Ophiolite

In an earlier post, the one I was replying to you made the following statements. To paraphrase your statement, you are stating "Some things are frequently proven on the grounds of speculation."This is what I characterised as "utter, complete, irredeemable, coagulated nonsense". Nothing is ever proven on the grounds of speculation. Speculation can give rise to thoughts and concepts that may be later proven by experiment or observation. Those are two completely separate things. Indeed proof through experiment is the very antithesis of proof by speculation. The first lies at the heart of the scientific method, the second is a logical contradiction. So, no, in this regard I definitively did not agree with you. Is the distinction between the two clear now? You have stated that some proof can be by speculation. This is nonsense. If you agree we can proceed with further discussion of your ideas.

The problem with underground storage is potential contamination of the water table. Additionally anyone who thinks there are 'stable' regions in the Earth's crust doesn't understand the geology. [This includes many geologists!]

Arguably, there are no sides when it comes to objective observation, investigation and deduction. My point: you have a vivid imagination. This is a good thing. You are abusing it in flights of fantasy that you interpret as possible/probable fact. This is a bad thing. My fear is that you will interpret this as an attack on your person, when it is a careful word of advice to a fellow poster. Keep in mind the same motives imbue my response to this comment of yours. This is utter, complete, irredeemable, coagulated nonsense. Speculation often gives rise to scientific discoveries. Many/most such discoveries arise out of speculation. Speculation does not, cannot, never will prove anything. Whether or not the truth lies within. the proof lies without..

No. The presence of Jupiter, through its gravitational disruption, prevented a planet from forming. The asteroids are the remains of what might have been. No. It is VERY disimilar. Point one' date=' protons and neutrons don't orbit a nucleus, they are the nucleus. Point two, electrons, which are [u']said[/u] to orbit the nucleus, exist as a 'cloud of probabilities' that sometimes has a spherical shape, not circular or elliptical.

Can you explain why it bothered you?

Less enslaving than any other because of its larger vocabulary - I suggest.

CS, Imagination is best employed in reducing ignorance, not defending it, don't you think?

No ATM. The one before him that lasted 36 days. Not JohnPaul II, JohnPaul I is the one who was allegedly done away with. Elected as a compromise, since he seemed like a nice sort, he was actually going through the Vatican like Christ through a convention of moneylenders. Not everyone liked it.

The only conspiracy theory I ever had even a smidegeon of time for was the one that the smiling, liberal, godly JohnPaul I was murdered to prevent the Catholic Church undergoing a revolution (and to hush up the banking irregularities, and other unsavoury matters). If there was any truth in that then clearly the cardinals have learnt a lesson and have gone for the hardliner right off the bat. I now have to conclude, given his views on birth control, that the Catholic Church does indeed represent a global threat almost as severe as global warming. My apologies to any devout Catholics, but I live on this planet too and suffer the consequences of that policy.

Well, us.2u, this is rather off topic, but your idea isn't so crazy. The expanding Earth theory was proposed to explain the contrast between oceanic and continental crust, and the obvious fit of the Americas with Europe/Africa. [i have a Structural Geology text book published in the early 1960's that still mentions the idea.] However, the advent of plate tectonics demolished that and all the other competing theories, since it explained so much, so very effectively. So good thinking: another fine idea destroyed by facts. Now if we could return to the liquid Universe.

View this as excellent preparation for the 'real world' where (some) bosses and customers will feel entitled to deal with you in an equivalent way.

When I read the title my initial reaction was "that makes a lot of sense", thinking in terms of vortices, irregularities of the background radiation, and galaxy and galaxy cluster formation.......... But they meant really early. I was thinking minutes, they are addressing the first microseconds. Interesting link.

