Ophiolite

I understand humans have over twenty senses, so I think we can admit number six into Biology.

Mine is a partial view of a used 12 1/4" diameter PDC (Polycrystalline Diamond Compact) fixed cutter drill bit. This particular one drilled approximately 3,500' of Mezozoic sediments in the southern North Sea, on a gas field, suffering severe vibration during the run as evidenced by the impact damage to some of the cutters. Price as new, approximately $80,000. (Use once and discard.) The company I work for manufactures these. On the rare occasions I post during working hours it reminds me what I should be doing. When I post in my own time it reminds me where the money for my leisure activities comes from.

Could you give us the link please. No' date=' two.. Jdurg just beat me to the important clarification.[img']http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif[/img]

What? It does not seem remotely possible that the failure is because the revolutions took place in underdeveloped countries? Seeking to apply a theory in the wrong context will not demonstrate invalidity of the theory. Aardvark, I don't always agree with your posts, but your logic is usually sound. On this occasion you are talking nonsense.

Hold your hand up, fingers spread, then place a book on top of them. Now spin the book with your other hand. If you are telling me that feels the same then you are not paying close enough attention.

I hate it when you guys make me use my small geologists brain to explain fundamental physics. Geology is so much vaguer, allows one to move continents, and has a really neat range of catastrophic explosions. What more could one want? Firstly, us.2u, gravity: We remain with our feet on the ground because the Earth is attracting us towards it and we are also attracting the Earth towards us. (It's not much of a contest, even if you are the size of Pavaroti.) The rotation of the Earth has absolutely nothing to do with this. If the Earth did not rotate we would still be attracted towards it, and it towards us. This relationship is expressed in Newton's law of universal gravitation. F=GMm/d^2 where F is the gravitational force M is the mass of one of the two bodies (say the Earth) m is the mass of the other body (say a kangaroo) d is the distance between the centre of gravity of the two bodies G is the universal gravitational constant whose value depends upon what units we have selected for the variables What this equation says is that the larger the masses involved the greater is the force of attraction - hence we weigh more on the Earth than we do on the moon, while on Venus we would weigh almost as much as on Earth. The equation also says the force is greater if the masses are close together - hence the tides are effected more by the Moon than by the Sun, because the former is much closer even though the latter is much more massive. Is that clear? Now centrifugal and centripetal force. Centrifugal force is something of an illusion. Consider Newton's first law of motion (Though Rene Descartes actually postulated the principle first.) - the velocity of a body remains constant unless acted upon by a force. Now velocity is not speed, but speed in a constant direction. In other words, unless we interfere with it a body will remain at rest or moving in the same direction at the same speed for ever. This property of carrying on regardless is called inertia. In the example of the spin dryer the clothes want to carry on in a straight line, but are restrained by the walls of the dryer. The water isn't. It is simply continuing in a straight line. This creates the appearance of a force throwing the water off and trying to throw the clothes off, but in both cases it is simply inertia. Hope that makes some kind of sense.

Its slightly off-topic but when I am navigating in a strange city at night or on an overcast day I use satellite antenna to determine south. (I got really screwed up on a trip to Gabon!)

Because the incoming sensory data is different when the book and your fingers are moving than when they are stationary.

I am reading us.2u the same way as you. If we are correct I think he is confusing the gravity like effects of centrifugal force (or is it centripetal? I can never get my signs right.) with gravity itself. us.2u, if this is the case, rest assured that if the Earth were not rotating we would still be held very firmly in place. In fact we would weigh slightly more since our downward acceleration would no longer be balnced somewhat by the outward (upward) force imparted by the rotation.

If you wish to approach the reincarnation issue I think it is a red herring to pursue the matter-energy equivalence route. What distinguishes life, in part, from non-life, is the organisation of that matter-energy in local defiance of the Third Law of Thermodynamics. Since there is no quality evidence for a retention of meaningful organisation post mortem, and plenty of evidence against it, you would be better considering the possibility of non-physical attributes accounting for reincarnation, ghosts, the spirit world, etc.

