Ophiolite

Now I'm just plain confused. So if I've offended anyone inadvertently ie John, then apologies.

Is it science? If it is, then I am still working as a scientist, I just didn't know it. The two fields are obviously allied but they are not the same. I saw a quote recently, possibly on this forum."When the results of an experiment are unexpected this delights the scientist and horrifies the engineer." Engineers like to work with the known, the quantifiable, the predictable. Scienists like the unknown, the uncertain. A good engineer pushes the limits of the envelope. The good scientist rips the envelope up and starts again. Certainly an engineering career can offer great prospects, excellent challenges and financial reward. I like mine. But it isn't cutting edge science. (Most of the time.)

John as per the post between yours and mine, do you want to try reading what's on the page? There is an exclamation point at the end of my sentence. The next sentence is dripping in irony. I'm not given to shouting but you are not the only poster to miss this point. THERE IS NO F***** RABIES IN THE UK. Got that? If you promise to read what is written in future, I promise never to shout again. Deal?

You might want to take a look at this thread here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=7105 This includes a link to a 'debunking' of the flapping flag and all the other arguments against a landing. http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html Here is a quote: "Bad: When the astronauts are assembling the American flag, the flag waves. Kaysing says this must have been from an errant breeze on the set. A flag wouldn't wave in a vacuum. Good: Of course a flag can wave in a vacuum. In the shot of the astronaut and the flag, the astronaut is rotating the pole on which the flag is mounted, trying to get it to stay up. The flag is mounted on one side on the pole, and along the top by another pole that sticks out to the side. In a vacuum or not, when you whip around the vertical pole, the flag will ``wave'', since it is attached at the top. The top will move first, then the cloth will follow along in a wave that moves down. This isn't air that is moving the flag, it's the cloth itself. " Hope that helps.

Genuine question for you Artorius - what are you talking about here? I vaguely recall a plan to put a small mobile robot up there that people could pay to drive around by remote control. Was it this, or something else entirely? You seem to envisage some vast conspiracy at work to this day. May I ask a second question. Are you generally 'into' conspiracies, or is is just this 'moon landing hoax to be preserved at all costs' one?

I think we are all waiting for some form of assurance you wont patent our brilliant ideas then run away to another star system.

If this is at the root of your argument why didn't you say so to begin with. When I place an opinion in my post I try to indicate that it is an opinion. You think there is little chance of finding inteligent life, but cannot back this up by evidence. I can back up my position 100% by evidence, for my position is that I do not know if there is any intelligent life out there. But if there is, then that is an astounding fact. And if there isn't that is also an astounding fact. I am ready, indeed enthusiastic, therefore to see a small amount of the annual science budget of the planet devoted to SETI and to speculation on possible exoecologies.The evolutionary pathway to humans was indeed a complex one filled with chance and random happenings. I am not looking for humans. I do not know what form this ET could take. Gilded gave an analogy that despite his modest protestation I rather liked. There are likely many routes to intelligence. Humanity followed one. Only by searching do we stand a chance of finding the others. I fail utterly to recognise the distinction you are making. It lies, I think, at the heart of your argument, yet to me it sounds simply wrong. I have never detected in the written or spoken word of any life scientist that he has a different approach to his field than any other. Perhaps you are correct, but if so then this is a very important point. Can you explain please what this difference is, and, if appropriate summarise the evidence.If your response is it is the "difference between studying mechanisms of living systems and studying the nature of life", then you are being very dismissive of generations of behavioural zoologists, ecologists and the like.

Who is feeding you this garbage us.2u. Don't misunderstand me, I am not attacking you. You are asking some very pertinent questions given the nonsense some one has presented you with. It just bothers me that many people (maybe even most people) wouldn't have the sense to question it the way you are.Here are a couple of further thoughts: Time Delay: I was lucky enough to be alive during the moon flights and I clearly remember a short delay. In fact it added to the drama of the event. Media:The news cameras were there for the landings. If I get a chance I'll check out some data for you and post it here later. Hygene: They were not clean shaven and had you had your eyes closed you would still have known they were there. They stank. Rest assured they landed on the moon. The double tragedy is that we turned back from the adventure and that there are idiots out there trying to tell you the adventure never even began.

On those missions with lunar rovers there were cameras attached to the rovers. These were then set up to capture the launch of the astronauts back into lunar orbit.

You are correct about the scale and scope of the challenges facing construction of a space elevator. However, all these concerns have been recognised and are being addressed. This site is an excellent source of deeper technical information on the topic. http://www.spaceelevator.com/

You are correct about the scale and scope of the challenges facing construction of a space elevator. However, all these concerns have been recognised and are being addressed. This site is an excellent source of deeper technical information on the topic. http://www.spaceelevator.com/

Ah. Well we are in agreement on point 1 then. Now what is your evidence for there being a near zero chance of finding ET? I still don't understand your underlying points. What is it we are failing to face up to? i.e. What are the results of the investigation?

Ah. Well we are in agreement on point 1 then. Now what is your evidence for there being a near zero chance of finding ET? I still don't understand your underlying points. What is it we are failing to face up to? i.e. What are the results of the investigation?

I think he is also talking about the progressive attentuation of signals as they spread out through a larger volume until they are submerged in the background noise.

I think he is also talking about the progressive attentuation of signals as they spread out through a larger volume until they are submerged in the background noise.

