Ophiolite

Ben, please keep your questions on this topic to one thread. If you want to post other clarifications put them into that thread. Perhaps a kind moderator will merge the two threads. You are looking for a simple answer to a complex subject. There are screeds of publications on production technology and quite bit of recent research on clathrate development, though not much of that is published. Can you be more precise as to why you are asking and. that will make it easier to pitch the answer appropriately, or to point you in the right direction.

It might be interesting to examine just how perceptive and challenging they are in their science. Do they ask the difficult questions, or do they accept the status quo as reality and just try to fill in the gaps?

It may be a romantic idea, but it certainly isn't science.

Editing is, indeed, important. I like the story attributed to Mark Twain. He wrote a friend an eight page letter which ended with this note. "I apologise for this long letter. I had intended to write you only two pages, but I did not have enough time."

Guys the only thing that matters is the density of the water, the depth of the water and the local value of g. That determines the pressure. p = ρgh where p is pressure, ρ is density, g is the gravitional constant and h is the height of the water column, all in appropriate units. We can neglect variations in g for water columns that are not of siginificant thickness.

I have a small measure of sympathy with some aspects of cypress's arguments. When I studied palaeontology and biology at undergraduate level in the late 1960s I felt there were inconsistencies in the data. No surprise there, but I was troubled by the glib way these inconsistencies were addressed. Gould and Elridge tackled some of the palaeontological ones with their proposal of punctuated equilibrium. The discovery of hox genes and epigenetic effects satisfied some of my concerns on the genetic side. Yet I still see an authoritative response to questioning of aspects of mechanism, both in forums like this and in popular accounts of evolution. Frankly I think there are important mechanisms we are still missing that govern evolution and account for diversity and emergence of complexity. Unlike cypress I see no need to posit some hypothetical designer (though I think it unscientific to discount the possibility), but I would like to see a more open recognition that the claim that small changes alone can build up over time to big changes may be in error. (As an analogy, the best evidence for plate tectonics was gathered after we started looking for it.) To return to my opening thoughts, where I have zero sympathy with cypress is that in hundreds of post he avoids saying directly what he believes to be the case. Equivocation, ambiguity and dissembling seem to be his speciality. That is frustrating, acts against a productive discussion and is ultimately extremely rude.

Since the gas reservoir in your example will be penetrated by a cased borehole the external hydrostatic pressure of ocean water and pore fluids does not have to be overcome. Once production is underway the only constraining pressure on the formation fluid is that of the column of gas and any associated fluids within the production string. The issue is then one of 'choking' back on the flow to prevent an uncontrolled release of the gas. In a depleted oil reservoir pumps may be installed in the well to maintain the flow. Alternatively or additionally gas or water may be injected in adjacent wells to sweep the reservoir free of remaining hydrocarbons. (Note that at best we recover only 50% of the oil in a reservoir, usually less.)

Poise in this context works for me. Those who have poise stand, or sit, or walk, with a combination of elegance and confidence. Metaphorically they conduct themselves in the same way, in behaviour and speech and writing. It's not the word I would have chosen, but it's close enough. 1. The time is not wasted, since it helps you improve your English and other posters to understand your meaning. That is not time wasted, but time invested. 2. Everyone makes mistakes otherwise we would be members of homo intolerablamus.

Unfortunately I have found both of your contributions ambiguous and vague. Frankly you both seem to be saying the same thing rather badly. What do you see as the difference between your positions?

No. If I had been, I would hardly have made the post I did. Since your grammar is in shape should you work on your humour?

Nicely expressed StringJunky - I've given you a + for succinct expression. With reference to capitalisation, it was Churchill who described the Americans and the English as "two peoples separated by a common language." Churchill would have been a blast on a forum. I need to learn new ASCII characters to capitalise? I think not. And the time and effort saved is that of the writer (one person) not the readers (hopefully several). It is rude, inconsiderate, mindless, counterproductive, foolish and ****ing annoying when people are slovenly in their writing. It betrays a second rate mind with third rate prospects. One suspects that people who wallow in such incompetence have no idea how to use a bidet.

How do you feel about spelling and capitalisation?

It had to be adaptable to become the 'fittest animal', not in the world, but in its ecological niche.

Butters, I have nothing to contribute other than an observation. This is about the tenth or twentieth appeal for help on a sci-fi novel I have seen appear in a science forum. This is the first one that has made me sit up and say 'I want to read that'. I do hope when you complete the story and get it published, you let us all know what to look for. Good luck with the project, Ophiolite

