Ophiolite

Many of the dust particles in the accretion disc consist of many of the silicates I have listed. As they accrete into larger bodies temperature will rise. This is because some of the kinetic energy of the impact is converted into heat and because there were more radioactive elements at that time. The heat can generate further mineral changes and - in the larger bodies - lead to melting and differentiation into an iron rich core and a silica rich mantle. The mineralogy of a large asteroid is broadly the same as the mineralogy of the Earth in terms of complexity - however, it will overwhelmingly be an igneous mineralogy. (i.e. no sedimentary and few, if any, metamorphic minerals.) However, this is largely irrelevant to any discussion of rocks on Earth. The process of forming the Earth leads to reworking of practically all this material. Forget about the accretion process, forget about core formation on the Earth, forget about crust formation on the Earth, forget about the formation of the first continents. For the past three billion years and more the rock cycle as I described earlier is the important thing. If you insist on focusing on the accretion disc when you are preparing for a discussion on sedimentary rocks then just do some reading on meteorites and asteroids.

Tar, it is clear from your responses to Strange (and to others throughout the thread) that the problem is threefold: 1. You lack basic knowledge of the subject. 2. Rather than properly consider explanations given by others you appear to be stuck in a groove. 3. There is no evidence that you intend to rectify item 1. Recently, I became involved in a discussion on another forum, about a different topic and with a different user name. I was questioning a definitive statement made by one knowledgeable member. Despite repeated attempts to explain why I felt they might be incorrect all it produced was more members joining in to repeat the assertion, while seemingly missing the central point I was making. It reminded me of what you are experiencing here. I suspect that you may feel puzzled, even frustrated for our inability to understand the simple point you are making. My solution on the other forum is this: I shall study the topic in sufficient depth to either understand why I am in error, or to be able to explain why they are in error. You might want to consider the same approach.

I am not conscious of any instances where they are conflated in the way you suggest. The intended instance is readily identified by statement or context. Please provide a specific example where this is not the case.

I do not understand what you mean by the underlined phrase. The two instances you should be referring to are: 1. The galaxies as we see them today. 2. The galaxies as we understand them to be today. We can look around us and get a reasonably sound idea of what galaxies are like currently. We can look further away and see what they were like in the more remote past. This is a simple, elegant and useful notion. I don't understand why it causes you such difficulty.

That is the most extensive mass of utter crap I have read for some time. While it contains snippets of fact, you have combined them in bizarre ways and reached even more bizarre conclusions. If you are ignorant of a topic, as is patently the case here, please do not confuse others with your ignorance. Study, or ask thoughtful questions.

The Rock Cycle: 1. Simplistically, all rocks begin as igneous rocks, crystallizing from a molten state. For our purposes we can completely ignore anything other than a silicate melt. i.e a magma in which there is a high proportion of silica. As this magma cools various minerals form. These fall into the following major categories: Ferromagnesian minerals (e.g. in order of increasing structural complexity, olivines, pyroxenes, amphiboles and micas) Feldspars (silicates rich in alkalis and alkali metals) Quartz Accessory minerals 2. When exposed at the surface these rocks are subject to weathering (chemical, physical and biological), erosion, transport and deposition. The severity and duration of each step and the original composition of the igneous rock will determine the nature of the deposited sediment: long and severe processes will leave only the most robust minerals, typically quartz i.e. a sand; feldspars will be converted to clays. After deposition the effects of heat, temperature and circulating fluids will solidify the sediment into a rock, a process called diagenesis. 3. Some sedimentary rocks are formed, instead by precipitation from evaporating sea water. (The evaporites: gypsum, anhydrite, salt, etc.) Others are formed from the shells of organisms - limestones, chalks, oolites, etc. 4. If these sedimentary rocks, or some original igneous rocks are buried deeply, or exposed to high temperatures from igneous intrusions, then they will undergo further physical and chemical changes, becoming metamorphic rocks. 5. All three rock types, igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic, may all undergo later weathering, erosion, transportation and deposition. 6. All three types may be heated sufficiently to melt wholly or partially, thus generating further igneous rock. And so it continues. This is explained much better, with illustrations, on many sites. Just search for Rock Cycle. If you are clear on this I can cover a couple of other points from your post. If anything is unclear, ask.

