Ophiolite

I asked for citations - you came up with secondary (and maybe even tertiary) commentaries. I certainly have formed my conclusion.

Since this viewpoint appears to be a key part of your objection to the rejections by members of incidents of ALOBs on the forum, it seems important to correct you. 1. I cannot think of any of the evidence for continental drift that was ridiculed by scientists. On the contrary, the evidence was generally used to support alternate theories, most notably that of land bridges and sunken continents. If you insist that the evidence was so ridiculed then a citation or two would be in order. 2. The theory of continental drift, as postulated by Wegner, or five years earlier, in slightly different form by Taylor, has not been accepted. Plate tectonic theory has some resemblance to it, uses some of the same evidence, but is quite different in mechanism and detail, and - to some extent - rose independently. 3. You assert that the theory of continental drift was subject to scorn until a few decades ago. (I should probably concede that sixty years is a few decades.) Your implication is that this was 1) true scorn, and 2) near universal. In fact the theory was well received in several quarters - for example, in South America and South Africa. Some workers, most notably Arthur Holmes, offered similar suggestions, with different mechanisms. Equally, one can make a case that "scorn" is an inappropriate term. Those who rejected the theory did so largely because of the absence of a then plausible mechanism. I doubt their rejection was any more scornful than my objective dismantling of your point in these three notes.

I find it astounding that you can casually dismiss the carefully arrived at conclusions of some of the most penetrating minds humanity has produced, purely on the basis that is does not square with your simplistic, uneducated opinion. (Yet you have the temerity to accuse me of arrogance!) Fortunately, the forum has an Ignore button - a facility I rarely use, but one that was designed for just this situation.

I think, geordief, that you may be very close to it. Rather than the post I made, I was going to make this one: Mike said: Insight does not arise from a scenario, but from our perception of a scenario. Is that another way of saying what you are suggesting?

I do not understand what this means. Will you explain?

Guilty as charged. My ignorance of most things is astounding in its breadth and depth. There are topics I am wholly unaware of, others of which my understanding is so flimsy it would blow away with the first breath of a penetrating question. My mathematics is less than primitive. I can barely compute a Hohmann transfer orbit without consulting a text book. I don't know if the ulna is in the arm or the leg. I cannot remember what the Krebs cycle is. The list goes on. So, simpleton is a well chosen and accurate description. However, I have noticed two things. I seem to know more and understand more about a wide array of subjects than many people I encounter on a day-to-day basis, even a couple of the members of this forum (though thankfully only a couple). I confess that leaves me feeling slightly smug - arrogant would be an acceptable synonym, so you got that one right also. Strange has kindly provided a link that discusses how the universe might not be infinite. What do you find unacceptable in that discussion?

1. Mike did not claim it was a scientific source. 2. It is a well produced program that celebrates nature and encourages viewers to pay more attention to their surroundings. They do not claim to be a science program, but I have not noticed any egregious scientific errors in it. Have you and if so, what? 3. Mike, it is not an English TV series, it is a British TV series. And you wonder why 45% of us want independence.

Christmas can be seen symbolically as a time of rebirth, of hope for the future, of giving, of desire for peace and cooperation. These are all noble sentiments, so I see nothing hypocritical about sharing in the celebration. That said, the early Christians "stole" the festival of Saturnalia, a time of over-consumption and excess and turned it into Christmas. So, as the winter solstice approaches I celebrate and embrace Saturnalia, thereby honouring my ancestors and giving turkeys a reason to be fearful. As a side note, when my daughter and her husband married they chose a humanist ceremony, led by a humanist "official", complete with congregation, an astounding a capella rendition of "The first time ever I saw your face" by one of their friends, all in one of the most beautiful private chapels in the country.

First, I think this is a fine ambition and should be encouraged. The desire to share knowledge is, in my view, a hallmark of any scientist. I compliment you on the intention. Fiveworlds has given, what seems to me, a great, comprehensive overview of your major alternatives. I wanted to focus in on one small area that concerned me. You said this: The title and the cover are aspects of the marketing of the book. Marketing the book is, of course, vital. If no one knows about it then it fails in its aim to educate and enthuse young people about science. However, as the author you need to be focused - at least until it is written - on the structure and content of the book. I am worried that if you are finding a title difficult to choose, that you will really be floored by what topics you will cover, how you will introduce them, what depth you will go into, etc. What age ranges are you targeting? Do you intend to promote the findings of science, or the methods of science? If the latter, what experiments and projects do you plan to include? Have you fully considered the safety aspects of each? Are you going to "translate" scientific language into everyday words? What hook(s) are you going to use to get your readers to keep reading, or to try the experiments? What style are you going to write the book in? How far are you going to dumb down the concepts? Are you going to include the history of some scientific ideas, or go straight to our current understanding? And so on...... I suggest that until you have answers to these questions and more, then concern over a book title, or cover, are irrelevant. One caveat: although I have written a ton of technical manuals, these have all been for internal use. I have never published, or attempted to have published, a book. Pay more heed to any member who has done so than to me. Good luck. P.S. as to the title ...... The Kid's Science Book

So, we have established the level of your ignorance. That is useful. We are all ignorant, but correction of this condition in any particular subject area begins with recognising that ignorance. We have also established that you are not concerned by the level of your ignorance. That is interesting. It suggests there may not be any point in taking anything you say seriously. This allows us to establish two further facts. 1. You don't understand the options available for the character of space. 2. Despite encountering the alternative view, instead of investigating that view and assessing its probability you simply reject it out of hand, thereby remaining close minded. Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of. Ignorance that you could correct, but choose not to is something to be ashamed of. You place a great deal more faith than I do in the ignorance of an uneducated individual who stubbornly insists upon remaining ignorant. There is not an ounce of logic in that statement. There is, however, abundant, self-imposed ignorance. Is there a pattern emerging here? I do thank you for your reply. I appreciate the time you took to make it. I urge you to do some simple research to remove your ignorance in this subject area. It will help you avoid further embarrassment.

