Ophiolite

I voted for I do not tend to speculate and post my own "new ideas". However this was because it was closest to my preferred response, which was not present. I do tend to speculate, but i do not post my own "new ideas". It would be arrogant in the extreme to post improperly formulated ideas on the forum and expect them to be accorded any kind of attention or respect. I am continually belwildered by the psychology of those who do post such ideas with the apparently sincere belief that they are correct. I can only attribute this, in most instances, to deep rooted stupidity or simple brain damage. To say I have the utmost contempt for such individuals would be to understate the situation. I sincerely believe their approach to life and to science undermines society in a small, but significant way. You asked. I answered.

Do you mean circulatory system? Circularity system makes no sense to me.

There might be fewer wars. There could not be less wars since a war is a discrete unit.

Do you mean collective noun?

My impression is that you could be a cpmpetent, cookie cutter scientist, filling in the details of a broad brush theory without an ounce of philosophy. If you wish to make a real impression on the field you had better have a solid basis in philosophy. Paradigm busting doesn't happen without deep thinking.

I have no idea what your reply means. i see the words. I notice they are assembled in sentences, however the semantic content appears to be zero. Either provide evidence that the strong force does not exist, or retract your statement.

Science and technology are two different things. Science is not concerned with productivity in any definition you care to give. Science is a methodology for discovering more about how the world works.

The 99.9% of those qualified to defend the strong force do so on the basis of substantial evidence supporting its and minimal to no evidence contradicting it. They will continue to defend it, not to the death, but until the time that that changes. The other 0.1% (Not 1%) are delusional.

Dale, something you may find productive to reflect upon is that science is practiced by scientists. No, this is not a snide way of saying if you aren't a scientist what are you messing around for. On the contrary, scientists have one major weakness. They are also human. Consequently they are prone to react in human manner when they are outwith their normal operational framework. I think we can agree that a science forum is not a normal operational framework for a scientist. At the very least a scientist on a forum will feel greater freedom to act as a human first and a scientist second, albeit subconsciously. How does this relate to your concerns? A post like that above full of injured tone, snide asides and self righteous confidence is not the way to get a human to pay serious attention to your claims. If you can't get the attention of the human then, on a forum, you are unlikely to get the attention of the scientist. I can't help thinking that you would have enjoyed a more positive response if your posts had been along lines like these: "I've been studying xyz for some time. It's an area that offers interesting possibilities for research since there are still many uncertainties of how abc occurs. I've developed some ideas I'd like to run past you and would welcome your input, positive or negative." Now the end result may still have been the same, but now you could have greater confidence that it was because of a scientific rejection, not a human rejection.

The units of density are kg/m^3. The units of energy are m^2·kg/s^2. How then can you possibly say that maximum density cannot exceed E=mc^2? This is dimensionally purest nonsense.

Michel, your argument is somewhat persuasive, but ultimately my belief in the power and beauty of reason when coupled with a passionate joie de vivre means that I find great difficulty in accepting that a thinking individual can retain views such as Dave does without deliberately not thinking. That of course, constitutes willful ignorance. Yours is a slightly more optimistic view of the world, mine - I fear - may be more realistic. Unfortunately Dave will probably never choose to return to let us determine which is true in his case.

I find the public exhibition of willful ignorance very upsetting. And frustrating. And sad. And dangerous to the survival of humanity. It sickens me.

Dave, it is unfortunate that you have chosen to run away from the opportunity for enlightenment. Your ideas of what science is and what evolution is are distorted and wrong. If you are not willing to enter a dialogue with those who have knowledge in these areas then you will remain with wrong and distorted ideas. I do not truly believe this is what you want. Many of us have training in the scientific process and are able to evaluate, objectively the published research work of others. A few of us - not including myself - have conducted such research and advanced the field of human knowledge a little here and there. I am very comfortable to accept the provisional findings of others because I am able to assess their data and their methodologies. By reviewing a body of research on a specific topic I can get a detailed flavour of current views on that topic. If I have less interest I could simply wait a year or two till the concepts make it into text books, or a little longer till they are to be found in popular books, or TV documentaries. At any time, however, I can dig back deeply into the research on the topic and make that objective evaluation of its value. Your take on evolution seems to be straight out of the Creationist handbook. You are suggesting that a chef cannot be a chef unless he also knows how to grow the food and raise the animals he will cook. Nonsense. And it is just as much nonsense to declare that we need to have explained the origin of life in order to account for its evolution. Here's the thing: if God created the very first life by a supernatural act then stepped back, it would make not an iota of difference to evolution. It does not matter how that last common ancestor was established, it is what happens to that ancestor's descendants, controlled by evolution, that matters. As to your thoughts on missing links, you are seriously confused in this area. If you are willing to remain in the forum there are many, myself included, who would be happy to help remove that confusion, as long as you were sincere in your intentions. The rest is up to you.

So far your posts, as mississippichem has pointed out, are mainly word salad. They are almost incoherent, sound like fourth rate waffle, offer no clear terminology, present no cohesively linked argument and deliver a vague speculation which is completely unsubstantiated. And these are the good points! The only way you can retain a smidgeon of credibility is to offer something substantive in the way of a mathematical treatment of your idea. If you choose not to do so the conclusion will likely be that you are another sincere individual who has deluded themselves into believing they have discovered something fundamental about the universe, but actually has only some trite, vague oversimplifications. You could start by explaining this in rigorous terms: "I simply used the two basic constants of nature; c/s and G (universal gravitational constant) both of which are directly related to the three basic quantities; mass, space, and force. And by reversing the process I obtained the amount of energy that the universe consists of..."

