Ophiolite

Google mercury "rotation period"

It has always been my perception that committee style investigations are more in the nature of a CYA operation (or cover someone else's ass if it is an 'independent' investigation). They are also, typically limited in their remit, so that some aspects are deliberately excluded. Combine these characteristics with natural human incompetence and its a fair bet that they come up with only half the truth. I think syntax is being charmingly gullible in the faith he places in such studies. For all its faults it does not, however mean that the 'conspiracy' solution is correct. You really can achieve a great deal with simple incompetence.

1..admit implies attempts at concealment until now. Did you really mean that? 2. For one observation that is at odds, we have the stellar orbital velocities that don't stack up unless there is mass we haven't otherwise detected.

Two points: 1. I'm not exactly clear at each instance what you are asking, so the answers may miss the mark. 2. You note that you are aware of Newton's formula, but I want you to really think about what it says, for I think the answers to your last couple of questions are there. It is called the Gravitational Constant for a reason - it is constant, throughout space-time: everywhere and everywhen. (Let's not confuse the issue with the speculations that it might vary over great distances and could have varied over time. Mainstream thought says it's constant.) If you don't exert a force on an object it just sits there, or keeps moving in the same direction at the same velocity. You are correct that for planets this straight line is transformed into a curve as gravity accelerates the planet. The correct equation for the specific force is the one you have already given i.e. the force depends upon the masses of the two objects that are attracting each other, their distance apart and G. Does that help?

us.2u, the speed of gravity equals the speed of light in a vacuum regardless of which medium the gravity is acting through. At least that's what I understand swansont to be saying.

Back up please. You still haven't addressed the complexity of the Burgess Shale fauna. How did they acquire complex anatomy without going down the 'hard route'? Also, a genuine plea to enhance my understanding: could you avoid words that don't exist (e.g. logistacal!) and make more use of punctuation. You may have something important to say, but your signal to noise ratio is weak.

One object, composed of many fundamental particles, happily exchanging gravitons, n'est pas?

This is on the same subduction zone as the Boxing Day earthquake, but clearly substantially less powerful (though large by any normal standard.) Its location, a third way down Sumatra, means the west Sumatra coast would be the only likely area to suffer . Thailand should be sheltered by Sumatra and any wave should have attenuated by the time it reaches India/Sri Lanka. (Depth = 18 miles)

This from the Pacific Tsunami Warning Centre (edited) AN EARTHQUAKE HAS OCCURRED WITH THESE PRELIMINARY PARAMETERS ORIGIN TIME - 1610Z 28 MAR 2005 COORDINATES - 2.3 NORTH 97.1 EAST LOCATION - NORTHERN SUMATERA INDONESIA MAGNITUDE - 8.5 WARNING... THIS EARTHQUAKE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO GENERATE A WIDELY DESTRUCTIVE TSUNAMI IN THE OCEAN OR SEAS NEAR THE EARTHQUAKE. AUTHORITIES IN THOSE REGIONS SHOULD BE AWARE OF THIS POSSIBILITY AND TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION. THIS ACTION SHOULD INCLUDE EVACUATION OF COASTS WITHIN A THOUSAND KILOMETERS OF THE EPICENTER AND CLOSE MONITORING TO DETERMINE THE NEED FOR EVACUATION FURTHER AWAY. This is the standard phraseology the Centre will issue for any large sub-sea earthquakes outwith the Pacific.

Consult an optician.

Light was thought to be a wave, analagous to sound waves. Sound waves were known to be waves of compression within some medium, e.g. air. What was the medium that light operated in? This was postulated to be the ether, a rather ill defined medium that existed only to transmit light. Michelson established the speed of light in the 1870s. It was then realised that by measuring the speed of light in different directions it would be possible to determine the velocity of the Earth relative to the ether. This experiment, the famous Michelson-Morley experiment was conducted and, remarkably, revealed no difference of light speed in different directions. It was this well defined observation, in part, that led Einstein to declare that the speed of a light was a constant, regardless of the movement of the observer. Is that sufficient elaboration?

You seem to be overlooking the Burgess Shale fauna.

There are around twenty. Here are some of them:the ratios of the masses of fundamental particles the fine structure constant the electromagnetic coupling constant the strong coupling constant the gravitational fine structure constant Dicussion here:http://www.answers.com/topic/fine-tuned-universe

While I am digesting that, how do you square your route to complexity (via a hard framework) with the evidence of early complex metazoans with only soft part?

Obviously the broken one, as it is correct twice a day. The working clock is correct only once every 43,200 days.

