Ophiolite

Coquina,I once attempted to learn Mandarin, when I lived in Taiwan for six months. I also visited Hong Kong before it was 'returned' to China. My knowledge comes primarily from an interest maintained from that time, mainly via the media, but also from colleagues working in China. China has some characteristics that I believe distinguish it from most, perhaps all, other nations. I suspect any serious scholar of Chinese history would dismiss these as simplistic, but here they are. 1. Continuous, connected history as a nation for millenia. (Nations and individuals take pride in a substantive pedigree.) 2. General, and in the long term, continuous expansion during that period. 3. The inclusion of ethnically diverse peoples within the expanding nation. 4. A common language. (It can be argued, correctly, that the major chinese dialects have the status of separate languages, but the written language is shared.) 5. A track record of inventiveness and technological development, again stretching back millenia. 6. As a consequence of all the above a justifiable sense of pride in their nation and , less justified, a tendency to look down on other nations and peoples. I do not happen to believe that China is communist, or ever was. Mao Tse Tung was effectively an Emperor. The chinese people are comfortable within a patriarchal, dictatorial political environment. Their only resistance to this arises as a reaction to despotic rule. Some Chinese no doubt feel that the proper world order would see them in control of the planet. They will be quite prepared to wait another thousand years to achieve this. Never underestimate the capabilities of one billion people. In the meantime they will resist attempts to interfere with their internal government (which in the West we will call improving human rights), but will not be threatening externally. A move against North Korea would be seen as threatening; continued support of an independent Taiwan would be seen as threatening. I am reminded of the apocryphal sign on the cage in a zoo: "This animal is dangerous. If attacked it will defend itself." Personally, I think they should move out of Tibet, give up any claim on Taiwan and institute some basic human rights policies domestically. But if we want all this to happen then we have to become as cunning and patient as they.

Yes. The Big Bang initiated the expansion of space-time in which our Universe resides. It is a matter of semantics as to whether you consider it to be continuing. Most would restrict the term to the initiation event, at which time and space began. Current theories call for a period of inflation during which space-time expanded faster than light. No, it doesn't. From the standpoint of other very distant galaxies we are at the end of the Universe, but we still have light. We must have read different links.

I think it's a poetic way of saying little will happen.

Strange. It works for me, even from within the quote. Coquina's link is good for St Helens, but the other link has current info on all the world's currently active volcanoes. (Sorry AzurePhoenix, still nothing in NY.) Here it is again. Perhaps try typing it, rather than direct click, or copy and paste. http://www.volcano.si.edu/reports/usgs/

Looks like another arbitary line to me. How much support are we allowed to afford this 'entity' to enable ts survival? You could interpret your words to mean children are not human till they are six or seven. Quite an extreme position.

There appear to be some misconceptions concerning planetary formation. Here are some points that address some of them. 1. The trigger to collapse a gas cloud gravitationally into a stellar system may be provided by the shock wave of a nearby (in astronomical terms) supernova, or by collision with other interstellar gas clouds. 2. This intitiates a period of gravitational collapse within a gas cloud that will, by chance, have some rotational motion. 3. It will also be quite chaotic, so that this collapse may have more than one centre. This is how multiple star systems originate. 4. As the nebula collapses two important things happen: it heats up; it collapses into a disc (since this is a lower energy state.) 5. At this point magnetic interaction between the disc and the forming proto-star transfer angular momentum to the disc. This accounts for the otherwise bizarre fact that while 99% of the mass of the solar system resides in the sun, 99% of the angular momentum it to be found in the planets. 6. A temperature gradient exists between the star and the outer reaches of the nebula. Close to the proto-star iron, nickel and related elements can condense, but nothing else, at first. (This is part of the reason Mercury has such a large iron core.) Further out silicate minerals can condense. These form small particles that then begin to accumulate due to impact with other particles (because of their geometric cross section) and attraction to other particles (because of their gravitational cross section). At around 1000km diameter these planetesmals are large enough to remelt internally and differentiate into an iron-nickel core and a stony exterior. When some of these are disrupted by later collisions they produce the debris we know today as stony and iron meteorites. (There is another category, the chondrites, that are residual from the formation of the solar system.) Further out it is cool enough for ices and gases to condense. Here is where Jupiter forms. The planetesmals in the inner system, of iron and 'stone', collide and amalgamate until we have Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars. Those between MArs and Jupiter are disrupted by Jupiters powerful gravity field and never make it together as a planet. Jupiter and Saturn and to a lesser extent Uranus and Neptune, throw many of the icy bodies formed in that region further out of the system, into the Oort cloud where they provide the reservoir of comets that periodically venture into the inner system. That may not be it in a nutshell, perhaps a coconut gourd. Hope it clarifies.

Well, technically it is erupting already. I take it you mean will it erupt in the spectacular fashion of twenty five years ago in the near future. I would rather think not, and more significantly, neither would the USGS. To keep up to date with global eruptions this joint Smithsonian/USGS site is excellent. http://www.volcano.si.edu/reports/usgs/

Going by dim recollections from readings decades ago I would have to say that alchemy was a science. As the scientific method became better defined the alchemists split into two groups: one transformed into our modern chemists; the other focused the transformation of the elements, especially base elements into gold. This was a perfectly logical pursuit, based upon the Greek understanding of the nature and consititution of matter. As evidence accumulated from the studies of the alchemists that hypothesis became less and less tenable, and the bifurcation noted above occured.

