Ophiolite

I accessed it with no problem. Strange.

I would say it exists in a couple of ways. Firstly, the space is defined by the box. The box exists, has dimensions, and so the space has dimensions also. Secondly, vacuums are not empty. I am not speaking about stray atoms floating around, as you have stipulated that for this thought experiment we have a perfect vacuum. In a vacuum, virtual particles and anti-particles are continuously created and destroyed in a process I think is called quantum vacuum fluctuation. With luck one of the physicists will respond with a fuller (and more accurate) assessment.

I would say it exists in a couple of ways. Firstly, the space is defined by the box. The box exists, has dimensions, and so the space has dimensions also. Secondly, vacuums are not empty. I am not speaking about stray atoms floating around, as you have stipulated that for this thought experiment we have a perfect vacuum. In a vacuum, virtual particles and anti-particles are continuously created and destroyed in a process I think is called quantum vacuum fluctuation. With luck one of the physicists will respond with a fuller (and more accurate) assessment.

I agree with you Aardvark and would expand your basic point a little. If we accept Kgill's view that government is a monopoly of force we can still ask: Why is this force being applied i.e. to whose declared benefit? (the attempts to deliver these benefits may be misguided and unwelcome, but is the intent well-meaning.) Is the force applied commensurate with the goals? (Not making illegal parking a capital offence, for example.) Both of these will be effected by how the government arose, so it is relevant.

I agree with you Aardvark and would expand your basic point a little. If we accept Kgill's view that government is a monopoly of force we can still ask: Why is this force being applied i.e. to whose declared benefit? (the attempts to deliver these benefits may be misguided and unwelcome, but is the intent well-meaning.) Is the force applied commensurate with the goals? (Not making illegal parking a capital offence, for example.) Both of these will be effected by how the government arose, so it is relevant.

A wonderful idea, befitting a wonderful people. In the seventies they had a whole series of military coups, usually bloodless. I recall flying into Bangkok from Singapore on one occasion. We arrived in Bangkok airspace and went into a holding pattern - for three hours. The military had once again displaced the civilian government and had just been checking with the King that that was OK. It was. We landed to a perfectly normal peaceful city, but one with a new government in place. Much more efficient than an election.

A wonderful idea, befitting a wonderful people. In the seventies they had a whole series of military coups, usually bloodless. I recall flying into Bangkok from Singapore on one occasion. We arrived in Bangkok airspace and went into a holding pattern - for three hours. The military had once again displaced the civilian government and had just been checking with the King that that was OK. It was. We landed to a perfectly normal peaceful city, but one with a new government in place. Much more efficient than an election.

The one piece of advice I would give you Gilded is , never take anybody's advice.

The one piece of advice I would give you Gilded is , never take anybody's advice.

There is a fundamental error in your reasoning. When we seek to examine any phenomenom it is beneficial to have several examples of it. If we wish to understand all life in the Universe' date=' this will be difficult to do if we have only the example of the pattern that has emerged on our own planet. We would benefit from having life forms to examine that had not all evolved here, especially if these were intelligent and we were able to exchange information with them.[/size'] There are already several examples where the exploration of space has enhanced our understanding of earth based processes – our grasp of plate tectonics has improved through observations of the other terrestrial planets and moons in the solar system; our appreciation of aspects of weather prediction have benefited from studies of the atmospheres of the giant planets and of Venus.

There is a fundamental error in your reasoning. When we seek to examine any phenomenom it is beneficial to have several examples of it. If we wish to understand all life in the Universe' date=' this will be difficult to do if we have only the example of the pattern that has emerged on our own planet. We would benefit from having life forms to examine that had not all evolved here, especially if these were intelligent and we were able to exchange information with them.[/size'] There are already several examples where the exploration of space has enhanced our understanding of earth based processes – our grasp of plate tectonics has improved through observations of the other terrestrial planets and moons in the solar system; our appreciation of aspects of weather prediction have benefited from studies of the atmospheres of the giant planets and of Venus.

I do not have figures to hand for the annual expenditure on SETI, but it is certainly a very small, a vanishingly small percentage of total scientific expenditure and a small fraction of the amount spent on dog food in France. I therefore question, most rigorously, your suggestion that science places great 'weight on SETI'. It doesn't. It's a side show - one I personally find fascinating, but a side show none the less.And you say you regret this because science has not yet reached an understanding of life. That strikes me as singularily illogical. What other event could give us a greater understanding of Life than the opportunity to converse with other intelligent life forms?

