Ophiolite

Swansont, I ask you to re-read my post. I am declaring that ghosts exist in the same way that UFO's exist, i.e. there is a phenomenom ( possibly phenomena) , whose nature is ill-defined, that has (have) been observed by many persons.I don't think you are denying that people claim to have seen ghosts, so clearly there is some phenomena to be investigated. I have no doubt in my mind, based upon extensive review of the research, coupled with personal experience, that ghosts are a form of hallucination, or occasionally fraud. I would not normally have phrased it in this way, but in this instance was seeking to provide Vicious101 with some common ground with his friend.

1. We have not yet figured out what it is that makes us self aware. There is disagreement over whether other creatures are self aware, and if so which ones. 2. There is no clear method established as to how we could make a computer self aware. 3. Everyone appears either explicitly or implicitly to be imagining a mobile entity. 4. We know that self awareness is probably related to complexity - many neurons, interconnected in complex and diverse ways. If we intend to create self awareness then we will likely need to mimic the level of complexity of the brain. 5. Now how could we get a really complex suite of computer connections? Yeah. The internet. Maybe we have already created a self aware entity, its just that it's not talking. Before anyone accuses me of plagiarism, the idea is now so obvious and cliched, I was just surprised it hadn't been brought up yet on this thread.

Glider, I am assuming the above was directed towards my remarks. I agree with you completely. If you re-read my post you will see that I am very careful to avoid expressing my own view on the social sciences. So I stand by the two statements describing my perception of the attitudes of 'hard' scientists and the general public towards the social sciences. If I read your post correctly I believe you are gently putting me in my place as regards my ignorance of the social sciences. This is doubtless valid. Reading Interpretation of Dreams when I was fifteen started me on a wide range of reading on sleep and parapsychology (I recall being fascinated by the work of Rhine), yet I never touched Jung. In the 70's and 80's I read extensively in areas related to management, so I could name drop Maslow and Hertzberg. My understanding of economics is similarily skewed to the business end of the spectrum. I dare say I know enough social science to be dangerous, but I think I recognise that - and a little danger is no bad thing.

Coquina is more switched onto the details of these impactors than I am, so I imagine she may post something in a day or two. (She lives on top of the remains of one.) You might try checking her earlier posts for links. There is plenty of evidence of the small (Tunguska size) and medium events. I think around seventy impact craters of various ages have been identified globally. There is an excellent site that has illustrations of all of them. I'll try to refind it an post it here. There is a suspicion that the Permo-Triassic extinction, bigger than the KT boundary event, may have been the consequence of a strike. Nobody was really looking for this kind of evidence until the last couple of decades, so a lot of the data was there, but had been misinterpreted. Why did nobody look for this? Geologists used to be schooled (or, if you weren't very bright, indoctrinated) in Lyell's Theory of Uniformity, the notion that the condition of the Earth today is the result of the processes we observe on the Earth today, acting slowly over long periods of time. This was hugely important when introduced because it helped overturn the then prevalent notion of catastrophism that was associated with literal biblical interpretations and a 6000 year old Earth. (In fact I think Darwin took Lyell's book with him as bedisde reading on the Beagle.) It was therefore difficult for some geologists to accept that catastrophic events could play a role in Earth history, especially since this involved listenting to those suspect characters called Astronomers. Am I rambling again? Yes. Best stop.

ProtonHead, Physics is not my area of expertise. When I was doing a simple calculation of the kinetic energy of an impacting bolide expressed in megatons of TNT, for another thread on this forum, I felt it necessary to check a couple of textbooks and a web site, just to make sure I didn't make a fool of myself with the calculation. All that for something as simple as a problem in Classical Mechanics. Atheist has demonstrated by his questions that he has read further into your ideas than I have and has seen several of their implications and weaknesses. He clearly has at least a passing understanding of physics. Swansont, despite his rather acerbic offerings on this thread has demonstrated on other threads a comparable level of expertise. They are not impressed by your hypothethis. You have complained that the attacks have been on your manners rather than your ideas. There have been some attacks on your manners, certainly, but the main thrust in my reading of the posts has been on your hypothesis, or rather the ineffective way you have generally presented it. Perhaps this is a failing in them rather than you. Possibly their expertise lags behind yours, much as mine lags behind theirs. This seems improbable. You say in the opening sentence of a thread you initiated, Enlighten me Wise Ones, (the emphasis is mine) "Hello, since I really know nothing of physics I would be greatfull if I could get answers for questions bugging my mind." You seem to have come a long way since the middle of November, from 'knowing nothing of physics', to postulating a new 'theory of everything'. I believe I speak for Swansont and Atheist when I say that we welcome curiosity, innovation and imagination. (If I do not reflect their views I am confident they will let me know in very clear terms!) I think one of the functions of this forum is to promote such characteristics. However, would it not be more productive to commit these same characteristics, which you clearly have in abundance, towards properly understanding current theories before indulging yourself in re-writing the textbooks. If you choose to explore highly novel concepts from a weak base of understanding, you should not be surprised if you are greeted with more scepticism than enthusiasm. That's a rather verbose response on my part, but I remain committed to honouring your original request for comments. If you want the Reader's Digest version, here it is. I still don't know what the **** you are talking about, and I don't think you do either. Let me close with a wry smile and a wink, with reference to a point made by Atheist: 1) Never post a reply while being angry/frustrated. But Atheist, that takes all the fun out of it.