Mike, few members who have read several of your posts would doubt for a moment your enthusiasm. It is a very positive thing to observe. What is frustrating is your willingness to leap to completely wrong conclusions rather than perform some careful study. The most elementary study of the feldspars would let you know that these are formed either from silicate melts, or solid state metamorphic reactions (the latter possibly incorporating some amount of metasomatism). Many of the objects that accreted to form the Earth would have contained feldspars, but the process of accretion would have melted practically all of these. You need to review the very basic, but important concept of the Rock Cycle. Without that kind of knowledge, frankly, you have no business lecturing a group of people on sediments. It strikes me as being as presumptuous as me giving classes on landscape painting.

I have was strongly tempted to give you a negative rep for this part of the post. Why? Because it is clear evidence that, despite repeated, detailed explanations of what was wrong with your posts in that thread, you continue to refuse to accept those explanations. Please read this carefully. 1a. You made a clear, absolute assertion that atheists were close minded. 1b. You did not state this was your opinion. 1c. You did not state that this was based upon your personal interaction with a small number of atheists. 1d. You did state it as if it were a fact, not an opinion. 2a. Numerous members pointed out to you that you should not state opinions as if they were facts. 2b. Numerous members pointed out to you the dangers of stereotyping. 2c. Numerous members pointed out to you the unscientific nature of using personal, uncontrolled, anecdotal evidence. 3a. It took pages of posts before you clarified your position as being an poorly supported opinion based purely on anecdote. 3b. You continued to argue the value of stereotypes. 4a. In short, your behaviour was extremely unscientific and you seemingly refused to accept that was so. 4b. Now, in this thread, you continue that behaviour, claiming that you are simply presenting a different opinion from other members. You are not, you are presenting opinions. Other members (while opinions may be included) are presenting facts. 5. Refusal to accept this is likely - unfortunately - to generate further negative rep. We are trying to get your attention, to educate you. I think you said you had become interested in science. Well, several members are investing their time to help you acquire a better understanding of how science is conducted and how to think like a scientist. Please stop ignoring them.

tar, date the formation of each planet as the elapsed time since the Big Bang, or the generation of the CMB. What would be problematic about that?

I shall dislike whom I please. I don't dislike you, but I have serious reservations about your behaviour on this forum. If the dislike is a reference to giving negative rep, as far as I am aware I have never given you any. I generally pay scant heed to who is posting, but to what they post. Only when I see repeated nonsense do I conduct a dialogue.

It is a pity it is on for such a short time. Not worth a trip to London to look at sixteen rocks, several of which I likely have in my collection, but it does give me some ideas on displaying them - and some encouragement to fill in the gaps.

This is a discussion forum. Any member is free - indeed, encouraged - to respond to points made, or questions asked, by any other member. Since I happen to agree with his "accusation" it was appropriate for me to respond. If you don't like those rules I recommend you take up crochet. I never suggested you had used the word conspiracy. It was because I recognised that that I specifically noted that you had implied conspiracy. You may not believe it was implied by your use of the word "rally" in that context, but it certainly read that way. The hypothetical ten people you accused, were not "rallying to help a friend", but - in your own words - rallying to "........ accuse you of evading their questions when you may simply lack the time or competence to address them all, attempt to snow you and dazzle you with technicalities, predictably and formulaically point out putative logical fallacies in your posts...." Once again it is you who is manipulating words. [Your reference to mental illness is beneath contempt. You may wish to offer an apology to those members who genuinely wrestle with mental illness.] Are you seriously suggesting that inventing motives is not a form of making stuff up? Is your reading comprehension so poor that you do not understand this to be the case? If this is true, perhaps the forum is not the place for you and you should take up crochet. You stated that you had not answered some questions because you either did not have the time, or the competence to answer them. Now you claim you did answer (some) of them. So, what about the rest? You are either deliberately acting dumb, or...... More than one member has pointed out that if you make clear assertions on a topic then it is reasonable to expect that you have the competence to answer questions on that topic. You apparently think it is alright to make an assertion, then excuse yourself from answering on the grounds that you lack competence in that area. It is not acceptable behaviour. If you don't like having to behave correctly, perhaps you should take up crochet. Frankly, this is becoming tedious. In attempting to defend your position, you simply provide more examples of what members have complained about. The crochet option increasingly looks like the optimal choice. My apologies to those rational members who take pleasure from the satisfaction inherent in an afternoon of contemplative crochet. My recommendations to Silly Billy are in no way intended to defame you, or the noble craft you practice.

