Ophiolite

The problem with the use of profanities is that such use is too often indiscriminate and all but continuous. Profanities, used exceedingly sparingly, can be powerful aids to clear communication. They can convey a sense of shock, passion, frustration, or even awe. (When I saw the Grand Canyon for the first time I stood rooted to the spot saying f***, repeatedly for a full fifteen minutes.) Used in a thoughtful, strategic manner profanities should even be encouraged as a means of enriching communication. In practice this might be difficult to implement successfully, but the effort could return such usage to its rightful place in the repertoire of the effective writer. I say, discard the filter, but let each of us diligently seek out and condemn each inappropriate use of profanity, but equally locate and praise each worthwhile application.

You are mistaken. The radiation is not radioactive. The material which is disintegrating to generate the radiation is radioactive. You learned things incorrectly when you were twelve.

Impossible was a poorly chosen word. Impractical would have been better. The load imposed on the muscular and circulatory systems by a constant weight almost twice what we have evolved for would lower quality and length of life.

This was a badly constructed poll. Objectively I had to pick the first option since I have had two personal instances where I saw a ghost. They matched all the characteristics of many of the ghost sightings by persons who believe them to be departed spirits. In each case I know, from various matters I shan't bore you with, that they were simply hallucinations (no drugs or insanity involved).

Is this also analagous to the way that when you fart repeatedly in a public swimming pool your course through the water is changed?

I hold the view that since we have only a single example of a biosphere, that we cannot make meaningful predictions as to what is possible or probable, until we have a better understanding of how that life arose. There are multiple hypotheses for the process of abiogenesis, but none has been worked out in detail, or verified by observation or experimentation. Until that is done any estimate of possible life forms, or how life originates is going to be a barely educated guess.

Scientists are human. Human's do have fears of security, including job security. Any junior scientist will therefore be careful to challenge current consensus only when they have solid evidence to support that challenge. They will also understand that a solid challenge can best arise from a solid understanding of the current consensus view, its strengths and its weaknesses. The true geniuses, the brilliant, original minds, may arrive at this solid understanding early and raise their challenges early. The average, mundane scientist will likely recognise that their contributions will be additive to knowledge, filling in the detail, but not revolutionary in scope. They will choose not to challenge the 'knowledgeable crowd' because they know they have no challenge worth raising. Both class of scientist is important to the advance of scientific knowledge and both are practicing good science. So, the short answer to your question is No. People are attracted to science largely because they are fascinated by new ideas. Discussion of new ideas permeates most aspects of their working day and probably even more of their off time when in the company of other scientists. I imagine it is rather difficult to get a research grant to investigate an old idea. You don't seem to have considered that. You appear to be practicing what you are accusing the 'scientific establishment' of practicing: a form of censorship of discussion. Do you think that it rather ironic? I have no idea if I fall into that category. I focus on what people write here, not who they are. However, your restriction is laughable, as has been pointed out by several others. If you are arguing for open discussion, then put your money where your mouth is and discuss: frankly, openly, with all comers.

There are several reasons why this discovery should have virtually no impact on our assessment of life beyond the Earth, including reasons for suspecting that life will not be possible on this one. 1. If current theories of planetary formation are generally correct then it is virtually certain that Earth like worlds exist. This discovery is not the first planet whose mass is of the same order of magnitude as the Earth. 2. The existence of a planet within the Goldilocks zone in no way assures us that liquid water will be present in quantity, only that it could be present in quantity. 3. The presence of a planet within the Goldilocks zone, with water, gives us zero additional data to support the presence of life, since we do not know the likelihood that life will arise in such a situation. 4. The planet is tidally locked to its parent star. As such we may expect extreme temperatures between the two hemispheres with two possible outcomes. Either very high velocity winds that would place severe restrictions on life forms that might develop, or - more seriously - the risk that the atmospher would freez out on the dark side and thereby disappear in a geologically short time period. In terms of possible colonisation, as the planet is three times the mass of the Earth it is likely that this would be impossible without massive bioengineering of human DNA.