I use that one in training sessions to get across the point that you shouldn't necessarily believe your own eyes. It is also an excellent illustration of why sceptics doubt eyewitnesses who have seen ghosts, or UFOs, or the Loch Ness monster, etc.

On what do you base the notion that so far it looks hopeless? Have you read any of the documents in the link I posted earlier. This is an attainable technology. It is certainly a lot closer to realisation than say fusion was thirty years ago. Why do I choose that as an example? Thirty years ago substantial sums were being invested in fusion and nobody doubted that eventually the problem would be solved. The same can be said today and it remains equally true. Were the problems of achieving a solution recognised thirty years ago? Of course they were. Were the solutions to those problems obvious? Of course not. And today, with the space elevator the same situation applies. There are problems, but they have been identified, probably with greater clarity than was the case for fusion. Routes to addressing the problems have been identified. All that is required is time and resources, and probably not a whole lot of either (compared lets say with fusion.) So, I repeat my question, why do you say so far it appears hopeless?

I reject the right of society to execute me for any crime that I may or may not have commited. I recognise that they have the capacity to overide my rejection. If I am expected to adhere to the rules, laws and conventions of this society, then I expect certain things in recompense. Amongst these are not to be executed for a crime, because of the possibility that I may be innocent of said crime. I am not especially concerned that this may remove a deterrent effect, since drug addicts, enraged husbands, jealous lovers and startled burglars (the groups at whom I suspect I would be most at risk from) do not generally carry out a cost-benfit analysis of the consequences of offing me. I would much prefer to take my chances with the aforementioned, than my chances of avoiding accidentally being convicted for a capital crime I did not commit. That's all quite aside from the fact that I consider capital punishment to be unethical, boorish, uncivilised, primitive, ineffectual, demeaning to society, cruel, misdirected, unchristian, counter-productive, simplistic, and reactionary.

The piano was going through major developments during Beethoven' lifetime. The early pianos were very tinny compared with the richness of the modern piano. It is likely that he tried many over this period, seeking a better quality of sound. In his later years he played a piano constructed for him by Conrad Graf in, I think, 1820. Remember that by this time he was deaf.

Thanks for the correction. I did indeed mean 2.2 billion. My passion overcame my proof-reading.

Proton Head, since you have seen fit to talk down to each of the posters to your thread allow me the pleasure of talking down to you. I have taken some considerable time to read and re-read and think about your post. I have done this partly to pass the time and partly as an altruistic action to respond to your request for comments. It is my impression that other posters, whose offerings you have dismissed, have also read your posts with reasonable care and attention. You may not wish to hear it, but the problem here is not our attempt to understand what you are saying, but your singular inability to communicate your thoughts in a coherent fashion. It is largely academic if this is because they are ill formed, qualitative, wrong, or simply badly expressed, the problem lies at your end. Again, I make the point, that at your invitation we have devoted time to studying your comments and posting replies. I would have thought that merited more than superficial courtesy on your part. I can uderstand your frustration at being unable to convey what you feel to be these useful ideas, but that does not excuse bad manners. You may wish to comfort yourself with the thought that we are simply too dumb or uneducated to understand what you are saying. The facts would contradict you, however. I would welcome the opportunity of studying your ideas further when they are expressed more cogently. Until then I prefer you not talk down to me. (e.g. Oh dear, oh dear)

