Ophiolite

Regretably no. Though formally educated in geology it was so long ago that I have to consider myself formerly educated in geology. Ironically, my work revolves around finding the most efficient ways to destroy rocks, so we can get to the oil. Curiously, if I survive to retirement I am contemplating a return to University to study some aspect of planetology, to demonstrate to myself that old brains can still function.

I thought you'd like that. Returning to the thread topic, there are three problems, and since this is a Science forum I shall designate these problems as: Relativity Evolution Cosmology Relativity: A poor intellectual post for a thirty five year old particle physicist might be a very worthy post for a fourteen year old high school student. As Albert said, "It's all relative". So how do we define, with objectivity and balance, what is "intellectual"? [in passing I'll just note that between the way I spell intellectual and you spell intellectuall there is one ell of a difference.] Evolution: Humans learn, even those sad, benighted individuals who post on Science Forums. A poor poster today could evolve into one of the best tomorrow. They might even become a mod. (Wait, isn't that de-evolution?) At any rate, assessment of posters must recognise this potential for development. Cosmology: Occasionally posters become enraged and express their anger explosively. This anti-intellectual Big Bang can hide the otherwise benign aspects of their posts. Other posters deliver coherent, well argued positions, but unfortunately deliver the same ones in response to any thread, from Element Collecting to Nuclear Weapons in Iran. This is the discredited Steady State approach. I tried coming up with some relevant thoughts for Quantum Mechanics, but you can stretch an analogy to far.

Kryptonite.

Quoting from the American Heritage Dictionary (http://www.bartleby.com/61/66/P0246600.html) 1. A member of an Aegean people who settled ancient Philistia around the 12th century b.c. 2a. A smug, ignorant, especially middle-class person who is regarded as being indifferent or antagonistic to artistic and cultural values. b. One who lacks knowledge in a specific area. The Phillistines feature in the Bible as enemies of the Israelites. Goliath the giant, slain by David with a slingshot was a Phillistine. Meanings 2 and 3 are perhaps best conveyed by an example. "Only a Phillistine like Hellbender would ask "What the flip is a "phillistine"?"

I did say 'welcome'.

I gather from a swift persual of your thirteen posts to date that you believe "SPACE ENDS THAT WAY SPACE HAS A SHAPE". Will you be posting some proof of this statement in the near future, or perhaps links to a more detailed discussion? I await such a revelation with an almost bated breath, hoping, even tempted to pray, that such a post will include some examples of punctuation. Meanwhile, welcome to science forums.

It depends upon how accurate you want to be. Your friend is correct that the response of the scale (probably determined by overcoming resistance to a spring) is not linear. In fact it is not linear over any portion of its weighing range - but how accurate do you want to be? I am assuming these are ordinary office scales for parcels - 10 kilos sounds a lot for kitchen scales. Within the designated range it will be pretty accurate: I would imagine an object that weighs in at 8kg would be within 100g either way of that weight. As you go beyond the upper limit you will become increasingly inaccurate. However, you covered that inaccuracy by noting 'about' 15 kgs. To me 'about' 15 kgs, means somewhere between 14 and 16 kgs. I think there is a good chance you still have that level of accuracy, but not much more than that.

You are using some form of fuel to heat the water. That is an inefficient process. Some of the energy is wasted as heat elsewhere in the system. Net result, the process is less efficient than burning the fuel directly in the engine.

Ignore them. Or Follow their posts with one that addresses the issue with a well constructed summary of current thinking and two or three relevant and apposite links. Or Encourage every tiny spark of reasoned thought that is displayed by them. Or Name them, and stand back to watch a concatennation of cacophanous chaos, a veritable blood bath, as pointless as one could imagine. [Delete as appropriate. Students will be marked for neatness in their presentations.]

Can we stop with references to the source of oil as being the decaying remains of dinosaurs, even as a poetic analogy. There may be children reading who will be cruelly decieved.

You should find this useful. It lists over two hundred different cell types found in the adult human. http://www.bios.co.uk/textbooks/0815332181/pdfs/appendix.pdf It notes that these are not labels for parts of a continuum that has been subdivided arbitrarily, but they represent for the most part discrete and distinctly different categories. [May I also recommend the use of google. It took me less than one minute to locate this reference, and I am not a biologist.]

