Ophiolite

enough is enough. I expect to be censured by the mods for this post. So be it. There is only so much stupidity I can tolerate. You have exceeded the quota. Crap. The objections from the outset were to your nonsense that earthquakes were responsible for the lengthening of the day and the increase in the moons orbital distance. You have also failed to even address the point that changes in the Earth's day due to earthquakes can be positive or negative. This has been pointed out to you by more than one person on more than one occassion, yet you continue to ignore it. Why? At first I thought it was because you were afraid to answer. I now suspect that you don't even understand why this is an issue. Prove me wrong. Deliver a cogent response wherein you address that point in meaningful way. You invite us to consider orbital forces instead of tidal forces raised by gravity. You think - I laugh at this - that the moon is incapable of lifting a single grain of sand. Tell me, oh great one, what is it that makes you right and one hundred thousand physicists wrong? If you have such incredible insight why have you not communicated this through a publication in Nature or Science? Is the peer review process a conspiracy against innovative thinking of your sort. You don't understand geology. You don't understand egyptology. You don't understand physics. I look forward to your contribution in the biology forum: why multi-celled eukaryotes were the first life form on the planet, from which prokaryotes devolved. Grrrh!

You have car problems. You get to the pharmacist late. It's closed. You ran out two days ago. The walls start closing in. The neighbours are looking at you even more intently than usual - you know that because they are hiding, nowhere to be seen. What are you going to do? Obvious! Join a forum.

That's why my theory is scientific. I predict that about 100,000 years before this another such giant star will emerge nearby. This is where the solar goldfish will move to once they finish construction.

I really must protest. You are being deliberately obtuse. The alternative is even less complementary. I am not denying that the angular momenta of the Earth and the Moon are linked. Indeed, I am declaring it loudly, firmly and with total conviction. I have stated as much in previous posts. I have agreed, indeed I insist, that certain changes in angular momentum of the Earth are associated with changes in the angular momentum of the moon. The relationship exists because of the tidal influences of one upon the other. Tides are the mechanism by which angular momentum is transfered from the Earth to the moon. This relationship is well documented and understood. The NASA laser ranging program has allowed measurement of the changes in lunar orbital distance that result from the transfer of angular momentum. The values are consistent with, as I understand it, the values predicted by theory. There is no perceived need to add a further mechanism for generating what we see. There is no change of angular momentum due to earthquakes. The change in the length of the day is caused by a redistribution of mass. , The net effect over time is zero. It doesn't matter whether there are one, or one hundred million earthquakes in a year, the net change of day length is zero. The point is that the change of day length because of earthquakes is not due to a change in angular momentum - it is due to the conservation of angular momentum by the Earth. You say you taught college physics for thirty years, yet apparently have a poorer understanding of simple mechanics than a mathematically illiterate geologist. I am ill equipped to assess your expertise in ancient Egyptian texts, but if it is as deficient as your grasp of physics then I respectfully decline to accept your proposition on the eye of Horus. That isn't science, that's superstition.

Jesus, man. Give me a break. Could you try to begin the process of maturing maybe sooner, rather than later. Here you are hmming and hahing over what to do on an internet forum and yet you won't grant her the same right to uncertainty. You don't even consider the possibility that she was sitting there thinking "Why doesn't the big mutt just ask me out. all he seems interested in is being in a study group. He isn't interested in me." Meanwhile you aren't prepared to put in a little bit of time and effort to build a worthwhile relationship - maybe a clue there as to why you got screwed over on earlier ones? Get a ruddy move on. And good luck.

gf, please, with a simple yes, or no, tell me if I have understood you correctly. You define occult texts as texts which have been manipulated to promote the beliefs and interpretations of those persons engaged in the manipulation. That is what I take from your somewhat garbled earlier responses to my request for a definition. If that is what you mean it would have saved us both a lot of trouble it you had said it on the first time of asking. On the topic of the moon, let me summarise the objections several her ehave. 1. The change in day length as a consequence of earthquakes is small, smaller than you claim by an order of magnitude or more. 2. (I'm not sure it has been explicitly mentioned, but that change could be an increase, or a decrease. The skater can move her arms out as well as in.) 3. The transfer of angular momentum between the Earth and the moon is through the mechanism of tides. It occurs slowly and essentially continuously. 4. There is no mechanism (nore any need) to transfer angular momentum changes resulting from earthquakes to the moon. In summary, your understanding of the influence of terrestrial earthquakes on the moon is badly flawed. No, that's not strong enough. It is completely, irredeemably wrong. I do hope you will acknowledge this.

alex, this is a Caltech press release. Are you an accredited Caltech representative? If not then surely you should have cited your source. As posted you give the impression this is your writing.

Perhaps the star has been assembled to create the solar goldfishes' version of a Dyson sphere.

You have still failed completely to define what you mean by occult in this context. In supposedly answering my first request you simply stated that one of JohnB's quotes was occult. you did not say whay you mean by occult. Would you do so now please? I am constrained to echo my earlier remarks. In this exchange JohnB is coming across as a sober, knowledgeable, patient, informed, reasonable person. Your posts have en edge of hysteria and agenda pushing. I presume you wish to promote your hypothesis, convincing others it has substance. If so, you are going the wrong way about it. If not, then you are merely a troll and I suspect your time here will be short. You alone have the power to change how you are perceived.