Metatron, I am uncomfortable with your mixing of the 'spiritual' with the 'scientific'. While I understand this lies at the heart of your thesis it is likely to alienate many with its resonances of New Age thinking. May we focus for a moment on the Cambrian explosion in isolation, rather than on how it may relate to the future of humanity. The need for some degree of self-organisation amongst chemical, pre-biotic and archaeo-biotic 'materials' seems self evident. You appear to be saying you have identified this for the latter. Where? How? What is it? Specifically. The answer to this does not emerge from your writing.

Being ignored. Being attacked. Being perceived as a senile old man. Being laughed at. Being banned. Take your pick. Sorry, you don't get to choose: everybody else does. (Except for the last one.) Now, getting serious: are you really basing your opinion of this guys book on other people's opinions? I had you down as more independent minded than that.

The spheres will deform, or was 'rigid' meant to cover that?

Based upon the tone, style and content of their letter I suggest they are an offshoot of Reader's Digest.

If it was an adult bull elephant it would fall through the desk?

Which was why an accusation of 'sloppy writing skills' was so peculiar. If Cadmus had accused me of being boring and long-winded he would have heard his blood flowing in the silence of my response.And I've never had any trouble understanding your posts: that's probably why I disagree with you so much!

Delightful. You have brought novelty into a dull afternoon. You are the first person in five decades to place me at that end of the spectrum - I find it much more refreshing than the normal accusations of grammatical pedantry. I take now, as I always do, full responsibility for my words. In the main, if we fail to communicate our meaning, that is our responsibility, not that of the reader. The exceptions occur when the reader is unexpectedly ignorant of a word, grammatical construction, usage or stylistic form that is in common use. The only reason I have for making the point lies in the example: it is apposite, not egregious. If you choose to take me to task for my language skills, which could certainly be better, I imagine you will be ready to help me in improving these. Perhaps you could clarify these points, taken from your post:“I see that you are one of those who encourages sloppiness in language.” Are you opposed to agreement between pronoun and verb? Would you not favour ‘encourage’? "Yes, let us be sloppy, so that we do not have to take responsibility for our words, and if others do not recognize what our sloppiness means we can always blame it on them." Surely the comma after "words" should be omitted, or replaced by a semi-colon. "particularly egregious". Since 'egregious' contains within it the sense of 'conspicuous' or 'excessive', does that not make 'particularly' redundant? “sloppy langauge”. This seems to be a novel spelling of 'language', though the juxtaposition with 'sloppy' is rather droll. "You call it quaint that I ask that people select grammar for the purpose expressing what they mean..." My objection is to your exclusion of a commonly used meaning for the word 'we'. Why are you suggesting this is a matter of grammar, when it is clearly one of lexicography and semantics? [Also, would you not prefer the correct ‘the purpose of expressing’, over the incorrect “the purpose expressing”?] No, yo(sic) don't.

What quaint notions you have on the use of 'we'. Did you acquire these through being such a singular person? I recommend you examine some examples of modern english usage, where you will find the collective 'we' used effectively, with no failure to communicate its inclusiveness to its target audience. Perhaps if you remain alert for this particular usage in future you will be able to avoid misinterpreting an otherwise lucid post. On the 'what kind of leader are you thread" you emerged' date=' as I recall, as Bill Clinton.[img']http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif[/img]

Sorry coquina - didn't spot these questions earlier: I think it is a good basic description of the structural character of ophiolites as they form (and one that conveys a mental picture very effectively). I confess more of an interest in their mineralogical and geochemical nature, so for me it is incomplete. I'm not familiar with McPhee's work. I shall keep my eyes open for them as I rummage through second hand book stores. (Being Scottish I am genetically unable to buy new books unless they are heavily discounted.) Back on topic, here is the latest from the USGS: Friday, March 25, 2005 MOUNT ST. HELENS UPDATE Growth of the new lava dome inside the crater of Mount St. Helens continues, accompanied by low rates of seismicity, low emissions of steam and volcanic gases, and minor production of ash. During such eruptions, episodic changes in the level of activity can occur over days to months. The eruption could also intensify suddenly or with little warning and produce explosions that cause hazardous conditions within several miles of the crater and farther downwind. Small lahars could suddenly descend the Toutle River if triggered by heavy rain or by interaction of hot rocks with snow and ice. These lahars pose a negligible hazard below the Sediment Retention Structure (SRS) but could pose a hazard along the river channel upstream. Taken from http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/update.html#cascades