I do not have figures to hand for the annual expenditure on SETI, but it is certainly a very small, a vanishingly small percentage of total scientific expenditure and a small fraction of the amount spent on dog food in France. I therefore question, most rigorously, your suggestion that science places great 'weight on SETI'. It doesn't. It's a side show - one I personally find fascinating, but a side show none the less.And you say you regret this because science has not yet reached an understanding of life. That strikes me as singularily illogical. What other event could give us a greater understanding of Life than the opportunity to converse with other intelligent life forms?

Excuse me! Please stop wriggling out of the debate by changing your position and pretending you are not. You stated in your first post on this thread' date=' that If that is not an attack on the motivation for SETI please explain what it is!

Excuse me! Please stop wriggling out of the debate by changing your position and pretending you are not. You stated in your first post on this thread' date=' that If that is not an attack on the motivation for SETI please explain what it is!

Yes. This (fox hunting) is an antiquated piece of upper class pretension carrying with it disregard for animal lfe while masquerading as ecologically friendly vermin control. Fine. Control the bloody things' date=' don't revel in their blood.(Anybody offended by this view can simply put me down [figuratively'] as an aging, left wing, anti-establishment, shite-stirring hippy, and go on about your business.)

Yes. This (fox hunting) is an antiquated piece of upper class pretension carrying with it disregard for animal lfe while masquerading as ecologically friendly vermin control. Fine. Control the bloody things' date=' don't revel in their blood.(Anybody offended by this view can simply put me down [figuratively'] as an aging, left wing, anti-establishment, shite-stirring hippy, and go on about your business.)

The damn things blue Bloodhound, for all the reasons stated. If the question had been in relation to its roundness rather than its sphericity then it could have been a draw. Reminds me about the ways of describing the earth: sphere, well no. Oblate spheroid? That's better, but it doesn't cover the overlain pear shape related to crustal gravity anomalies. So we wind up with geoid, which sounds authoritative , but doesn't tell us anything.

The damn things blue Bloodhound, for all the reasons stated. If the question had been in relation to its roundness rather than its sphericity then it could have been a draw. Reminds me about the ways of describing the earth: sphere, well no. Oblate spheroid? That's better, but it doesn't cover the overlain pear shape related to crustal gravity anomalies. So we wind up with geoid, which sounds authoritative , but doesn't tell us anything.

No, it couldn't. That is the point we are debating, and quite simply you are wrong. This is not an opinion, this is an application of sound scientific principles. Agreed, though there is a difference between balance and stability. Please ponder that. Why? Why would the loss of the magnetic field have any discernible effect on the mantle? The magnetic field originates in the core. Loss of the field will have no gross mechanical effect on the mantle whatsoever. If you are claiming it would, and you are, please provide the mechanism, by which this occurs. Your sequence is a little flaky, but for a worst case scenario we will accept the final outcome, melted polar caps. What geophysical mechanisms are you talking about? Get a sense of proportion here please. A paltry mass of water is released from the Antarctic and this is going to cause "lithosphere displacement,a speeding of plate tectonics over a short period." Why? For what reason. Give me a mechanism founded in reality not speculation.Fact: melting of the polar caps will not induce a change in plate tectonics. Fact: loss of the magnetic field will not induce a change in plate tectonics. So what are you talking about?

No, it couldn't. That is the point we are debating, and quite simply you are wrong. This is not an opinion, this is an application of sound scientific principles. Agreed, though there is a difference between balance and stability. Please ponder that. Why? Why would the loss of the magnetic field have any discernible effect on the mantle? The magnetic field originates in the core. Loss of the field will have no gross mechanical effect on the mantle whatsoever. If you are claiming it would, and you are, please provide the mechanism, by which this occurs. Your sequence is a little flaky, but for a worst case scenario we will accept the final outcome, melted polar caps. What geophysical mechanisms are you talking about? Get a sense of proportion here please. A paltry mass of water is released from the Antarctic and this is going to cause "lithosphere displacement,a speeding of plate tectonics over a short period." Why? For what reason. Give me a mechanism founded in reality not speculation.Fact: melting of the polar caps will not induce a change in plate tectonics. Fact: loss of the magnetic field will not induce a change in plate tectonics. So what are you talking about?