I agree with you completely that the equation has often been misused by persons trying to prove their view of the frequency of intelligent life. I think if you had said 'the common usage of the Drake equation is a pile of crock' I would have nodded vigorously. I subscribe to the view that intelligent life is very rare and I use the Drake equation to arrive at that conclusion. But, and this is a huge but, I do so by selecting a set of parameters that tend to the pessimistic end of the spectrum available from our current understanding. I would not be surprised if, when those parameters narrow, the probability of ETI was markedly higher than I currently rate it. Equally, I wouldn't be surprised if it was lower. I've generally thought that the preference for humanoid aliens stemmed from the accountants overseeing Hollywood costume departments. That said, one of the movers and shakers of evolution theory - whose name has run off to hide in some secluded group of neurons - has put forward some plausible arguments for why ETI would be bi-lateral, bi-pedal, sighted, with a brain at the top, and look like a comic book alien. If and when I remember I'll post his name - I think he's at Oxford. There were some weird critters in the Burgess shale. They had been known since the early 1900s, but it wasn't till the 70s that geologists realised quite what they had.

Mars wins hands down on almost every point. Here are just a few. More hospitable environment: Radiation at acceptable levels except during solar flares Reduced risk from micro-meteorites compared with the moon Moderate temperatures and temperature range Comparable day length Resources: Proven abundant water (even if most of it is in the ice caps Carbon dioxide and nitrogen in atmosphere to provide chemical feedstock Abundant material suitable for ceramic manufacture The delta-V for attaining Mars orbit is not much more than needed for lunar orbit. The big advantage of the moon, solar power generation, is fine for fourteen days, then you need some really big batteries.

Up until now I've thought your posts (and I guess I've read at least 200 of them) were sensible, mature and interesting. This one, in my opinion, is just interesting.

BlackHole, I believe Spyman is looking for information relating to the Centre of Mass for the Universe, not the Earth.

I'll take that to mean you aren't looking for a serious discussion.

Chatlack, I think most people would agree that population control would be beneficial to the longer term 'health' of the human species. Many, myself included, would like to see a substantial reduction in population numbers. That however, has huge economic, cultural, and social consequences. Therefore the means by which this is achieved and the timing of it must be carefully assessed. I think some of the negative reactions you are getting are because : you seem to insist this be done immediately you insist upon sticking with your bacteria analogy, even though this has nothing to do with the problem you have decided the problem is 'capitalism' If you would abandon, or set to one side these aspects you might get more positive responses. Just a thought.

Well Island, I see that you are serious in your contention that "all life formed at approximately the same time in the evolution of our universe,". We'll get on a lot better if we ask each other what our understanding of a point is, rather than assuming we already know it. Hence I asked you if you truly meant your statement quoted above. I believe you are talking within the context of the weak anthropic principle. If you’re not, then you are correct, I "have (not) the first clue what the context is". However, I can see no way in which the application of this principle justifies your conclusion. I would be interested in a demonstration of the applicability of WAP. Of course, it may be possible to save you that trouble: what do you consider to constitute approximately the same time? If you mean over a two to four billion year time frame I would agree (subject to changing "all life" to "most life"), but that would bring an undesirable breadth to the use of the word approximate. If my incredulous initial question upset you, excuse me, I did and do find your contention incredible. I trust you will be prepared to attempt to explain your rationale.

I would be prepared to lift my objection to the death penalty if we can locate the individual who coined "mandatory volunteering".

I have it somewhere. If I can put my hands on it I'll post the original of that passage for you.

Only meaningless because you are ignorant of its function. Drake laid out the equation to provide a framework for discussion at the first ever conference on extra-terrestrial life. Each term in the equation identified some aspect, astronomical, biological or cultural, of the problem that would have to be understood before we could accurately estimate the number of extant civilisations. It was not meant to provide a vehicle for making this calculation, other than as an intellectual exercise. It achieved its initial goal so effectively that it has acquired an unlooked for longevity. As I hope you see, the equation now focuses attention on our uncertainties and consequently on the range of possible results. It's not about proof, it's about stimulating investigation and providing a framework within which results may be placed.

Damn. I was looking forward to an intriguing debate. Never mind.