Ophiolite

I submit that the principal weakness of the concept is that RawThinkTank would be one of the voters.

It matched a key prediction of the Big Bang theory, and was not predicted by Steady State. (I think Hoyle later tried to shoe-horn an explantion for it into his SS theory.)

Consider the possibility that one of the reasons the site needs to exist is that you see it as a joke.

The critical factors are the masses of satellite and planet' date=' and to some extent the density of the satellite. A satellite lacking tensile strength will be disrupted when there is a stronger gravitational attrraction on part of it from the parent planet than from the satellites own mass. The distance at which this occurs is known as the Roche Limit. A solid satellite would not be disrupted at this orbital distance. There is a full mathematical treatment here. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/RocheLimit.html

Because of wavelengths measured in kilometres, tsunami waves behave as shallow water waves. They can, therefore, have an influence all the way to the seabed, even in deep ocean. That said, we are dealing, as Tetrahedrite noted, with the transfer of energy not material. It is plausible that such energy inputs might effect ocean currents, but I know of no research that has looked at this. Even if it did,the effect would initially be in the Indian Ocean and would take some time (weeks?) before it had any impact on weather. Overall, I think it highly unlikely there would be a connection such as you have postulated.

Now you tell me! A wasted career opportunity (honestly).

I think you are missing the point. If there were no competitive advantage in being large there would not be any large animals. (Equally, if there were no competitive advantage in being small there would not be any small animals.)

Just to add to the list of names, in Scotland they are also called slaters.

Socialism is the formal acknowledgement and application of group responsibilities.

Vladimir you should know better. Socialism is the first step after capitalism (CCCP after all) . Then comes communism. No country (N.Korea???????) has ever made that step.

Electric motors, electric generators, microphones, loudspeakers, compasses, tape recorders, MRI scanners, electron microscopes, CRTs, Tomakak reactors, scrap metal sorters, latches, torque couplers, bearings, meters, actuuators, clamps, dipole annealing, plasma control, for starters. Not to mention specialised and esoteric roles like cow magnets and ditch magnets. Without magnets civilisation as we know it would collapse. (For one thing without fridge magnets we wouldn't know important phone numbers or what other family members were doing.)

Political Science currently suffers, and will continue to suffer for sometime, from the complexity of its subject matter: human behaviour in dynamic groups. This renders prediction impossible, and reduces theories to little better than opinions.

What are the options: 1. Turn right every time 2. Turn left every time 3. Turn right left right left right 4. Random choice 5. Turn right right left right right left 6. etc Initial behaviour would be random. 1 or 2 would have you going in circles. No survival value there. 5, 6 and beyond are less likely to arise and are equivalent, on average to 1 or 2. The battle is then between random and alternating. If we assume woodlice are heading somewhere, an alternating approach tends, on average, to maintain that direction. Random does not. So alernating has a survival benefit.

Complexity and size are not necessarily related. Not true. If it were we wouldn't have blue whales.

Right, we are drifting off topic, but... Huh! I take it that by southern island you mean the Republic of Ireland. They have been independent since the 1920's. Why would that desire appall you? One could make a very long list of justifications. The role of English indifference in the deaths of 750,000 in the potato famine of the 1840s should be sufficient. Yes. The SNP still seek full independence.

Nothing. There doesn't need to be anything.

Or the Governor of California.

So you are' date=' as I suspected, [i']defining it in such general terms as to render it meaningless. [/i]

Both are plausible explanations. Occam's razor would push us towards the former.

Fractals. One of the unifying features of the Universe. The Day the Earth Screamed Arthur Conan Doyle

Kindria, if you plan to pursue a career in science one of the most important things you will need to learn is the importance of criticism, especially when it is well reasoned like Quixix's post. One could write a nice essay about how science is criticism. The scientist considers a new hypothesis. He probes it for weaknesses. He sets up an experiment, discussing the details with colleagues who rigorously criticise it. The experiment is conducted and the results critically appraised. A paper is written and critiqued by colleagues. It is submitted for publication and subject to peer review. Once published it is subject to further criticism, that may continue for years or decades. At no time, if she has any sense, does the scientist say to any of her critics " Well no-one cares what you think ". Good luck with your project. .

My experience of pig cleansing confirms that hogwash contain a bewildering variety of amino acids' date=' peptides, porphyrins, proteins, other organic molecules, bacteria and viruses. So, excellent comparison. I'm not sure about the superstitious bit. Did you mean interstitial? Perhaps you were thinking of Cairns-Smith's hypothesis that life arose on clay mineral templates. (See more on this at my post here.. http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showpost.php?p=120281&postcount=55)

It depends what you mean by this. The statement appears simple, but carries some important and contentious implications.Which of these options do you mean? A: The overwhelming drive of evolution has been towards ever greater complexity. This has been true whether we are speaking at the level of phyla or of species. B: Some creatures evolve to greater complexity, but others become simpler, while others may change, but not in terms of complexity. C: Other Partially true. There is little doubt that the complexity of Eukaryotic cells is due to the absorbtion, through symbiosis, of formerly independent organisms. However, this absorbtion is so complete that the statement would only be true today in a poetical sense. (Or are you thinking, for example, of the bacteria in our gut that are essential to effective digestion.) True. Fine. And worms are highly generalised people. And brachiopods are just sharks without a skeleton, but a really big lopophore. This seems so general as to lack meaning. No, we didn't. We are almost unrelated to viruses. 'We' looked like Archaebacteria and mycoplasmas. If you are a mushroom you are entitled to foolish thinking.