Ophiolite

Static contains no consistent pattern. The broadcast of a Mets' game might well be unintelligible to an alien (or a European) but it would include a discernible pattern.

Intersting link YT and it triggered an off-topic, but related thought. One of the challenges facing the human exploration of space is our adaption to the zero-g environment. (Or rather the problems associated with re-adapting to a normal 1-g). Were intelligent beings to evolve in an ocean environment they would surely be less susceptible to such problems. They would be well suited to pottering around deep space. Their problems would emerge when they had to 'swim' on the surface of Mars.

I have voted for Mars, since I believe there is a reasonable chance that the Viking landers in 1976 detected life. For those of you unfamiliar with this possibility, here is a good starting place: http://www.biospherics.com/mars/ This is an extract from the site: In 1997, Biospherics' President and CEO, Dr. Gilbert V. Levin, announced his new conclusion that his 1976 Viking Labeled Release (LR) life detection experiment found living microorganisms in the soil of Mars. Objective application of the scientific process to 21 years of continued research and to new developments on Mars and Earth forced this conclusion. Of all the many hypotheses offered over the years to explain the LR Mars results, the only possibility fitting all the relevant data is that microbial life exists in the top layer of the Martian surface. Edit: Staying on the 'But extra-terrestrial life has already been discovered' theme, I could have voted for the moon. On April 20, 1967, the Surveyor 3 spacecraft landed on the moon, and arriving with it was a creature from Earth - Streptococcus mitis. When Surveyor 3 was being prepared for launch, somebody apparently coughed on it, and a colony of the common, harmless bacteria was established on a piece of foam insulation that covered one of Surveyor's circuit boards. The bacteria contamination was discovered in 1969 when Apollo 12 astronauts Pete Conrad and Alan Bean brought back a piece of Surveyor's insulation. The bacteria had been freeze-dried in space, but were quickly revived once back on Earth. So bacteria, the earliest and most common form of life on Earth, were also the first life form to travel to the moon. The Surveyor contamination accident revealed that bacteria could survive a launch, travel unprotected through the vacuum of space and survive three years on the moon's surface - a place of high radiation, temperatures near absolute zero, and no nutrients. Once dropped into a nutrient-rich petri dish back on Earth, the bacteria came out of "hibernation" and popped back to life. The lesson of the streptococcus space colony wasn't lost on NASA. It showed that life could survive in very harsh environments, even extraterrestrial ones. The above extract is from http://www.crystalinks.com/bioastro.html

You took time to make a lengthy response. Thank you. Sayonara has addressed several of the points you made' date=' more or less as I would have, so I shall restrict myself to a handful of related issues from your opening paragraphs.Like Sayonara I am very confused by the statement quoted above. (Let me say evolutionist rather than neo-Darwinist, since it rolls of the tongue more readily and is somewhat more catholic in scope.) Many, if not most, evolutionists are atheist, or agnostic, or non-Christian. To them it is obvious that the God of Genesis is not the creator, so I am at a loss to understand what you are saying here. [Also, you appear to have mistaken me for a neo-Darwinist. Probably accurate on even numbered weekdays, but the rest of the time I have a strong leaning to some of the more bizarre views of Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, which would pretty much make me [i']persona non grata [/i]with any respectable neo-Darwinist.] How true. Assinine Ophiolite they call me. However' date=' I have read, and re-read my post (I thought it read rather well, but perhaps I'm biased). I don't mention genesis. I don't think I even mention the bible in this context. What I do say is that I see no incompatibility between a belief in God and a belief in evolution. Indeed, I can entertain an argument that says evolution is [i']evidence [/i]for the existence of a God.Please Willowtree, if you are going to accuse me of being god-damn silly base it on something I have done. And' date=' just to further clarify, I do not see a necessary contradiction between the God of the Bible and evolution, unless we wish to take the Old Testament literally. Then there is a clear conflict. I don't take the Old Testament literally and so I see no contradiction. Two points: recent work, for example relating to protein folding, suggest that the origin and evolution of life may not be so random. The accidents and the mutations are occuring within a framework tightly confined by the 'Laws of Nature'. That is the important part of creation - setting the ground rules. Now you have lost me again. I have read and re-read the first two chapters of Genesis' date=' which appear to be the relevant ones, and I cannot find anything that matches, even with the broadest interpretation, what you have written here. Please explain. So your beef isn't with me then. I am not a Darwinist, I am only occasionally a neo-Darwinist, and I certainly don't think eolution disproves Genesis unless you want to take Genesis literally.I don't say God is not the creator. I am agnostic. If there is a God then his primary characteristic is that he is the Creator. He then created us by setting up a Universe with a set of laws and constants that led to us. That's a far more marvellous, miraculous process than snapping your fingers and saying 'Let there be light'.