That is a monstrous slur! Retract it at once! Why are you so negative about rats? What have they ever done to you?

ATinyMonkey, I still cannot find anything in the links you have provided that indicate the NOAA Tsunami Warning Centre a) Had any responsibility extending beyond the Pacific Basin. b) Received any funds from any of the affected nations. Can you point us to the precise place in the links where these are addressed? The interviews I have seen with scientists at the Pacific Tsunami warning centre indicate that a) they were not clear as to the magnitude of the event (intially it was thought to be much smaller than it was) b) they were not clear if any tsunami would be generated c) they did issue warnings.

Yes. I cannot buy the notion that all flames are plasmas. Some flames, yes. In Skye's example, my recollection is that a Flame Ionisation Spectrometer aims to wholly ionise the sample, though it is only partially ionised.

Does it? In the classical sense, surely, it cannot. Space does not have mass.

The phrase 'an explosion of space' would have been a better choice. Space and time did not exist prior to the big bang. They were created at that 'instant'. (Alledgedly.)

Not strictly true. Evolution is a very backward looking phenomena: it uses a genetic heritage rooted in the past and tested by the present. It can do nothing to anticipate future environmental changes, for it has zero predictive capacity. An interesting aspect of humanity's intelligence is that this provides a means to change evolution from a Darwinian form, whose paths are dictated by chance, to one that is directed, and might be reasonably be called neo-Lamarkian.

As a Scot I am obligated to be pro Coulthard. (It would have been nice for a nation of 5 million to produce a third F1 champion.) However, he doesn't have what it takes to be numero uno. I'll settle for some real competition that does not involve Michael winning again, and where the cars pass on the track, not the pit lane.

My recollection is that problems emerge if small dust sized particles are breathed in. Trapped in the lungs the decay particles will eventually cause cancer. However my recollection may be based on third rate TV dramas!

RealTimeGuy: What is your point? You've posted over 3000 words with no discernible purpose, other than to encourage "people to discuss and debate the existence of a Physical Force that can convert matter to neutrinos." You have provided some concise descriptions of certain physical laws and theories, and an analogy or two, without demonstrating any connection with your thesis. I wonder if Tycho is being over kind when he calls your post convoluted. If you want discussion please be clearer as to what we are discussing, why we are discussing it, and how the rest of your post relates to it. Ophiolite (closet teleportation enthusiast)

SciAm is good at synthesis articles. With the dollar so weak it may be an opportune time for Europeans to take out five year subscriptions!

Several points: 1. The only place for this thread is in Evolution/Morphology/Exobiology. The clue is in the last word of the somewhat bizarre troika. 2. We may want to use a broader term than hostile, or redefine hostile. Are the Amazonian natives, or the timber corporations hostile towards native flora and fauna when they clear a patch of forest? I think not. 3. None of us should overlook the notion that alien means different, and we may lack the capacity to truly imagine just how different that may be. Our first encounter with aliens may therefore be a huge psychological and cultural shock; or the merest tremor, because we failto notice them. 4. Here's a draft attempt at what we might encounter in terms of attitudes and consequences. It expands on some of the points raised in earlier posts. ’Species tuggers’: devoted to helping species develop as rapidly as possible 'Species huggers': environmentally concerned , protective and paternal 'Species buggers’: environmental pest control attitude, with man seen as the pest ’Species muggers’: opportunistic resource grabbers, with little interest in, or concern for the consequences of their resource gathering ‘Species thuggers’: take delight in destroying or crippling more primitive civilizations. ’Species **uggers ‘:remain aloof but protective, possibly unseen (except by FoxNews teams) ??: completely indifferent to humans, viewing them as no different from rhinos or squid. [The unusual terminology was inspired by the thought that some aliens might have the equivalent of anthropocentric urges and gaian tendencies displayed by environmentally concerned, ‘tree hugger’ greens. They would embrace all intelligent species and so might be called ‘species huggers’. Then ‘species tuggers’ tug, or pull civilizations up to a higher level of knowledge and technology (and one hopes, behaviour). ‘Species buggers’ just work to eliminate species they think are not in tune with their environment. ‘Species thuggers’ are the Predator type, who just like beating up on weaker species. And so on. Couldn’t come up with any ‘uggers’ for the aloof type. Suggestions? The majority of these are bad news: so, in answer to the thread starter, I don’t think they would be hostile, but I think there is a fair chance that what was in their interest would not coincide with ours.

Haven't we had this thread before?

But you are investing labour not capital. That makes you a worker, not an owner, and not a capitalist. I still don't understand your difficulty here. The value is set by the market, in a capitalist economy, and by government in a communist economy, and by a combination in a mixed economy. What do you mean 'it breaks down'? The planet is crisscrossed by ships, planes, trains carrying goods valued this way. What isn't working?