But from a personal happiness/satisfaction perspective the problem is thinking that luck comes in roughly equal amounts of good and bad. That conditions us to expect a certain amount of bad luck. Not a sensible approach to life.

Abrupt can be perceived as unkind. In human relations perception is everything (justified hyperbole). The wild pigs should arrive by DHL later today.

I think the root of the problem may be that evolution is a two part process, one part chance, mixed with one part controlled. The opportunity to change is created by random mutations, but the success of that change, and hence, overall, its direction is determined by environmental controls. (And before any one starts to nitpick I include the internal setting of the organism amongst the environmental factors.) And there you have that dreaded word direction, which resonates with others, such as design and goal and purpose. Suddenly creationists have sprung, apparently ex nihilo, from the margins of the argument. Blackfin reminds us we have to use words carefully. (I now gleefully await someone as pedantic as myself to point out where I have abused usage in this post. I tried very carefully to be accurate. Honest.)

Hence my suggestion we try to view all (or at least most) events as positive.

It's OK for you guys, but I've got a gash on my forehead from where the right hoof of the dratted hippo caught me a glancing blow, and the chaise lounge that it landed on will never be the same again. I wish you had been right obnoxious, but sadly not. [Can anyone tell me if hippo urine is alkaline or acidic. I still have some hopes of getting the stains out of the carpet.]

I understand your argument, but I think you can take it further. When something 'bad' happens, re-examine it to find out if it is truly bad. I consistently see people reacting to events that are at worst neutral as if they were a natural disaster in the making. I should probably give some examples. these may not be very good ones, but its 2:45 in the morning and my brain is slowing down. You and a colleague call on a client and although you have an appointment he keeps you waiting for half an hour. Two ways of treating this: a) This is a bad thing. The client is showing disrespect. I was mentally prepared to negotiate/sell to him, but this has thrown me off. What am I going to do now. I'll have a wasted half hour or more. b) This is a good thing. I have some extra time to review again all the facts and figures I need for my presentation to the client. If I feel I am already well prepared I can use the time to read some of that material from my in tray that I carry for just such an occasion, or I can ferret through the client's InHouse magazines here in reception and glean some currently unknown facts about him. Finally, the fact that keeping us waiting hasn't bothered us at all will be appreciated by the client. It's Valentine's day and your partner's favourite restaurant is fully booked. a) This is a bad thing. you always go there for Valentine's Day dinner. He/she will be pissed off. b) This is a good thing. Find a different restaurant. Arrange for flowers to be delivered to your table (I'm assuming now the partner is female.) Make the whole expereience new and different and romantic. I could go on, but I think you see the idea.

It's not really nit-picking, since it speaks directly to the heart of the matter. First, nameta9 implies that evolution=progress, and so backward evolution on this definition is possible. Second, he is clearly talking about cultural/technological evolution, so that again backward evolution is possible (though not probable). I suppose we could call it devolution, but since we Scot's recently experienced this I should prefer another term.

But we don't know how to make a Saturn V. The dies were destroyed. The 'Lessons Learned' were not retained. We do have the capacity for external loss of memory. [Plus the 'score' was just to keep the pot stirred. I like reading about 8-tracks]

Today mobile phones. Tomorrow, the World!

Tell me where I say anything remotely like that. Either I need to learn to write or you need to learn to read.

That old trick works almost every time.

Yes.. I'm not satisfied with my answer, but I need to get more on precise context and location..that's easier than original thinking! Actually, there appear to be two quite different kinds of feature: the less prolific form could be cinder cones, not the second.

Physicists 1 : Pedants 0

arrgh! I was sure I posted a reply yesterday that didn't get caught in one of my system crashes. Newtonian, thanks for the info you have provided. The images are intriguing. TT thanks for the excellent link. I am digesting its content now.. us.2u thanks for the BBC link. They always put a lot of effort into creating a professional looking site. Dendritic drainage seems the most plausible explanation, but why? Presently I am thinking cinder cones. I'll come back later, eventually.

I'm not sure Washington is large enough, unless you make the plaques very, very small.