Ophiolite

Nothing has ever been observed to break this law. It is arguably a key cornerstone of physics. (But I'm speaking as a geologist, so what do I know?)

Nothing has ever been observed to break this law. It is arguably a key cornerstone of physics. (But I'm speaking as a geologist, so what do I know?)

Its a little clearer now what you are tring to say. Cetainly the north pole can be considered fixed for practical purposes. (Actual movement of the pole is outside the scope of this discussion.) The magnetic North Pole is only indirectly linked to the rotational North Pole. It is perfectly possible for the magnetic north pole to wander and indeed it does so with long term, somewhat predictable, drift occuring, overlain with smaller more random daily fluctuations. This is quite independent of plate tectonics. On top of that is the point I think you are making that because the plates have moved they show differing positions for ancient poles.

Its a little clearer now what you are tring to say. Cetainly the north pole can be considered fixed for practical purposes. (Actual movement of the pole is outside the scope of this discussion.) The magnetic North Pole is only indirectly linked to the rotational North Pole. It is perfectly possible for the magnetic north pole to wander and indeed it does so with long term, somewhat predictable, drift occuring, overlain with smaller more random daily fluctuations. This is quite independent of plate tectonics. On top of that is the point I think you are making that because the plates have moved they show differing positions for ancient poles.

Yep. Got it in one. That was what I was responding to. That seemed to be an evidence/absence plea. Of course while it can't be used as an argument it doesn't mean it might not apply.I think what molecularman was saying was that since there really wasn't any quality evidence then if one chose to believe in it, that choice was unscientific. Since I think there is just enough evidence to leave a lingering possibility then your view of 'everone make up their own mind till we get new data' can be a valid scientific position.

Yep. Got it in one. That was what I was responding to. That seemed to be an evidence/absence plea. Of course while it can't be used as an argument it doesn't mean it might not apply.I think what molecularman was saying was that since there really wasn't any quality evidence then if one chose to believe in it, that choice was unscientific. Since I think there is just enough evidence to leave a lingering possibility then your view of 'everone make up their own mind till we get new data' can be a valid scientific position.

Temperature inversions. The loch is rife with them. Play havoc with the sonar.

Temperature inversions. The loch is rife with them. Play havoc with the sonar.

From memory they have tried a small number of submersibles, both manned and unmanned in the past. The rhomboid flipper that started today's activity on the thread was captured by one of those. Otherwise it has been needle in the haystack.A book I read on the topic forty years ago and whose title escapes my memory at present still gave the best explanation I have yet seen. Taking a detailed look at the descriptions of the wake generated by the creature during alleged sitings, and the directional behaviour of said beast, the author compared it with the wakes of other swimming creatures, such as whales, porpoises, bears, otters. He concluded that the foam and spray produced were much in excess of what would be considered 'normal' or efficient. His conclusion was that witnesses had seen rafts of rotting vegetable matter that had been propelled to and along the surface by gases trapped within. This would explain the appearance of varying numbers of humps and the erratic behviour of the beast. To explain a handful of observations that did not match this theory (a handful of sightings have been made on land for example) he postulated a species of otter of larger than normal size, though I believe a normal otter, seen out of context at dusk could equally be misinterpreted.

From memory they have tried a small number of submersibles, both manned and unmanned in the past. The rhomboid flipper that started today's activity on the thread was captured by one of those. Otherwise it has been needle in the haystack.A book I read on the topic forty years ago and whose title escapes my memory at present still gave the best explanation I have yet seen. Taking a detailed look at the descriptions of the wake generated by the creature during alleged sitings, and the directional behaviour of said beast, the author compared it with the wakes of other swimming creatures, such as whales, porpoises, bears, otters. He concluded that the foam and spray produced were much in excess of what would be considered 'normal' or efficient. His conclusion was that witnesses had seen rafts of rotting vegetable matter that had been propelled to and along the surface by gases trapped within. This would explain the appearance of varying numbers of humps and the erratic behviour of the beast. To explain a handful of observations that did not match this theory (a handful of sightings have been made on land for example) he postulated a species of otter of larger than normal size, though I believe a normal otter, seen out of context at dusk could equally be misinterpreted.

Dov, everything you have said in your last post makes good sense, but it seems at odds with your earlier posts where you appear to be 1) falsely identifying the motives for SETI and 2) condemning those who wish to pursue it, even though I would argue they are doing it for the motives set out in your first paragraph above. Can you clarify that apparent contradiction? Thanks

Dov, everything you have said in your last post makes good sense, but it seems at odds with your earlier posts where you appear to be 1) falsely identifying the motives for SETI and 2) condemning those who wish to pursue it, even though I would argue they are doing it for the motives set out in your first paragraph above. Can you clarify that apparent contradiction? Thanks

Much as I would like to think there is something there the odds are against it. After forty years of moderate to intense observation we have nothing conclusive. The two best pieces of evidence I am aware of are the famous London surgeon's photo, now known to have been a hoax. And the rhomboid flipper of Rhines (Rines?), that Peter Scott seems to have suspected was a hoax. And you really cannot say 5614, that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That is faulty logic. Personally I think there was a monster there, but the last of them was killed several thousand years ago when Yeti and Bigfoot got together for a jamboree in the highlands!

