Ophiolite

My point, nicely buried beneath my rhetoric, was that the discussion proper can't start until at least some of these points are elucidated with facts rather than opinions. I was surprised that no one (as far as I noticed) had offered any substantiation of their opinions, although I suspect there are reasonable data out there. So I was disappointed that what could be an enlightening discussion of pertinent facts has (in fact) been largely an expression of opinions (I think). These may be worth hearing, but they are hardly as intriguing as hard facts.

Right..... Paragraph two of your opening post: That was a reasonable thing to wonder. Several posters, myself included, have indicated that it is, however, not so. Are you ready to abandon the idea and move onto more productive speculation, or do we require to provide further evidence to convince you?

CS, you placed a quote of mine in post #17. In this quote I asked a question. You followed the quote with three paragraphs of what I took to be a response to my question. In these you cleary said "When you remain closed-minded and constantly terrorize people .............". Naturally, I took the "you" in this case to be me. So I asked for examples. So, yes, I did take the remarks personally, in the sense that I thought you were referring all of those characteristics to me. Personally, in the sense of 'offended' - No. I did ask for references - examples of when people had been prevented from their right to pursue further analysis of gravity. It had never occured to me that: a) You considered your poetic and flawed speculations about the nature of gravity to be analysis. b) That the opinions of a few anonymous entities expressed on a public forum could ever prevent someone from pursuing what they thought worthwhile. Clearly I am having as much difficulty making myself understood by you, as you have in making yourself understood by me. [Your not my wife by chance?]

Wow! Again, wow! So our observations are wholly contingent on our theoretical model. I guess that's where physicists have been going wrong all these years!

Demand a re-imbursement of your tax dollars allocated to schooling.

The progress is in the details. I repeat my earlier remark - "You seem to be talking technology not science." and ATM "I think you are confusing science with engineering." Which is it? Because I can make a solid case for either.

You seem to be talking technology not science.Forty years ago plate tectonics had just made an appearance in the Earth Science journals. It was possible to take a course in geology at one of the top Universities in the UK and have that topic barely be referred to. Major inconsistencies in the geographic distribution of ancient ecologies and sedimentary sequences existed. The causes of the geochemical diversity of lavas was undefined. The salt cycle was not understood. Pre-Cambrian paleogeography was sketchy. The list goes on. Today, from the enrichment of the plate tectonic hypothesis, earth science has been transformed. I find your premise to be flawed for geology and suspect it is equally flawed for most other sciences.

Christ Slave, you appear to think one or more people have been rude to you. When was I closed-minded? When (and more relevantly, how) did I terrorize you? When did I degrade you? I told you you did not make sense to me. Do you wish me to pretend that you do? How will that help you, or anyone? Yes I have said, or certainly implied, that several of the things you have said are wrong. They are. Do you really wish me to pretend they are not? I have attempted, by my questions and statements to you, to demonstrate where you are in error. To help you approach your own exploration of science from a more solid basis. I could have ignored your posts as meaningless drivel. I have tried to provide a little guidance to let you rescue your imagination and apply it effectively. I guess that's just my "high and mighty ego" at work.

google for fullerenes.

We haven't defined what we mean by smarter. We haven't defined intelligence. We haven't distinguished between intelligence and its expression We haven't identified the extent to which knowledge impacts on this expression. We haven't clarified the role of environmental factors in allowing intelligence to develop We haven't contrasted the requirements for intelligence in hunter-gatherer, agrarian, and industrial environments. We appear to be having a discussion built around a couple of ephemeral terms and a bunch of unsubstantiated opinion. Tycho? has hit the mark perfectly: "its all nicely hypothetical".

Doesn't sound like it would be worth it on either count.

I am a do gooder. Can't say I see what's reprehensible about doing good. If I were ever to find myself in a prison system such as you advocate, then, regardless of my guilt, when I got out I would be determined to make society pay for what they had done to me. And I'm quite a nice guy really. I can only speculate how it would piss off the hardened criminals and sociopaths.

But you can compare the pyramids with the Huygens probe, and vice versa.

Not that I can think of. But that would hinge on your definition of 'simple'. Would you clarify exactly what you mean - perhaps address what lies behind the question.

Surface tension. Moons don't stick to planets: they orbit at some distance. It would not be friction. Friction arises when materials are in contact. The'some other force' is gravity. Why are you re-inventing the wheel? A square one at that! In English if you please. Not true. Consider the Strong Force. Overthinking is much less dangerous than underthinking.

ed I applaud your perception if that accurately reflects what he intended. I am afraid I found Cs's posts, in this thread, to be directionless mumbo-jumbo filled with comparisons that, if taken literally, were nonsense, or, if seen as analogy were unhelpful. I suspect that the intelligence and logic you have found in those posts originates in your own mind, provided by your own skill at condensing sense and structure from vapours.

Please tell me where in your link there is any reference to a one pound sterling per litre increase in price? There is reference to a 1.0p per litre increase - one penny per litre. 1% of the increase you refer to. What am I missing?

Definitely. Klanger where did you see these reports?

I agree. As a starting point can you try reinstalling the driver through the 'Add Printer' function?

And kept well away from young children who have not yet acquired reading skills. Preferably locked up.

A word of caution. The Saudi statement is that they might manage to increase their estimated reserves by around 200 billion barrels. The USGS estimate of their Ultimately Recoverable Reserves already stands at 374 billion barrels, roughly 115 billion barrels above the currently Proven Reserves of 261 billion barrrels. The USGS estimate of Ultimately Recoverable Reserves pretty much assumes current production technology and as the report noted the Saudis plan on "increasing what it produces from existing fields". In short, this barely constitutes any change at all.

Why would you learn more about gravity? Logic would suggest that gravity is more readily studied via massive objects, not tiny wisps of matter? With respect .... pause for a moment ... sorry, with no respect and a growing frustration....what you have written is pure rubbish. You have a potentially powerful poetic image, but as Bettina has pointed out it is not working. Answer this, if gravity is simply pressure, what holds the moon in the Earth's orbit?

Those who thought Hoyle was nuts weren't looking at the data, but allowing themselves to be misled by Hoyle's own over enthusiasm for pan spermia. The diversity of environments available in an accreting proto-planetary disc greatly magnify the opportunities for the formation of pre-biotic materials (definitely) and life itself (possibly).