Excellent idea. The only way to find out if it would work is to try it. Further discussion would be fruitless. On your marks......

The four major satellites of Jupiter are probably the only original satellites. The others are captured asteroids.

What is your evidence for saying that most people have these beliefs. I think you may be guilty of committing the same errors that the media makes when reporting scientific studies: you are generalising and misinterpreting from inadequate or poorly understood information. As to the claims themselves, what makes you think we could not live on the Moon or Mars? Why do you think space mining is a joke? When you suggest a trip to Mars is not possible in ten years, do you mean politically and economically impossible, or technically impossible? the same question for the Moon base or Mars base? I don't think these questions are off topic, but address your OP. You seem to be forming your opinions based upon a minimum of information of questionable reliability. That would explain why you have little confidence in science: you are not being directly exposed to any.

Hal, I'm not sure I have confidence in your conclusions concerning radiation and the Fukushima incident. You state this: And yet earlier you has said this: Radioactivity is not a property of radiation. Radiation is a consequence of radioactivity. That's the complete reverse. I'm left pondering the reliability of all your statements. Michael, I am disappointed in your illogical approach to risk. As others have pointed out, if we wished every activity to be risk free we would find it impossible to function. Risks need to be properly measured against the reward, but they have to be accepted at some level. You object to building a nuclear plant in a seismic zone. I have two points in response to that: 1) Anywhere on the surface of the planet could be subject to a bolide impact that could breach the reactor vessel. Do you therefore propose that no nuclear plants be placed anywhere on the planet? Should all human habitation in tornado alley now be evacuated to avoid the death and destruction that must surely follow from dwelling there? 2) The plant stood up to the seismic shocks with no problems. The tsunami highlighted a weakness in design philosophy that had no primary relationship to the integrity of the reactor. Each time you turn on your computer you have made a choice to accept that kind of risk. Blaming the nuclear industry when the culprits are the electricity users is dishonest and blinkered.

I'm not quite sure why this isn't in speculations, but anyway, let;s take a closer look at your idea. These robot workers will, presumably, be built by companies which are owned by shareholders who are looking for a return on their investment. How do you achieve the transition from a situation where they reap the rewards of their investment, to one in which the benefits of their investment are turned over to everyone. The conventional method is bloody revolution. I wondered if you had an alternative. Do you have substantive reason to believe that we can create an AI capable of running a company. Having robots that can run equipment and build other robots is one thing, but can you create a robot that has sufficient intelligence to make the business decisions necessary to run a global enterprise? If you can, what is to stop that robot deciding it will work for itself, rather than its maker? And who is making the decision on what goods to produce, where to produce them and how many to produce? You think the products would be practicaally endless, but where are your raw materials for these products coming from? Sure, robots can mine and farm and sp forth, but there are still limiterd resources on the planet. An army of efficient robots churning out virtually endless products would just use up the natural reousrces more rapidly. I want to have to have a home in the centre of a major world city, with a hundred rooms or so and several acres of landscaped garden. What if other people want the same thing? How are you going to provide it? If you cannot provide that, then certainly some people will lose status, something you said wouldn't happen. The issues of available resources and the transition to a new system remain. Besides, what do you plan to use to replace the oil that is used for making synthetic fabrics, fertilisers, plastics, etc? The tools of production are relatively unimportant compared with the materials of production. Or, 1. Continued disputes over who gets what. 2. Accelerated problems as resources are depleted at accelerating rates. 3. Global armageddon as robots, humans and fantasists battle for the last inch of Amazonian rain forest.

You are, I think, still somewhat confused. There is no caldera. A caldera forms when a magma chamber, emptied of magma, collapses. There is no connection between an inpact crater and a volcanic crater. (No nitpicking from others please.) The depression you refer to is there. It is most certainly a physical remnant, though it has been subsequently buried by later sediments. You could say that this a result of new crust forming, but that would not be the conventional way to describe it. There is a possible similar crater, much smaller, also discovered by geophysical methods in the North Sea.