This is a multiple choice reply. Select your preferred answer in each instance. 1) So what?2) Only if you dispute the existence of emergent properties. 1) Within science numerous observations are accepted and hypotheses considered positively even when no causally adequate coherent explanation is available. Such events are often unpopular - Wegner and continental drift spring to mind - yet they are not rejected wholesale by the scientific community. 2) Demanding causally adequate coherent explanations for phenomena is equivalent to a commitment to materialism. 1. Incorrect. 2. Which aspects of computers do you assert are not reducible to only material causes and physical law? 1. Do you advocate researching magic for solutions to social, engineering or scientific problems? 2. So you prefer explanations that lack causal adequacy and are logically incoherent. It is nice to have such a powerful suspicion confirmed. 1. That didn't clarify things at all. 2. Incorrect, many speak of our natural world, by which they mean a material world which they will investigate while adhering to the principles of methodological naturalism. (Here's a hint: the clue is in the word naturalism.) 1. I agree this is plausible. 2. Just because something makes more sense to you or anyone is no argument for its veracity. 1. That didn't clarify things at all. 2. Incorrect, many speak of our natural world, by which they mean a material world which they will investigate while adhering to the principles of methodological naturalism. (Here's a hint: the clue is in the word naturalism.) 1. Transcendent causes are not rejected by adherence to methodological naturalism, but they are ignored since supernatural events lack the characteristics required for scientific investigation. 2. Methodological naturalism is a provisional position for science to adopt. Were observable transcendent events to be identified science could elect to move away from it. 1. Ah yes, but how are you going to replicate it? 2. Ah yes, but how are you going to replicate it? Sounds exactly like Stuart Kaufmann to me.

I should learn not to post when I am tired. You distinctly and clearly said parentheses. I distinctly and clearly read quotation marks Edit: As a short term work around you could place spaces between the brackets, thus - ( C )

Darwin is not mentioned in Mein Kampf, but a distorted perception of Darwinian principles is evident: Thus men without exception wander about in the garden of Nature; they imagine that they know practically everything and yet with few exceptions pass blindly by one of the most patent principles of Nature's rule: the inner segregation of the species of all living beings on this earth. Even the most superficial observation shows that Nature's restricted form of propagation and increase is an almost rigid basic law of all the innumerable forms of expression of her vital urge. Every animal mates only with a member of the same species. The titmouse seeks the titmouse, the finch the finch, the stork the stork, the field mouse the field mouse, the dormouse the dormouse, the wolf the she-wolf, etc. Only unusual circumstances can change this, primarily the compulsion of captivity or any other cause that makes it impossible to mate within the same species. But then Nature begins to resist this with all possible means, and her most visible protest consists either in refusing further capacity for propagation to bastards or in limiting the fertility of later offspring; in most cases, however, she takes away the power of resistance to disease or hostile attacks. This is only too natural. Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents. This means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the racially lower parent, but not as high as the higher one. Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life. The precondition for this does not lie in associating superior and inferior, but in the total victory of the former. The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable. The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice. Therefore, here, too, the struggle among themselves arises less from inner aversion than from hunger and love. In both cases, Nature looks on calmly, with satisfaction, in fact. In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a species' health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development. Mein Kampf - Adolf Hitler Volume One - A Reckoning Chapter XI: Nation and Race

"c" 'c' This didn't happen to me in preview mode. Let's see what happens when I post. Edit: That also worked. So either you are talking about what happens in word (?), or you and I have different setting somewhere, or I don't understand what you mean.

As we currently understand things the universe has no centre, therefore your question as currently phrased does not make a lot of sense. Movement has to be relative to something. The question is what do you propose it is moving relative to, given that it cannot be the centre? What are you imagining are the characteristics of spinning space-time? How does it differ from non-spinning space time? In other words how would the spinning manifest itself?

Natural selection is not random. Quite the opposite. The whole point is that favourable selections are selected for. It is not chance which mutations prosper. It is dependent upon the environment and the fit of the mutation for the environment.

Let's keep in mind that it is somewhat more complicated than the size of the body. It's mass, hence the density of its component units, is key. Also the mineralogy, structure, tehmperature and phase will determine its strength. Composition, especially for those asteroids which are primordial, will set possible temperature ranges based on the quantity of short lived elements present, which in turn will dictate melting and differentiation.

You are walking on dangerous ground here my friend. You need to be careful what you say. What humans 'know to be right and wrong' they know because of evolution. Evolution has generated the moral sense because in most environments in which humans find themselves cooperation, care for the sick, respect for elders, protection of children, all have significant survival value.

It is a continuum. Lions and tigers can interbreed, but they are very clearly separate species. In the wild they have no opportunity to do so. Some fish species (details forgotten, but I'll try to find them if you need me to) living in the same area, but with different behaviours choose not to interbreed even though they are genetically compatabile. There is no absolute cut off, though chickens rarely make it with elephants.

You have made substantial claims of 'fact'. You have also defined the character of scientific argument. Consequently, it behoves you to supply justification, in the form of peer reviewed research work, or the equivalent. It is wholly insufficient for you to say something is so without offering such evidence. That is not an answer to any question, that is merely a meaningless stomach rumble. Therefore I repeat my salient questions: Do you consider that a nomadic existence is equivalent to living in the wild? Do you think the characteritics of 'civilisation' lead to an increase or a decrease in the incidence of homosexuality? What is your evidence for your thinking on this matter? Ah, that explains a lot. You are in the position of seeking grades. I am in the position of handing them out.

Or your voters.