Wildlife is flourishing within the exclusion zone, though some species are experiencing higher than normal mutation rates. Attempting the experiment without access to a fully functioning geiger counter would be dumb. Acquisition of Cesium-137 particles would appear to be the greatest radiation risk. (Moderately informed, but wholly non-expert opinion.) It is called a restricted area, or exclusion zone for a reason. When you get out, do let us know what the interior of a Ukrainian jail is like.

The only worthwhile response I can come up with is to quote Spike Milligan's version of the John Masefield poem: I must go down to the sea again, to the lonely sea and the sky, I left my shoes and socks there, I wonder if they're dry.

I am always delighted when I find I have imagined posts like this on an fanciful internet on a fictitious planet in a virtual universe.

You made a statement: "The Universe is infinite - it has always been here. Anyone with any logic skills knows this. There is no scientific evidence that can prove this - only logic proves this." I asked you to "set down the clear, concise logical argument that supports your contention." You did not respond, so I reminded you of this request a day or so later. You failed to respond to that request, yet have been active on the forum. This is contrary to forum rules. I have not reported your failure yet as you are new to the forum and may not have properly digested the forum rules. You are required to respond, appropriately. Please do so without further delay.

When I see a large group of people gathered together I have a compulsion to lecture them. This was acceptable when I worked as a trainer, but tends to cause issues in the confines of a commercial airliner.

I would have participated in the thread earlier, but I have been debating how many angels you can get on a pinhead on another forum.

To impress the neighbours.

Mike, you leave me bemused. You are able to take unrelated material, misinterpret it and reassemble it in a complex and opaque argument that seeks to explain what is already well understood and more than adequately accounted for by a wholly different and generally simpler hypothesis or theory. I am at a loss as to why you do this. If you were not such a charming, well-meaning chap, I suspect you might have been run off from the forum some time ago. I mention this in the forlorn hope that you might stop it and replace it with a more constructive approach to science that absorbs rather than expounds.

It is axiomatic that the Earth is not in some privileged position in the universe. (For privileged, read special, different, unique, etc.) The Cosmological Principle asserts that, on a sufficient scale, the universe is homogenous and isotropic. i.e it will look the same wherever you are in it. You seem to disagree with this. You need to support this unusual position with evidence, or rational argument to the contrary.

And in restricting the possibilities you offered to those two, you created a false dichotomy. Presenting two possibilities that "immediately leapt to mind" strongly implies you consider these to be the most likely explanations. My attitude in those circumstances is irrelevant. I am not the one attempting to persuade members of a truth they find unpalatable. Either you are serious about achieving that end, or you prefer to bask in outraged pique. You have certainly, implicitly and explicitly, assigned then characteristics that - in toto - would strongly suggest they are fools. There is no place for ego in the type of argument you are presenting. Unfortunately your ego dominates your presentation.

Silly Billy you have presented a false dichotomy. You have ignored the third, factual alternative. I happen to agree with most of what you have said. I just think the way you have said is deliberately aggressive, counterproductive in the extreme and - coming from a person who clearly possess both intelligence and education - strongly suggests that you just want to stir shit rather than actually convince anyone. That is unfortunate since the basic points you are making are important to be discussed and understood. Unfortunately your attitude makes this next to impossible to achieve. If Carl Sagan had blown raspberries at his audience and called them fools he wouldn't have acquired the following he did. You are no Carl Sagan, so you need to try even harder to be listened to when you are taking a controversial position. I don't expect you to change, but I would be delighted if I were proved wrong.

Petrushka refers to thought processes that permeate a nation. There is no reference to rational thought processes, either explicitly or implicitly. Your objections on the grounds of rationality are therefore wholly irrelevant. wikipedia informs us that "Thought can refer to the ideas or arrangements of ideas that result from thinking, the act of producing thoughts, or the process of producing thoughts. Although thought is a fundamental human activity familiar to everyone, there is no generally accepted agreement as to what thought is or how it is created. Somehow, thoughts arise in the mind from the product of subconscious brain processing." I would be delighted to learn how the Canadians can acquire a viewpoint on ice hockey without thought. You seem to think thought processes must be both rational and conscious in order to constitute thought. I suggest that if this is your view you are mistaken. Knee jerk emotional responses are assuredly a form of thought. If you maintain otherwise there is nothing more to be said.

I have detailed categories in my post. What do you find unclear about them? Examples of this include: Anti-semitism in early 19th Century Vienna "Two world wars, One world cup!" attitude in British Society Beer, barbies and sporting excellence in the Australian psyche Anti-Hutu/Anti-Tutsi prejudices in 1990s Rwanda Anti-Japanese feeling in USA, post Pearl Harbour Anti-Communist feeling in USA during the McCarthy era Anti-Muslim feeling in USA post 911 Conviction, in Canada, that the Stanley Cup is the only sporting award worth having If you insist I can provide a further 182 examples. I hope it won't be necessary.

They sure as heck permeated the UK when Princess Diana died. No conjecture is involved. Opinions, leanings, preferences, beliefs, biases, prejudices, loyalties, and the like - all forms of, or closely related to thought processes - definitely permeate nations and it surprising that you would challenge this rather well recognised phenomenon.

I may have produced stuff like this. I possibly still do. But I have always kept very quite about it.