Ophiolite

Well lets discuss one of your specific theories. You said earlier that space-time was a nonsense since time is not a dimension. I agree with you it is not a spatial dimension. The idea of space-time is that is has the three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. What do you think is wrong with that? Think about how we even use everyday language - "I'm going to France tomorrow." - "Will you be gone for long?" We use the dimensional words from space to describe time. I think it is reasonable to think of it as a dimension. What say you?

Newtonian - I flagged my post as heavily as I knew how by saying I was going to be nasty. I characterised myself within the post as one of the most arrogant people I know. I was deliberately rude and said up front that was what I was going to be. Now why on Earth would I do that? Boredom? Because I really am nasty? Because I have some mental disorder? Try this for a reason: My deduction was that gamefreak was young (we now know he is fourteen). Clearly he is very enthusiastic, has read quite a lot and has been thinking in that wonderful eyes wide open, inventive, no holds barred way that is commonplace in youth and in great scientists, but quite rare in the rest of humanity, most of the time. But, it also seemed to me that he would benfit from a little discipline in his thinking, and even a smidgeon of recognition for the work of established scientists. A number of other posters had asked directly and indirectly for just this. The requests were ignored or not recognised as such. I judged some shock tactics might be in order, hence my post and the character of the post. It is also clear that gamefreak has the confidence and the balls not to be put off by an 'attack' of this nature. I'm sorry it upset you. I sat with the draft on my machine for half an hour before hitting 'post'. You may consider it patronising and manipulative. I might agree with you one third of the time.

The individual cutters are made in a hydraulic press. Synthetic diamond grit is placed in a salt container [to ensure uniform pressure] with a tungsten carbide blank. This is heated to around 1400 deg C and a pressure of 1.5 million psi is applied. Under these conditions the individual grains link up (hence polycrystalline). Also cobalt migrates from the tungsten carbide into the diamond matrix, binding it to the TC blank. The process takes about ten minutes. At the end of it you have a cutter that is mainly TC, but with a very durable diamond table less than 1mm thick and between 8mm and 22mm in diameter. I'm not a metallurgist (my expertise is on the application side, rather than the production), so I'm not certain of steel type. We also make bit bodies of what we call matrix (tungsten carbide and binder). In both cases the cutters are braised into the bit bodies. The teeth are generally arranged in a spiral pattern, but there are a lot of variations. (We have over four thousand distinct designs, though some of them are one-offs.) pm me if you want to know more.

Cadmus said "Space-time is expanding to where no space-time had existed" Since it is space-time that is expanding he might better have said "Space-time is expanding to where and when no space-time had existed". We contract this to where-when. But then you raise the objection that this implies there is somewhere (and somewhen) to expand into. Solution: apply a recognised 'negative' denoter - a bar over the composite word. Hence, bar-when-where.

It's amusing from the outside......

................ where-when pronounced bar-where-when

There have been one or two threads on this already star dust. http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=7990&highlight=universe+size http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=5188&highlight=universe+size http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=496&highlight=universe+size The usual way of explaining it is with an analogy. Imagine the Universe was two dimensional, and that it was like the surface of a balloon. If we blow the baloon up every point on the surface moves away from every other point - expansion. But it is not expanding into anything as such. Now try thinking of the Universe we have in a similar way. Just as the surface of the balloon has no edge in two dimensions our Universe has no edge in three dimensions. Any help? If not, don't worry. If you can get your head around it you are either crazy or a mathematician. [i think the two are different.]

__________________ Probably best to spell goonery correctly, then. P.S. I rather liked your last one.

Everyone is being very nice gamefreek01, as they should be, especially since you are new here. I, however, am a mean bastard, so I am going to be nasty. 1. Please learn to type and to write in sentences. You apologised earlier for your spelling errors. Thank you for that. You explained it happened when you typed fast. Sayonara suggested you type slowly. You ignored this. gamefreek, asking people to spend time trying to understand your infantile English, sentenceless writing, and persistent typographical errors is rude. Please stop being rude. Your last post (41) could have looked like this: While I didn’t understand a bit of your question I’ll tell you this. Even if scientists, or anyone, might have studied and studied for years, that doesn’t mean that I am wrong, or they are right. They have to have the right mind to really think about atoms and give good theories: Einstein’s theory is very implausible; and other theories like big bang all are implausible. When I theorize I try my hardest to make my explanation all make sense in terms of what I know about anything. If it doesn’t make any sense I’ll find where it doesn’t and work around it with a new theory. That took under two minutes two correct. Please do the same in future. 2. You do not have any theories. You have speculations. If you can explain how these speculations may be tested they can graduate to hypotheses. If, after rigorous testing they appear to be valid, at least in some circumstances they may be honoured with the title theory. 3. I am one of the most insufferably arrogant people I know, but I would not have the audacity to challenge Einstein's theories, especially from what appears to be your weak appreciation of scientific fundamentals. 4. "Even if scientists have studied and studied for years, that doesn’t mean that I am wrong, or they are right." True, but it sure stacks the odds in their favour. gamefreek01, you have the same rights as me or anyone else to post any and all of your thoughts on this forum. I'm using my right to seriously question what and how you are posting.

