Ophiolite

That's a good experiment. However, it seems you have not conducted it. Drag between the different elements of the set up will cause the inner ice to rotate. If you model with the viscosities you actually obtain in the interior of the Earth the drag is proportionally greater. Moreover you are missing the point that the core is rotating, not because the crust is rotating, but because of the angular momentum inherited from those components that came together to form the Earth and from which the core separated. I'm not sure what is the this you are referring to. The banding on Jupiter and the other giant planets is a poorly understood phenomena. Certainly it is governed by atmospheric conditions of pressure and temperature that determine which compoounds will condense to form clouds, and by the global circulation patterns. But the details still elude us.

It becomes increasingly clear that the process of stellar formation, whether of singular or multiple star systems, leaves some debris in its wake.

I am a global warming skeptic. I think it is not only plausible to have doubts, but essential, especially if we wish to honour the memories of Bacon and Galileo and Newton. We should doubt the data gathering techniques, we should doubt the analytical processes, we should doubt the conclusions. We should doubt the researchers, we should doubt their motives, we should doubt the peer review process. Doubt is a cornerstone of good science. Skepticism is an essential part of the scientific method. Having doubted all of these things in relation to global warming I am left with the distinct impression that global warming is very real and very serious. However, as a good skeptic, there is one area in which I have no doubt. I do not doubt the possibility that new research could turn our current understanding on its head - its just that that possibility is, on the balance of the evidence, extremely remote. In the meantime we should proceed on the basis that global warming is a real and present danger. Oh, and have a look in your dictionary. You will likely find that skepticism and denial are not synonyms. Skeptical? Just go ahead and check.

The Professor of Biology at Tibet University in Lasha, for obvious reasons.

The statement is based on observation and experiment. Your counter statement is based on personal belief and incredulity. I'm not a creationist: i don't like creationist logic, regadless of what field it is applied in. Now tell me specifically which basic physics principles you think it violates.

Please provide appropriate citations from peer reviewed journals demonstrating this concept.

Are you contending that their is no inertia to scientific theories that delay a change over to a more productive paradigm? That seems to be the position you are adopting. I would welcome a clarification.

I think I'm done here. You reach your conclusion without even reading the paper! No more to be said.

I am not proposing that there are some external factors at work. I am stating that if their are wholly natural processes, currently unrecognised, that influence the path of evolution then these may stand outside any evolutionary algorithm. I repeat that what you seem to have done is demonstrate that aspects of evolutionary process can be described mathematically and thus proven, but you have not demonstrated that all aspects of the evolutionary process can be so described. View this response as a placeholder while I ponder your suggestion more carefully.

Right, so you are basically using the logical fallacy of Argument From Incredulity. The apparatus is described in section 4. of their paper, as are there experimental results, which showed power being generated. Unless you have something more substantial than your own belief system to offer up, I shall provisionally go with what is revealed by the experimental data.

It might be useful to carefully draw the distinction between vestigial = having no function at all, and vestigial = having, perhaps, a minor function, but one different from its original. Crazynutz may be arguing past you all, and he past you. The tenor of remarks here reminds me of how I am treated when espousing evolutionary theory on creationist sites. It is unseemly, undignified and counter productive.

You think their experimental mehodology was flawed? In what way?

The significant words in the post are "when two binary stars merged". There is now only a single star. That would be an interesting event to watch.......from a suitable distance. You can read the full paper here. Edited for typo

Mixing word salad with spurious maths is not something, in my opinion, to be liked. Couple it with poor communication skills and you have a bad advertisement for science.

That is because you have been targeted by the Illuminati as part of a vast conspircacy to corner the market on hush puppies. You nknow to muc, its just that so far you don't know that and they are trying to prevent you finding out. Now that I've told you I shall have to kill my peahc trees, or something like that. (Did you know that the orignal hardcopy instructions for Google use was an anagram of The Ancient Mariner by Samuel Coleridge?)

Would this be better suited to a blog, or does it not really matter where people don't read it?

In your example you also have to consider how wise are those assessing the wisdom of the actions of the man.

Hal is unable or unwilling to tell me what the advantages of the idea are. Will you?

No. You are mistaken. The inner core is solid; the outer core, where the magnetic field is generated, is molten. This was recognised because of the inability of seismic shear waves to pass through the outer core. Edited addition: I've just noticed that you have repeated the error from a previous thread of saying that the magnetic field and the atmosphere are the same thing. They most certainly are not. They are two completely different things: one is a field the other is a mix of gases. sullivt8, I am not quite sure what you mean by this: The mantle and crust are composed of silicates, not iron. They do not 'spin orbitally', whatever that means, around the core, but rotate with it. (There is some recent research that suggests there may be a very small slippage between core and mantle.) The magnetic field is generated by a self exciting dynamo arising from convection currents in the outer core. This is fairly well established as detailed computer models of the system give an excellent match to observations of the field. (As a complete aside it was, I think, Queen Elisabeth's physician, William Gilbert who first recognised that the Earth acted like a giant magnet.) You are broadly correct that magnetic charge arises from electrons: magnetic fields are generated by the movement of charged entities. Google a few sources to get a more detailed description of how it all works.

I opened the thread in the hope of discovering how a Roman Catholic helicopter would differ from a Methodist one. I am still none the wiser.

A small correction, but a necessary one if I am to defend my brother geologists. There were two dialogues. The first initiated by Hutton, who saw "No vestige of a beginning, no trace of an end", carried forward by Lyell (who was victorious in the Uniformity battle), then erroneously answered by Lord Kelvin, whose calculations failed to account for radioactivity. It was resumed in the 1950s when, for a brief period, geologists had established the age of the Earth as greater than the physicists and astronomers had determined that of the universe to be. The latter finally got it right.

Hadley cells.

Fine. The world is a global marketplace. We don't live simply anymore. This idea would be disruptive and counter productive. France and South Africa are already at pretty much the same time. You obviously give no thought to Iranians, New Zealanders, Chileans, Alaskans, or Indians. Let me try again: it's not a good idea.

I have absolutely no doubt that this is a thoroughly impractical, undesirable, expensive idea which would attract no support from any culture or country on the planet. I currently know that if I am in Houston, or London, or Singapore, or Dubai, or Perth what time I need to get up to go to work. What time I can expect restaurants to open and shops to close. With your system I would continually have to remind myself what was breakfast time in KL, or wherever I happened to be. Chaos and confusion. And I ask again, what possible benefit do you think would accrue to this insanity?

What advantages do you think this would bring? (Don't worry about the disadvantages: I already have a long list.)