Well, it was designed for Americans! (Just joking guys)

Correct. You are postulating a possible cause and effect, and I asked you for evidence of this relationship. I don't refer to it as a superficial event. I described it as dramatic, but noted that there were doubts as to whether it was cataclysmic. These doubts are not just mine. You need look no further than a discussion on this very board in the Modern Physics/Theoretical Physics forum, titled Magnetic Pole Reversal Theories. In this Lucid Dreamer, Cap'n Refsmmat, and Swansont all express the view that a maganetic pole reversal would not prove catastrophic. I was surprised by these views, as they did not match what I recalled from casual reading on the topic. (If you care to read the thread you will see that I asked for references.) When I searched dligently I found that while there were any number of sites proclaiming gloom and doom, the more serious, though less numerous items were much more reserved. So, the scenario I have portrayed is not mine, nor is it ill informed. My original statement stands - there are serious doubts that the reversal would be cataclysmic. [i trust that you are not garnering your opinions from the BBC [i]Horizons [/i]Disaster-of-the Month Club.] It may turn out to be cataclysmic and destroy our civilisation, but current thinking is that this is unlikely. As you have pointed out the Earth and all the life on it, including early humans, have survived numerous such reversals in the past. I believe I acknowledged the possibility that "major climatic changes" could occur, and certainly melting of the ice caps could easily be a consequence. It's the next two steps that I have described as nonsense. [You appear, by the way, to have taken personal offence at this description. Nonsense= non sense = does not make sense, is not scientifically consistent. If you are going to take umbrage every time someome contests one of your statements then we are not going to get very far.] 1. A simple calculation shows that the total mass of ice is less than 3/100th of 1% of the mass of the crustal plates. The potential effect becomes even less when you consider that the angular momentum associated with the ice caps is low, since they are located close to the poles. It is not a credible mechanism. 2. Why would the "tectonic plate movement" be "speeded to counter the imbalance"? Plate movement is driven primarily by internal heat flow, not by surficial mechanics. Edit: Damn, Swansont, why didn't I think of that. It would have taken so much less time.

Two orbits, with five people, at an altitude above 400kms, to be repeated within sixty days. The first flight can simply demonstrate the ability to take five people i.e. pilot, plus ballast. The second flight must carry at least five. http://www.space.com/spacenews/businessmonday_bigelow_041108.html It must be completed by Jan 10, 2010. Unlike the X-prize this is only open to US residents.

I checked to see if someone had already responded to this and I couldn't find anything.So, no. Although the tlt varies from 23 degrees, it does so over the course of millenia. Seasons are caused by the varying insolation received, that depends in turn upon the how spread out a given bundle of sun's rays are. In winter for a hemisphere, that hemisphere is tilted away from the sun, so that the sun is lower on the horizon, on average throughout the day (which is also shorter). Together the two factors mean less heat input, therefore lower temperature. In summer the situation is reversed.