I might make an exception in the case of homo sapiens.

gentleman-farmer, I must thank you and JohnB for an utterly fascinating exchange. I lived in Egypt for four years and took the usual tourist opportunities to visit pyramids and ancient temples. It is a delight to sit in the grandstand while individuals who really know something of this history debate. So my first purpose in posting was to extend that thanks. My second purpose was to offer some advice which I hope you will accept in the spirit in which it is offered. Your enthusiasm for your subject is leading you to level accusations at JohnB that to the casual observer seem more emotional than reasonable. That approach can only serve to weaken your argument. I am sure this is not what you intend. I shall be happy to expand with examples if you wish and by pm if you prefer. In the meantime, like Klaynos, I too would like to know what you mean by Occult in this context.

Yes there is a very good reason. Extensive interbreeding of the entire global population such that only superficial characteristics, influenced by one or two genes, are restricted or concentrated within a single 'race'. Characteristics as complex as intelligence, owing their quality to multiple genes, development (in the womb and in childhood) the environment and, in the case of intelligence, cultural factors. I believe we already had that discussion as a society. If we ignore those with an agenda on both sides of the argument and focus on facts we arrive at the conclusion that the 'races', whatever they are, are equal in terms of intelligence. From a job prospect point of view, for any well managed company with a proper hiring policy this wouldn't matter anyway, since few companies do, or should, hire on the basis of intelligence. Intelligence is a useful asset, but it hardly assures success. Agreed. that's because a) not everyone in academia is intelligent; B) intelligence is not the same as perceptiveness, emotional sensitivity, objectivity, logic, common sense. For the reasons noted in my opening paragraph I believe Watson to be mistaken. There are greater genetic differences between members of any 'race' than there are between 'races'. That is sufficient to invalidate the concept as it is traditionally used.

If you don't go for it you will still be wondering in fifty years time what might have happened. If you do go for it the worst that happens is you suffer a few moments of embarrassment, or a disappointing short term relationship. (Aged persons know all to well the things we regret are not the things we did, but the things we did not do.)

May I recommend interested persons refer to The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopedia Site. As of today there are four hundred and sixty four planets listed.

You owe him an apology. You owe yourself a more critical approach to what you read.

We need to take the plate tectonics issue further. As the crustal plates are carried into the mantle by subduction at the trenches, temperatures rise. Partial melting of the rocks occurs and magmas are generated which make their way towards the surface where they erupt as in the Andes or the island arcs of Indonesia. Contained within those magmas is a considerable volume of carbon dioxide which is thus recycled back into the atmosphere.

One can never eliminate the concept of irreducible complexity as long as it is supported by inexplicable stupidity.

Wrong. The sun appears yellow because it is yellow, or maybe yellowish green. The peak of solar radiation is at those wavelengths. Astronomers even to choose to describe it as G-type main sequence yellow dwarf.

Hi rigney, you said this: Now I don't know what your area of expertise is, but suppose you were an aeronautical engineer, specialising in design of jet engines. Suppose I say "what allows the engine parts to rotate against each other with such high velocities without burning up, and do go mentioning lubrication the word makes me nuts." In that situation how are you going to answer me. Spyman provided a lighthearted example of the only kind of response that can be given in these circumstances. You have asked a reasonable question, then shut down all avenues for us to provide an answer. Let's try Newton's First Law. Objects will remain in a state of rest or uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force. So if no external force acts on the Earth it will go through the universe in a straight line forever. But there is a force acting on it. That force you don't want mentioned and that force causes it to fall perpetually towards the sun. All the planets and satellites and asteroids follow similar paths. The smaller bodies are influenced to a greater extent than the larger ones. That's why the asteroids have never combined to form a single body - Jupiter is to close and exerts a disruptive influence on their orbits. Does that help.

Wholly invalid. A new hypothesis should answer more questions than current theory. This raises more questions than current theory and actively suggests 'facts' that are false. The lunar mare are supposed to have erupted at the time of capture. How then do we have ages for these that are more than 3 billion years old? There is no effort to explain the geochemical similarities and differences between the Earth and the moon via this capture hypothesis. The paper states that with a 'dancing' capture, spread over time, less energy needs to be dissipated. Rubbish! The rate of dissipation may be less. The total amount is the same. And so on......

Perhaps because the government fully understands that smokers would instantly use this as an excuse to continue smoking, rather than trying to discontinue. The average citizen does not do cost benefit analyses. If they did they would not have elected the governments they elect.

Moontanman, your own reference material makes an important point. It is the emission of neutrinos that is responsible for the majority of the cooling of the star. Radiative cooling is comparatively unimportant, for the reasons of surface area that myself and Insane Alien have been promoting all along.

You are moving the goalposts. If there is no activity at all I would say the brain cell is dead. If you meant no activity that results in a control or processing function then I would say yes, 90% of it would have to be in this state to say one was using only 10% of ones brain.

I agree with inow. You can get a lot of really useful suggestions from forum members, but you need to offer at least some provisional thoughts of your own.