@SillyBilly You wanted an example of you making stuff up. You concoct motivations and conspiracies to account for the manner in which some members deal with you. I suspect you may actually believe those fabrications and it is therefore difficult for you to see them, but they are fabrications. 1. If ten people do this, it is because ten people believe you have been "guilty" of these actions and they object to them. There is no conspiracy involved, no group action, as implied by your use of the word "rally". 2. You say you may lack the time or competence to address questions. Really? If you lack the competence we might wonder why you were making assertions on a topic in the first place, but that aside - what would be so difficult about saying you don't know enough to answer the question. It would be the work of a moment. As to the lack of time - well, you have sufficient time to make six posts in this thread that have nothing to do with the thread, yet you cannot find the time to answer questions concerning earlier assertions you have made. To hijack your own words: "You do see a problem, don't you?" 3. This is a science forum. We deal with technicalities. If you find yourself "snowed" by any of them you need only ask and one or more members will be happy to explain. Continuing to argue a point that is contradicted by the evidence will not be viewed positively. Do you think it should be? 4. If you make commonplace and obvious logical fallacies then why should you expect other than a "predictable and formulaic" response. It would be a bizarre and subtle logical fallacy that would merit an unexpected and original response. On a separate point, you accused me in an earlier post of having insulted you. I have not done so. Trust me on this one, if I choose to insult you at some point in the future you will be in no doubt that it has occurred. I may have offended you, however that is often the consequence of writing unpleasant truths.

Stereotypes often contain elements of truth, but when they are form the basis of expectation they can be thoroughly misleading. A case in point: Scotsmen are said to mean. This is a blatant lie. It is simply a rumour we have spread in order to avoid having to buy a round.

Acme, I wonder if part of the problem is the difference in meaning between a word used in mathematics and those used in every day speech. As a mathematical cretin let me make these couple of observations, the second of which I am hoping you can straighten me out on. 1. When the subject of measuring infinity came up in the thread my immediate reaction was that measuring infinity was not possible. My reasoning seems to be a little like that of tar's - what would I measure it against? Then a couple of members, including yourself, confidently asserted that it was possible. Here is where tar and I part company. I know that you are conversant with mathematics and when you state something with confidence you are likely to be correct. Therefore, logically, my impression as to measuring infinity is probably wrong. I still don't understand why (point), but I accept the pronouncement of an expert. (Provisionally of course.) 2. So, why do I have a problem with measure? If I imagine an infinitely long line that I wish to measure then I expect to measure it from one end to the other. But an infinitely long line has no end. So I am befuddled. I daresay this will look mighty dumb to some. I am currently reconciling this impasse on the basis that measure in this context is not the same as measure as I am using it. Help!

You say you have, but then you go on to make statements that contradict yourself. I made no comparison with anyone else. I simply stated that you had fabricated positions out of "gossamer imaginings". Whether you do this more or less than anyone else is irrelevant to this discussion. It is your position in this discussion I questioning. At the risk of giving offense, may I confirm that English is not your native language? I have noticed many instances where your interpretation of a post is "odd". I would attempt to be more patient in my discussions with you if this were the case. And Strange is stating what the current thinking of the scientific community is in regard to cosmology. You. and to a much greater extent Gater, persist in making a different statement without producing any evidence to support it. So what? That observation does not mean you can make unsupported statements and have them accepted.

Based upon what I have read here and observed on other threads, Strange is in a better position than you to comment on how we currently understand the universe to be - which is that we are not sure if it is finite, or infinite. Both are possibilities. Strange's point is exactly that - there are areas "we", the scientific community, cannot be sure about. Gater and to a lesser extent yourself, reject this studied uncertainty, based upon such evidence as exists, in favour of opinions you have fabricated out of gossamer imaginings. Decidedly illogical.

The OP is an interesting perspective on the scale of the universe and its contents. I followed the argument and attempted to imagine the quantities and dimensions being portrayed. As pzkpfw implies this can be appreciated intellectually, but in my gut I don't really understand it and cannot actually imagine it. I accept that some people can, but it is beyond me. As per the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy I believe that "Space is big. Really big. You just won’t believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is. I mean you may think it’s a long way down the road to the chemist’s, but that’s just peanuts to space."