I liked the idea of this thread, started by TimeTraveler, but there seems to have been little enthusiam for it. I thought it might be worth trying to jump start it again. I am not a working scientist, but I trained as one and certainly use that training on a daily if not hourly basis. I do not know, other than by anecdote, what proportion of say chemists, go on to work as chemists and are still doing so ten or twenty years later. I can tell you that for geologists the figure is low, very low. I suspect it to be true of most sciences. What is the relevance of this? Those of you who are in or embarking on a degree level course in a science will find that the majority of your colleagues are not working as scientists in ten years time. Be prepared for the possibility that the same will happen to you. Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily, unless you were planning on winning a Nobel prize. (You could still take up writing or stopping wars.) I would presume that one of the things that has attracted you to science is a curiosity about the Universe and how it works. Not being actively engaged in science in no way reduces the opportunity to develop this curiosity. In some ways it may even enhance it. Just be aware that you may wind up as an investment banker or airline pilot or plumber rather than a scientist.

I liked the idea of this thread, started by TimeTraveler, but there seems to have been little enthusiam for it. I thought it might be worth trying to jump start it again. I am not a working scientist, but I trained as one and certainly use that training on a daily if not hourly basis. I do not know, other than by anecdote, what proportion of say chemists, go on to work as chemists and are still doing so ten or twenty years later. I can tell you that for geologists the figure is low, very low. I suspect it to be true of most sciences. What is the relevance of this? Those of you who are in or embarking on a degree level course in a science will find that the majority of your colleagues are not working as scientists in ten years time. Be prepared for the possibility that the same will happen to you. Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily, unless you were planning on winning a Nobel prize. (You could still take up writing or stopping wars.) I would presume that one of the things that has attracted you to science is a curiosity about the Universe and how it works. Not being actively engaged in science in no way reduces the opportunity to develop this curiosity. In some ways it may even enhance it. Just be aware that you may wind up as an investment banker or airline pilot or plumber rather than a scientist.

Foxes spread rabies in the UK! This is going to come as a great shock to the relevant government authorities. The UK does not have rabies. The advantages of being an island and having had rigorously enforced quarantine regulations. There are occasional incidents of a related virus in bats. (European bat lyssavirus, or EBL). Up to two hundred bats a year have been tested over the last fifteen years and only two were found to be infected. The only risk to humans is if they handle a bat without protective clothing. (Sadly exactly this occured about two years ago, resulting in the death of the individual.) The virus that is found in the majority of infected European mammals is sylvatic rabies. It is unknown in the UK. Foxes in the UK do not have rabies.

Foxes spread rabies in the UK! This is going to come as a great shock to the relevant government authorities. The UK does not have rabies. The advantages of being an island and having had rigorously enforced quarantine regulations. There are occasional incidents of a related virus in bats. (European bat lyssavirus, or EBL). Up to two hundred bats a year have been tested over the last fifteen years and only two were found to be infected. The only risk to humans is if they handle a bat without protective clothing. (Sadly exactly this occured about two years ago, resulting in the death of the individual.) The virus that is found in the majority of infected European mammals is sylvatic rabies. It is unknown in the UK. Foxes in the UK do not have rabies.

Interesting thread with some fascinating links. I would have made Dave's mistake and said it was the Arab's who invented zero. Also, I did not know, or had long forgotten, that at one time all proofs were done geometrically. All in all the thread proves that you can make something out of nothing.

Interesting thread with some fascinating links. I would have made Dave's mistake and said it was the Arab's who invented zero. Also, I did not know, or had long forgotten, that at one time all proofs were done geometrically. All in all the thread proves that you can make something out of nothing.

You may be thinking that YT means the box would instantly vaporise. That is not the case, nor, I imagine, what he means. Atoms or molecules on the internal surface of the box would find it possible to detatch themselves from the other molecules in the box and move into the vacuum. This would occur when random fluctuations in point temperatures (i.e movement of individual atoms/molecules) became sufficient to overcome the physical/chemical bonds. Over time all of the box could dissipate in this way. at least until it lost is structural integrity. Two things could suppress this tendency: if the box was small then the molecules building up in what is now no longer a vacuum could exert sufficient pressure to prevent further loss of box material. (More exactly, a dynamic equilibrium would be established.) Secondly, if the temperature of the box were sufficiently low then there would be inadequate thermal energy to allow any molecules to escape. Since I think you intended this as a thought experiment only these considerations are probably irrelevant. [Please don't take the foregoing as gospel. I haven't dabbled in physics for three decades and I was crap then!]

You may be thinking that YT means the box would instantly vaporise. That is not the case, nor, I imagine, what he means. Atoms or molecules on the internal surface of the box would find it possible to detatch themselves from the other molecules in the box and move into the vacuum. This would occur when random fluctuations in point temperatures (i.e movement of individual atoms/molecules) became sufficient to overcome the physical/chemical bonds. Over time all of the box could dissipate in this way. at least until it lost is structural integrity. Two things could suppress this tendency: if the box was small then the molecules building up in what is now no longer a vacuum could exert sufficient pressure to prevent further loss of box material. (More exactly, a dynamic equilibrium would be established.) Secondly, if the temperature of the box were sufficiently low then there would be inadequate thermal energy to allow any molecules to escape. Since I think you intended this as a thought experiment only these considerations are probably irrelevant. [Please don't take the foregoing as gospel. I haven't dabbled in physics for three decades and I was crap then!]

I accessed it with no problem. Strange.