Martin, I don't recall the details as I read them around one year ago. There are four or five techniques now available for locating exo-planets. I was more focused on the results, current and projected, than the methodology. I'm going on a search just now. If I find links I'll post here as an edit. From http://www.markelowitz.com/exobiology.htm Using large space-based telescopes (>10-meter) Astronomers could search for terrestrial planets with atmospheres suitable for life as we know it. Spectroscopy could be used to detect the presence of Ozone, an indicator of oxygen in the atmosphere as well as water bands. Methane produced as a result of biogenic activity could be searched for using the same methods. Using telescopes in Earth orbit planets could be searched for using direct detection methods. Stellar coronagraphs can be used to supress the light from the planet's parent star making detection easier. There is a higher probability of detecting planetary companions around nearby stars in the infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. This is due to the fact that the star to planet flux ratio is less in this region of the spectrum than in the visible. To separate a planetary companion from its primary stellar halo, one must use a telescope (or array of telescopes) with an aperture (or baseline) B such that r/D is greater than or equal to the wavelength at which the observation is being carried out divided by the aperture (or baseline) of the telescope (or array of telescopes). There is bound to be more buried here: http://www.obspm.fr/encycl/encycl.html This month's National Geographic (December) has an article on finding exo-planets.

We were all behind the times http://www.spacedaily.com/news/microsat-04w.html

Surely that is a tricorder?

I am not a conspiracy fan. I think too often people get some perverse comfort from believing in conspiracies. Perhaps it provides them with an explanation for why they are not in control of events. However, I find the conventional explanation - Lee Harvey Oswald, lone gunman - to be unsatisfactory. I am not convinced it is wrong, but I feel some of the conspiracy theories offer more credible explanations for some of the events surrounding the assasination and the aftermath. The difficulty is that you can do a little reading, or you can do a lot of reading, and still will only have read a small fraction of what you could have read on the subject. One thing I am certain of is that the Warren Commision report was indeed a Rush To Judgement. That does not mean their conclusion was wrong, only that if right it was right by luck and not by proper judgement. The Oliver Stone film was good entertainment, but crap history.

Every journey begins with a single step.

I don't see terraforming as being practical or relevant for Titan. Let me expand on that statement. Firstly, we may need to come up with a different term to Terraforming. If Terraforming means to re-make a planet in the likeness of Earth, then I suggest that will only be possible for a planet of comparable mass {close order of magnitude} and ambient radiation. Consequently Terraforming will not be possible for Titan. I think a term such as bioforming might be useful to describe modifications that fit a planet for some life forms, for example vegetation and insects, but not for humanity without additional life support equipment (or bioengineering that changes us from being human.) On that basis we may be able to bioform Titan, but not terraform it.However, you were considering providing life support for subtitanian bases. Lets consider some options. I would have thought by the time we got to thinking about a base on Titan we would have licked the fusion problem. If you want some local energy, just drill a deep hole and tap the equivalent of geothermal. The bulk of Titan is dirty ice, so we can break it down for our oxygen. We can use the methane/ethane atmosphere as chemical feedstock for plastics and polymers and carbon nano-tubes (we might as well have a space elevator). Probably not much on hand metal wise, so we may need to move a small iron asteroid into a parking orbit for mining and metalurgical industry. But all, in all, I'd rather live on Mars, even if you don't get to see the rings close up.

Interesting question: it isn't something I've thought about. Provisional questions I am asking myself and associated thoughts: 1. Mass is obviously important, but more for retention, than for formation. 2. Did much of the atmosphere get delivered by cometary impact during accretion? If that were the case Jupiter's stronger gravitational attraction could have drawn off a substantial number of the potential impactors for Callisto and Ganymede, unlike the case for the Saturn/Titan pairing. 3. What was the range of temperature of formation of the three satellites? Could this have precluded significant atmosphere formation on the Jovian satellites? 4. Ganymede is thought to have a very complex geological past. This might be expected to raise temperatures and promote loss of atmosphere. 5. Could the compositional differences account for significant differences in out-gassing? I need to check on the current presumptions as to gross geochemistry for these satellites. 6. The fact that the Jovian satellites are atmosphere free and Titan is not, hints at something beyond the gravitational effect noted above. I’m thinking tidal influences, radiation effects, aspects of Jupiter’s own accretion

Brilliant. 43,800 hits for basalt. Although several returned a 'page cannot be found' there was not apparent rubbish.