Dave you seem to be making a mistake that is common to those with average exposure to science. You think that scientific knowledge and science are the same thing. They are not. They are very different. Science is a process. It is a simple process with a few simple variations. Start with an observation or to and think of an explanation, test the explanation, gather more observations, refine the epxlanation, test it further, build up a body of evidence, observations and tests that all confirm the progressively refined explanation until it is solid enough to granted the honorific of theory. At any point be prepared to substantially modify or completely disregard the evolving theory if a confirmed observation demonstrates it to be false. That is science. Some theories in science are so well established that it would be wholly unreasonable than to do other than accept their reality. (With the proviso, that if evidence ever did emerge to cause that to be doubted then we should do so.) Scientific knowledge, as a consequence, is more fluid and ever changing. That is its very attraction for many: the possibility of discovering something new about the world. Scienctific knowledge moves forward five paces then back one or two. At any one time we can have a high degree of confidence as to the relative soundness of our theories and our hypotheses. In that regard the confidence level for aspects of the early universe is very high. You may choose not to believe this, but you do so through intuition, not rigorous application of the scientific method.

Dave, be aware that Divinum's cosmology is quite non-standard. This does not mean it is wrong, but that it is very likely wrong. Certainly ideas expressed with the lack of internal cohesion, consistency with practical observations and zero adavantage over existing theories, as is the case here, usually turn out to be wrong. As to your observations about old ideas about Mars and Venus, keep in mind that we have vastly better observational data on the early universe than we had on those planets at the time those oudated ideas flourished. That said, canals were never broadly accepted as such by other than a fringe element. I also suspect the idea of vast tropical forests on Venus was more of a popularisation than a conventional view. Keep in mind that it only since the sixties, or even the seventies that the study of planets became a respectable occupation.

Indeed - a poor choice of title. I opened the thread expecting something about the loss of three trains in the Japanese earthquake.

Thank you Divinum for your clarification of your usage of the word light. As lemur has pointed out this is not a scientific use of the term and your associated thoughts do not really have a scientific basis. They are speculations of a philosophical, or even religious nature. As such I'm not sure I have much interest in pursuing them further. Thank you for your time.

How did you arrive at the figure of 1.65x10>71 Jules for the energy of the universe? Is this only the visible universe? If not, how have you determined the total size of the universe? .

Two things to discuss John 13. You repeatedly make reference to the constancy of many species over millions of years. Please take note of this simple fact: there has been no such constancy. To say that lemurs have always been lemurs is pretty much the same as saying soap powder has always been soap powder. Even allowing for the exagerations of marketing people, today's soap powder is dramatically different in detail from the soap powder of fifteen, or twenty years ago. It may still come in cartons and wash clothes, but its precise chemical make up is quite different. So to with lemurs and every other example you have given. Even when the outward form remains roughly the same the exact DNA sequence will have gone through many changes. In short, as with most of your points, you don't have one. Secondly, you say you have lost your faith in evolution. Others have pointed out that acceptance of evolution should not be based on faith. (That would be dumb.) However, at the risk of being censured by the moderation staff, let me say what is doubtless in the minds of most readers of this thread. You never had any faith in evolution. You have come here with trite, tired old creationist arguments merely to troll. If I am wrong I shall apologise profusely. Demonstrate I am wrong by explaining how you came to acquire your knowledge of and belief in evolution. That will better allow us to see how you 'lost your faith'. Alternatively be an honest Christian and admit you have posted here under false pretences.

I am reasonably sure that this is against the spirit, if not the letter of forum rules. Please respond to the questions aand points raised in my earlier post. If you choose not to do so I will be compelled to report your thread and ask for moderator action. This is a discussion forum, not a blog or pulpit.

Divinum, I find your opening remarks confusing. You appear to be using words in unconventional ways. For example you say "Light on the other hand has many more qualities, but its general meanings are; action, operation, cooperation, motion, speed, velocity, force, power, might, and it even spells into the realm of life and knowledge such as mathematics and intelligence, and many more." That is certainly many more attributes of light than I would consider. I would need to see considerable justification to convince me that light = power, or light = velocity. Perhaps you will clarify matters in later posts.

For the record, having read and re-read your OP and subsequent posts I can fairly declare I am unenlightened. I am not sure if this is because your communication style is opaque, or because you are talking nonsense, or because I am low quality intellect. Your best bet would be to assume the latter, since that will remove any disappointment you might feel at failing to convince a truely enlightened individual.

I have long favoured pan spermia as an explanation of the appearance of life on Earth. The research is interesting, but something this important requires some very critical analysis and certainly comparable evidence and conclusions from other, wholly independent studies.

Genecks I have to echo what others have already said and I do so knowing you may react negatively and close your mind to our comments. I have read your comments and your observations carefully then reread them. I then asked myself if you were an employee of mine what would I make of your attitude. How would I characterise you to a colleague who asked how you were progressing. Regretably my summary would be "He's a whiner who presently lacks the maturity to understand the world doesn't owe him a living. We'll toss him in the deep end a couple of times more, but if he doesn't change his mindset he's going to drown." I am being brutal, because I think brutality may be in your best interests right now. Reflect on what I have said. If you wish to engage on these points further I am happy to do so in this thread or by pm.