That does fall into the category of nonsense. A pole reversal is doubtless a dramatic event, but there is serious doubt that its consequences are cataclysmic. Some of the predicted consequences have included: Elimination of the ozone layer with consequent increase in cancer, especially skin cancers, and in mutations. Navigational disaster for whales, homing pigeons and the like. Major power outages and disruption of electrical distribution systems. Major climatic changes as the atmosphere expands (or is it contracts?) Functional disorders in human brain operation. It is now thought doubtful that any but the navigational problems would arise. Why? The field does not vanish, but changes in character, so that a measure of protection is still in place. But even if all these events were to occur they are all superficial, effecting the atmosphere and the biosphere, but having no effect upon the body of the earth. What is your evidence for claiming a relationship between the two?

Excellent point. Once again proves that if you work the data hard enough it can confirm your prejudices. In this case, since they are also my prejudices, they must be correct.

Yes' date=' I see where you are going - down a blind alley. Politicians are not swayed by fact, neither is public opinion. Public opinion would happily argue the Earth was flat if it felt like it. Check out the percentage of people in the US who believe aliens are abducting people. Check out the percentage who do not believe in evolution. Check out the percentage who think the bible is literally true. Tell me what the public opinion is on a topic and I shall feel fairly secure that the reverse position will be closer to the truth. You use the phrase [i']proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.[/i] The shadows are cast by ignorance and adherence to dogma. What will convince a scientist will not overwrite predjudice in the average member of the public. Public opinion is a swear word in my vocabulary. (OK it's two words)

Right. I understand what you are getting at now. I still don't know the answer. Just wanted to use your query to try to get my head round the concepts inherent in the experiment. If I arrive at a meaningful conclusion before someone who actually understands answers, then I'll post.

I'm at a loss. I don't have an opinion. I know, I'll make a couple up. No tax cost embedded in the price of the car. Humbug. The present wage structure of the car plant workers (and the suppliers, ad part way to infinitum) is a result of the preceding tax burden. You can call it a flat tax, but still have a couple of valleys. VAT in the UK is not added to food, children's clothes or books. Set up the right exceptions and you protect the low wage earner. As a Scot I'd far rather have no income tax and have all tax generated by sales tax, since Scot's don't actually spend money! (Actually that was just a rumour we started so we woudn't have to buy a round.)

I wasn't clear in my request for clarification. I meant, where are you putting the additional detectors? Edit: especially relative to the slit and the original detectors.

Hmm. I'm an empiricalist. What you do Bud is get yourself a wall, a sensor array and an 80 ton train. ..............

I gave up counting when I got to 25 members without declared birthdays 18 with. I think I did it for two starting letters. So, a significant proportion of members may have declared their birthdays. Methinks, Sayonara was favouring Rene over Isaac!

I don't understand exactly what change you have made to the standard experiment. Please be more precise.

Current best theory holds that in the formative stages of the Earth it was struck by a Mars sized object. At that time the Earth had already differentiated pretty well, with an iron nickel core, and a 'scum' of lighter elements. The impact removed a substantial part of the the lighter portions, ejecting them into space. 90% plus of that material went its own way. The remainder coalesced to form the moon. There is now some pretty good numerical simulation of th event that gives us a good match for the observed characteristics of the resultant earth-moon system. So the Moon is a child of the Earth, but poor old dad died during copulation. Side effects of this that are pertinent to the origin and evolution of life include: Plate tectonics plays a central role in maintaining long term climatic stability (and ensuring there is land). Without the removal of a substantial portion of the light crust by the impact plate tectonics would probably not be possible. The plates would 'lock' as appears to have happened on Venus, which is pretty much what Eath would have been like compositionally without the impact. Strong lunar tides, that may have promoted early evolution and certainly aided the move from sea to land. Stabilisation of the orbital axis. Ah, back to the original topicIf the moon was not there the earth's axial inclination would vary much more than it does. Again, with important effects upon long term climatic stability.