I have read your post, re-read it and read it yet again, then several more times and the attack on the callous was not apparent on any of the readings, even with the advantage of now knowing that was your intent. It is very clear that there will be some benefits to global warming. It is very clear that these benefits will in the short and medium term be far outweighed by the downsides. Posting a few paragraphs of mocking sarcasm because you consider speaking of such benefits positively to be in poor taste remains, in my view, an emotional knee-jerk reaction. Your last sentence makes no sense to me, though it seems to have some of the characteristics of a strawman. You seem to be saying the OP had engaged in a knee-jerk response.

This analogy makes no sense to me whatsoever. My assertion was that you had "insulted my intelligence by your manipulation of words, misappropriation of facts and generally questionable debating technique in multiple posts." That is an assertion. Assertions can be challenged. I believe the assertion to be accurate. Your predicament is - frankly - non-existent. You can either demonstrate the fallacy of my assertion, or require me to demonstrate the validity of my assertion. What do you do instead? You take the role of the "injured party", set upon by others. How unfair, you cry (implicitly). And that is a fine example of your "questionable debating techniques" and, to some extent, your manipulation of words. Rather than defend your position in a direct and simple way, you try to deflect attention and completely fail to address the claims. You continue: Once again you try to deflect attention from your debating techniques to those of members at large. And you parenthetically adopt the role of the poor, set-upon individual, yet again. Bollocks. Stop playing the martyr. Rather than address the assertions I have made you continue to adopt the role of victim. I most certainly do see a problem. The problem is that you have "insulted my intelligence by your manipulation of words, misappropriation of facts and generally questionable debating technique in multiple posts." It's not much of a problem for me, but if you wish to be taken seriously, it is a problem for you.

I for one become near incandescent with rage when I see the ill conceived, unsupported, factually contradicted, illogical, self-contradictory, poorly structured morasse of nonsense incompetently presented by some members. However, two points may be relevant here: 1. I never hit the post button until I have cooled to room temperature. 2. I never award negative reps to people for being idiots. I strongly suspect that many members are annoyed, or disappointed, or surprised, or like terms by the crap that they read. They choose to say they are not offended by it. I accept that, but for the record state it offends me to see humans using whatever intelligence they may possess to jump to a concussion. You said in a later post: Correct. My list has one item on it. You have insulted my intelligence by your manipulation of words, misappropriation of facts and generally questionable debating technique in multiple posts.

On the one hand we have two or three generations of physicists, astrophysicists and cosmologists, totaling many hundreds, if not thousands, who have studied the theory and the observations of the nature of the universe, who have, on balance, reached the consensus that we cannot be sure as yet if the universe is finite or infinite. This group contains individuals who lean strongly in one direction and others who lean equally strongly in the other direction, but the general view seems to be that we do not yet know which is correct. These individuals contain some of the brightest minds humanity has ever produced. On the other hand we have yourself: someone who is so ill-versed in cosmological theory they were unaware of this consensus view. Now which should I tend to believe? The ill informed individual, or the generations of specialists? To use your own words it would be silly and illogical to believe you. I am writing this, not to convince you of your error - you are apparently beyond redemption - but to lay out clearly for the casual reader how monumentally dumb and arrogant your position is.

@36grit, I have some questions. When you respond please keep in mind that my grasp of physics is weak, my appreciation of quantum physics juvenile and my understanding of cosmology less than fundamental. What did you mean by distance creation? Did you mean to write "the force responsible for expansion"? I do not understand how a thing may be only relative to itself. Would you explain? If there was no velocity in what way was it possible for there to be speed? I understood that time dilations were a consequence of observations by different observers. How can observations crash into each other in deep space? By what mechanism would these generate vacuum energy? Let me be frank. That sounds like some misappropriate phrases, merged with some misunderstood ideas, creating a cacophony of nonsense. Perhaps you would take the time to explain it with greater clarity and precision. I have more questions, but I'll wait your response to these as that may make further ones unnecessary.

Hello ThinkingMind. I see you have already edited your post. Now, your point is based - in part - on the fact that you have been writing since second grade and take pride in your writing. Therefore, you might like to do some further editing, in order to remove the dozen or so spelling, grammatical and typographical errors from your post.

In fairness John, I see little evidence in the posts of evobulgarevo that he has much knowledge of science, the findings of science, the methodology of science, the history of science, or the application of logic. Indeed I find some evidence to the contrary. That being the case it is quite plausible that evobulgarevo is unaware that he has moved the goalposts and feels that his exposition thus far is logical, well constructed, factually based and robust. I suspect he sees the majority of the posts as corroboration of his view.