And what is the situation if there are two cards left in the sack? Yes, I can be certain, given the conditions you have specified, that one of the two cards is the ace of spades. I am uncertain as to whether the next card drawn from the sack will be the ace of spades. In non-mathematical terms I think it is quite possible that next card drawn will be the ace of spades, but equally I will not be surprised if it something else. In contrast, at the start of this exercise, if you had asked me on drawing the first card, did I think it would be the the ace of spades, I should have replied 'that is quite unliklely'. My certainty of the ace of spades being drawn varies througout the experiment from 'quite unlikely' to 'quite possible'. If we put that back in maths terms then certainty/uncertainty is seen clearly not to be a binary quantity.

And how does this differ from the singularity from which the Big Bang emerged?

Which is not the case here - Clara clearly states her clocks are ticking, not tocking.

I believe you have the wrong notion here. The gain in mass is intrinsic, not extrinsic. That is, the object itself becomes more massive because of its speed, not because it acquires mass externally.

Read Mokele's post:

No. If the temperature of any material is lowered sufficiently it will form a crystalline solid. Helium has the lowest melting point of all elements - less than a degree above absolute zero.

If life exists in the clouds of Venus there are three possible places that life could have originated: The surface of Venus The atmosphere of Venus Elsewhere in space The surface of Venus today is not only wholly inhospitable to life as we know it, but inhospitable to any form of life we might reasonably imagine. However, the early Venus was not only much cooler than present, but the planet would have had significant, possibly abundant, quantities of water. Life apparently arose on Earth under similar conditions, therefore it may have arisen on Venus. As the early sun increased its temperature and the greenhouse effect kicked in some life forms could have adapted to the more benign conditions in the upper atmosphere. There is a substantial body of suggestive circumstantial evidence pointing towards the origin of life elsewhere and its accidental migration to the Earth – pan spermia. If that is how life reached the Earth it could well have reached Venus. Since we have two possible mechanisms for populating the atmosphere of Venus the supposition of this thread is seen to be false.

Yes, you have made your point clear, but it is a highly individual point and I am certain it constitutes an opinion not an absolute, objective reflection of reality.I fully accept that when you are assessing the external world that your certainty is indeed binary. This is neither good nor bad, right or wrong, it is simply different from how some others deal with uncertainty. I have no difficulty assigning a degree of uncertainty to either the probability of events occuring, or to a particular hypothesis being accurate or inaccurate. This is not a binary condition. I am certain that I have made my point clear to some readers.

Experience

Johnny5 appears to be viewing it this way: If our expectation of an event is certain then probability is not an issue. If we are uncertain then, and only then, is that uncertainty expressed as a probability. Johnny5? Seems a little non-standard?

This is a guess: Irregular satellites will be defined by their significant deviation from a spherical or oblate spheroidal shape. In practically all circumstances an irregular satellite will have an asymmetric albedo. However, near spherical (i.e. regular) satellites may also have asymmetric albedos if their surfaces are distinctly different on a large scale. Dione would be the classic example of this with strong albedo contrasts between its two hemispheres.

Remember that all accurate descriptions of ophiolites are lovely.____________- Ophiolite

The comparison between Titan and the primeval Earth relate to the atmosphereic composition and almost nothing else. Titan's atmosphere is predominantly nitrogen with subsidiary organic gases such as methane. I'm not sure if you were asking a rhetorical question, but the early Earth had no significant amounts of oxygen (<<1%). Substantial free oxygen was not present in our atmosphere till more than two billion years after the planet's formation.

You have highlighted a risk that is not yet, and likely never will be, a reality. Here are some points that I believe invalidate your speculation. 1. We likely have to go back to Leornado da Vinci to find a time when an individual could hope to be aware of most of the scientific understanding of the world. 2. The increase in knowledge since then has been a direct result of this specialisation. 3. The vast majority of scientists are not capable of generating a paradigm shift now or at any time in the past. 4. The majority of scientists make small technical contrinutions that refine the details of a broadly defined concept or theory. 5. The generalists are as capable today as ever of challenging dogma: that is to say not very capable, but eventually they get there. Now, would I be taking a huge unguarded leap in the dark if I were to suggest that you have a controversial theory that you are having trouble getting accepted, and that is the motivation for this cut and paste assessment of the state of science. If this is inaccurate, I apologise. If it hits the mark and is painful look on that as the price of progress.