Then I look forward to further engaging debates with you. (I promise to do my best to make you wrong as often as possible.) Did you acquire said PhD at Glasgow?

I just noticed what this thread was meant to be about.. Syntax, an almost identical question was dealt with more fully here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=8263&highlight=galaxy+velocity+relative

psychology is an art not a science If my view is it is a science, which of the options matches? I agree. No. Neither No. A bit of both No. I don't know No. So, my view cannot be voted on. So, you have removed the "I disagree" option. I hope you agree.

It's the last time I watch breakfast TV on BBC.. I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition.........(cue Pythons, stage right)

Yes and no. There are three ways of viewing this and life on Mars in general. 1. Life has never existed on Mars so we will not find anything even in a conveinently frozen sea. This is probably a minority view. 2. Life existed on Mars in the remote past, when Mars was young and warm and wet. This sea 'froze out' only recently (five million years ago), so there will be no bitoic relics to be found in it. A majority view. 3. Life exists on Mars today, as evidence by the Viking labelled release experiments and the anomalous concentrations of methane. Therfore evidence of this life may be found in this sea - but it will be much more evident, and alive, in other locales. A minority view, but one that I subscribe to.

So if you were talking about the whole range you would say 'a bit of both'? [Also worth remembering that one of the world's greatest scientists was also one of its great artists: Leonardo.] Sayonara please re-introduce the 'I disagree' option so I can vote.

Or they notice their steel toed safety shoes melting.

Probably no single event. Good science teachers. A geek of a friend who new more science at twelve than most undergraduates. An older sister who had a brief flirtation with science and used me as a pupil. Parental encouragement to 'do well at school'. Before that a significant path of chance events: a BBC radio serial for children about space by a Scottish cleric Angus McVicar; buying the series of books arising from the radio programs; finding the bookstore out of the latest version and buying instead a children's book by Patrick Moore (massive, in both senses, populariser of Astronomy in the UK); more books by Moore about Astronomy, Space Travel and Geology. The pathway was reinforced by a gift from my sister of The Amateur Astronomer by Patrick Moore as a reward for having done well in my first year in high school. As a nice closure on these events I met Patrick Moore at a public lecture a little over a year ago and thanked him for sparking my interest in science, then had him sign my battered copy of The Amateur Astronomer below the forty five year old message from my sister.

The US is a mixed economy with strong capitalist leanings. If you strip away the verbosity of the explanation you also strip away all the richness and subtlety of meaning and are left with a trite, worthless comment, such as my opening sentence. A capitalist is someone who makes all or the bulk of their income from investing their money in business ventures, with the prospect of both increasing the value of their share of said venture and receiving periodic dividends from the venture's profits. Because their investment is at risk (they could lose all of it) they feel entitled to the reward of what others consider 'obscene profits'. A capitalist economy is one in which the bulk of the production of goods and services is provided by companies set up in this way. Thus you can work in a capitalist economy without being a capitalist. However any of us who have savings deposits in banks or penions are de facto capitalists. That's as simple as I can make it. Can I go back to being verbose now, before I throw up? Thanks.

Herme, I recommend you read the following book. "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins. [in the US published by W.W.Norton & Company, Paperback ASIN: 0393316823; In the UK published by Penguin Books, Paperback ISBN: 0140179186 .] Here is an extract about it from a site maintained by a Dawkins 'fan' (http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Books/climb.shtml) "The human eye is so complex and works so precisely that surely, one might believe, its current shape and function must be the product of design. How could such an intricate object have come about by chance? Yet this is exactly what Richard Dawkins argues in his provocative and passionate new book--that life evolves through the accident of mutation, and that perfection in the natural world is the result of supreme, and fascinating, improbability. " Please read and understand his arguments before you reach any conclusion in either direction.

Please thoroughly study the development of complexity of suture lines in the ammonoids and then repeat your assertion without feeling foolish.

This in response to Nevermore's question "Wasn't there a study that showed that all modern fauna is descended from the sea sponge?" Hellbender, what is ludicrous about it? I take fauna to refer in this context to vertebrates. What do you think our phyla descended from then? Edit: I just read Nevermore's later link. We don't need to restrict it to vertebrates.. Interesting.

A senior bishop (I don't recall which one) was asked in an interview if it was right that Charles, a divorced person, and destined to be head of the church, should remarry. Th bishop politely pointed out, "Prince Charles when he becomes King will be governor of the Church of England. God is the head of the Church of England."