Who told you that? It is not true. The basic claim of Darwinism is that species evolve when subject to selection pressures by their environment (survival of the fittest)' date=' and that when population groups are isolated in different in environments they will evolve into different species.[/size'] I did not recall any mention of God in Origin of Species. I was mistaken. (I read it when I was seventeen, which was some decades ago, so the failure of memory is, perhaps, reasonable.) God is mentioned twice. Once is a trivial reference in a quote from another author. The second is this (the emphasis is mine): He who believes that each equine species was independently created, will, I presume, assert that each species has been created with a tendency to vary, both under nature and under domestication, in this particular manner, so as often to become striped like the other species of the genus; and that each has been created with a strong tendency, when crossed with species inhabiting distant quarters of the world, to produce hybrids resembling in their stripes, not their own parents, but other species of the genus. To admit this view is, as it seems to me, to reject a real for an unreal, or at least for an unknown, cause. It makes the works of God a mere mockery and deception; I would almost as soon believe, with the old and ignorant cosmogonists, that fossil shells had never lived, but had been created in stone so as to mock the shells living on the seashore. Now that is interesting. Darwin is declaring that the creationist view makes the works of God a mere mockery. I find that impossible to reconcile with your suggestion that the most basic claim of Darwinism is that God…is not the creator. Before you interject, I know that Darwin was not a theist. I know that he saw no need to introduce god to explain the diversity of species, but he would not have written this passage (the only words of his in the entire work that mention god) if his basic claim was to eliminate god as the creator. I have read the New Testament a lot more recently than Origin, but you have lost me here. Please explain. So, as a penalty for not believing in him, he penalizes us by – wait for it – making us not believe in him. At the risk of being offensive, are you quoting this stuff without thinking, or are you making it up as you go along? Huh! I see the words. I recognize them as English. I have no idea what you mean. In passing you might want to take into account that probably no evolutionist to day would call himself a Darwinist' date=' rather they subscribe to neo-darwinism that takes into account the advances in genetics and the like since Darwin’s time.[/size'] Yes, I agree with you. Darwinism (if we include neo-darwinism) is a field populated by many persons. Biologists, biochemists, zoologists, botanists, geneticists, palaeontologists, etc, all with a lifetime studying the evidence, do indeed populate this field. Are they suffering the wrath of God-sense removal? Many of them appear to be quite happy. Some of them believe in god. Some of them get their greatest sense of god from contemplating the wonder of evolution. As noted some Darwinists reject God, some do not. So your argument is specious. (Couldn’t resist the pun.) Willowtree, you seem to be an educated person. I beg you to look beyond the trite formalisms you appear to be accepting and to use the brain, the intellect and the powers that God gave you, in the way that he intended you use them: to explore the wonders of nature with a mind that is open and a spirit that is free. In embracing those wonders, you embrace Him.

Jason, I am now going to be rude to you. If you do not want to be insulted look away now. Perhaps the reason you hear the same ****ing examples, is that you keep on asking the same ****ing question. You posted this identical question on this Forum in the same category on the 30th of October. You received several detailed responses to your post that you chose to ignore. Repeating this post with no acknowledgement of those responses is rude, offensive, ignorant, anti-social, uneducated behaviour. If you wish people to have the courtesy to consider your arguments, you owe them the courtesy of considering theirs. You have singularily failed to do so. If this was an oversight on your part I retract these remarks, otherwise they stand.

Webster's goes with microorganisms, The Oxford English favours microorganisms, though their on-line (now is that on line, online or on-line?) dictionary offers micro-organisms as an option. I would look no further than these two, therefore, I would use microorganism. Note that the option with the hyphen would not be wrong, just outdated. Micro organisms is wrong. If you were to use this you would be talking about very small organisms, but not microorganisms. For reasons of clarity, therefore, this would be an unwelcome construction. i.e. never use it. I haven't checked development in this case, but the normal pattern is to begin by hyphenating the word, then, after it has become common currency, to omit the hyphen. This transition appears to be almost complete for microorganism.

The combustion temperature of carbon is 407 degrees Celsius.