomprehensible. This has been pointed out to you, but you chose not to clarify it. 2. You appear to believe that (a) this piece of research demonstrates that the planets were formed from a different nebula than the sun, and that (b) the scientists conducting this research have affirmed this view. 3. The abstract of the Science paper makes it abundantly clear that, as I have demonstrated, that such is not the conclusion of the research. 4. The quotation by McKeegan, out of context, in a journalistic article does not trump the clear statement within the abstract. 5. Even if it did, the statement most certainly does not suggest that the sun and planets were formed from different nebulae. 6. What the abstract makes clear is that sun and planets were formed from different nebular materials. 7. Do you understand that the phrases different nebulae and different nebular materials convey two completely different meanings? 8. The differences of isotope ratios are suggested to be "probably via nonmass-dependent chemistry before accretion of the first planetesimals" within the same nebula from which the sun was derived. 9. What is it about these very simple concepts you are having so many comprehension difficulties over? Edited to clarify point 8.