Much as I would like to think there is something there the odds are against it. After forty years of moderate to intense observation we have nothing conclusive. The two best pieces of evidence I am aware of are the famous London surgeon's photo, now known to have been a hoax. And the rhomboid flipper of Rhines (Rines?), that Peter Scott seems to have suspected was a hoax. And you really cannot say 5614, that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That is faulty logic. Personally I think there was a monster there, but the last of them was killed several thousand years ago when Yeti and Bigfoot got together for a jamboree in the highlands!

Molecular Man, check out these three things (well I'm cheating there are really only two.) The length of the loch The depth of the loch (Remember its glaciated) The visibility of the loch Combine the first two (36km and up to 250m) and you have a volume of over 260 billion cubic feet. It's not Lake Superior, but its the largest volume of fresh water in the UK. The loch has tons of fine particulates from the peat on the surrounding hills. Visibility is at best only a few metres. How many cameras do you need to have on a twenty three mile long one and a half mile wide, 750 deep loch in order to spot something? There could be something there, but if there is it isn't a pleisiosaur. Remember the loch was glaciated. An earlier poster queried why the first sightings began in the early 1900's. That one is easy. That's when the road was built.

Molecular Man, check out these three things (well I'm cheating there are really only two.) The length of the loch The depth of the loch (Remember its glaciated) The visibility of the loch Combine the first two (36km and up to 250m) and you have a volume of over 260 billion cubic feet. It's not Lake Superior, but its the largest volume of fresh water in the UK. The loch has tons of fine particulates from the peat on the surrounding hills. Visibility is at best only a few metres. How many cameras do you need to have on a twenty three mile long one and a half mile wide, 750 deep loch in order to spot something? There could be something there, but if there is it isn't a pleisiosaur. Remember the loch was glaciated. An earlier poster queried why the first sightings began in the early 1900's. That one is easy. That's when the road was built.

Excuse me BrainMan, I overlooked your response. You made the unequivocal statement that 'you cannot imagine a reality independant of observers'. It is the validity of this position that has been the subject of much debate by many philsophers over several centuries. Based on the quality of your earlier arguments I presumed you would be aware of these and so reminded you of them with my trite remark. This seemed much efficient than laboriously listing a suite of philosophers and their works. Later I explained that in my first post I had stipulated that for the purposes of this discussion I was taking the view that there was an underlying 'true' reality. I don't know if there is or isn't. The evidence is inadequate. If there is no 'true' reality' date=' then I would question whether your perceptions bear much relation at all to mine, Tom Cruise's to Tony Blair's, let alone humanity to aliens. In those circumstances, then, discussion of the different alien view point is moot. The discusion becomes closed by the constraints you have chosen to place on it. The discussion only had validity when we were assessing the ability of aliens and humans to perceive the same totality of the 'true' reality. The curious case of the dogma barking in the night?

Excuse me BrainMan, I overlooked your response. You made the unequivocal statement that 'you cannot imagine a reality independant of observers'. It is the validity of this position that has been the subject of much debate by many philsophers over several centuries. Based on the quality of your earlier arguments I presumed you would be aware of these and so reminded you of them with my trite remark. This seemed much efficient than laboriously listing a suite of philosophers and their works. Later I explained that in my first post I had stipulated that for the purposes of this discussion I was taking the view that there was an underlying 'true' reality. I don't know if there is or isn't. The evidence is inadequate. If there is no 'true' reality' date=' then I would question whether your perceptions bear much relation at all to mine, Tom Cruise's to Tony Blair's, let alone humanity to aliens. In those circumstances, then, discussion of the different alien view point is moot. The discusion becomes closed by the constraints you have chosen to place on it. The discussion only had validity when we were assessing the ability of aliens and humans to perceive the same totality of the 'true' reality. The curious case of the dogma barking in the night?

Recall that in 1972 +/- a group led by an American called Rhines(?) captured blurry photogrpahs underwater, allegedly of a rhomboid flipper. Sir Peter Scott the naturalist was involved with evaluating the evidence and assigned the formal name of Nessiteras rhombopteryx to the creature. I don't recall how much later it was that some one spotted that an anagram of the name is Monster hoax Sir Peter

Recall that in 1972 +/- a group led by an American called Rhines(?) captured blurry photogrpahs underwater, allegedly of a rhomboid flipper. Sir Peter Scott the naturalist was involved with evaluating the evidence and assigned the formal name of Nessiteras rhombopteryx to the creature. I don't recall how much later it was that some one spotted that an anagram of the name is Monster hoax Sir Peter

What I find interesting in this is that two very intelligent, well educated, scientists should have developed such bizarre theories. Yet, to them, they were well founded, in that they addressed anomalies in observations and were not prohibited by known science. I can just hear the conversations in the equivalent of this forum one hundred and fifty years from now: "And their top scientists actually believed that the fundamental particles were these tiny strings, and that the Universe started with a Big Bang. And they had dismissed Lamarck totally. Don't even mention variable c. It's remarkable they made any progress at all."