It would be unwise to suggest to a geologist that theirs is a sub-science. Clearly, since they use other sciences as mere tools, theirs must properly be considered the parental and superior science. Astronomers may mistakenly see geology as some subset of astronomy, but this comes from too much stargazing and associated neck ailments.

Yes, it is too much of a stretch. Firstly, everything organisms do is not in the interests of their survival. For that to be true they would have to be omniscient in order to choose the best option of action out of those available. This is clearly not the case. Secondly, the majority of mutations are truly random. Comparatively few circumstances induce a mutation rate significantly above the average.

So why are we still relying on oil?

No. You would also have to know the speed in that direction, i.e. the velocity of each particle. Even this modified question would be irrelevant, since it is not possible to know these with precision for even a single particle.

I refer you to the forum rules. Perhaps to adher to the spirit of the law it is necessary. 8.Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them. - (My emphasis.) More practically I imagine you come here to discuss ideas. If your ideas are not comprehensible to an intelligent and educated forum member you may find the discussion limited. Thank you for providing the abstract of the paperby Nassim Harramein. (It would have been helpful if you had included the author name, paper title and publication details as well.) I note that this was presented at the 9th International Conference of Computing Anticipatory Systems and was published in their proceedings. As such it was almost certainly not a peer reviewed document. I note that google scholar can only locate a single citation of the paper and that is by a researcher who also appears to have some fringe ideas. Is this what your distaste for the concept of the strong force is based on?

jamiestem, you ignored my last set of questions. I hope you will take the time to reply to these? Spyman has adequately demonstrated why your notion of a white dwarf at the core of the planet is wrong. What, if anything, do you find flawed in his argument? Do we know what the core of the Earth really is? We have a very good idea based upon two separate lines of evidence: seismology tells us what the properties of the materials must be, while laboratory experiments can reveal what materials will have those properties; awareness of the composition of the material from which the planets formed confirms what we suspected. What is it in these vast arrays of interlocking and supporting information do you find improbable? To think outside the box productively you must know the size and shape of the box and have a good understanding of its contents. You do not have these attributes at present. You have a vivid imagination, but unless you channel it withint the set of possibilities you will squander that resource. jamies, really! This is purest nonsense. If the scientific community thought they fully understood the solar system why would thousands of scientists be engaged in researching it?

Are these rocks off the Yucatan peninsula oceanic, or continental? If they are continental, do continental rocks generally get significantly subducted? If they are oceanic, what age are they? What is the age of the impact crater? Globally are more impact craters found in oceanic or continental crust? What is the age of the oldest oceanic crust? What is the age of the oldest confirmed continental impact crater? If you can answer these questions (happy googling) then you will have the answer to your own question. Ask specifics if you are having any difficulties.

A substantial body of evidence and well rehearsed current theory point to the planets all having formed within a few million years of each other. How do you account for the diverse sizes. If there is an evolutionary sequence, why is Venus the same size as the Earth? How come Mars is smaller? How do you explain the moon? The total mass of asteroids in the asteroid belt is only sufficent to make a body considerably smaller than the moon, not by any stretch of the imagination a whole planet. as above. Then you just get silly. Wouldn't it be worth investing the time to learn something about where the evidence for the origin of the solar system actually points?

There has been abundant material in this thread that should have caused you to change your mind. Had you failed to do so it would have cast in you in a sorry light. Nothing you or anyone else has said in this thread should have led to even a smidgeon of a change in spyman's position. Readiness to change one's mind has to be contingent on there being evidential or logical reasons for doing so.

I'll bite. Which are the five domains? Which domain is extinct? Which are the 37 "types"? I notice, rather oddly, that your thirty seven is one more than a commonly accepted animal phyla count of thirty six? You are either informing us of a new and interesting classification system, in which case a reference would be welcome, or you are orally expelling bovine testicles.

A Happy April 1st to you also.