Ophiolite

Personally, I shall hold you to that.

@Gater: it is now 52 hours since you made this 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." It is 48 hours since I asked you to "set down the clear, concise logical argument that supports your contention." Perhaps you have been busy with work, or personal matters. I do hope you can find the time soon to respond. I am waiting patiently to be educated. I should hate to think you had just been making groundless, bombastic statements.

Hi geordief, there is an error with your quote function, so that your reply appears to be part of my quote. Could you correct that please and if not sure how to do so, ask a moderator to handle it. Now, as to your reply, which I thank you for: it is most definitely not my opinion that most physicists doubt the existence of wormholes. I do not see how you have managed to extract such an opinion from my statement. My statement was intended to convey the following: Let us take something towards one extreme, where we imagine the situation in which the majority of physicists doubt the existence of wormholes, then even in such an extreme scenario (one that I don't think is the case) they would do so on the basis of solid theoretical considerations, not, as you do, as a preference belief. The key words were "even if". In my experience the phrase "even if" strongly suggests that the writer doubts what they are envisaging, but is doing so "for argument's sake". I'm not sure how you missed this. P.S. I think your father was on the right tracks. And "it is never too late to learn".

The point of the question - and it most assuredly has a point - is to explore the biological implications of a contra-rotating Earth. It is the kind of hypothetical question that, by generating a significantly different perspective, can lead to valuable and interesting insights. The astronomical consequences are irrelevant; the plausibility of the scenario is irrelevant. What is relevant is the change in perception the question induces. And it is just as pointed and valuable as asking what if the snow on mountains were made of ice cream. Any glaciologist, geographer, materials scientist, or geomorphologist would have some refreshing ideas when confronted with that question. It focuses ones mind on the characteristics of snow that have definite, measurable, significant consequences for its behaviour on mountains. (And it has already given me some embryonic ideas for avalanche mitigation.)

William, I suspect you are quite young. Young or old it is unpleasant to have one's idea dismissed and one's credentials questioned, especially when you believe you have an idea of some merit to share. However, you have chosen to share this idea on a science forum, populated by scientists, those with a scientific education and those interested in science. As such, you must expect to be questioned intensely and to receive demands for clarification and justification. At times like this I often compliment the poster for their interest in science, their readiness to think bold thoughts and their imagination. I do so now. Well done. However, all you appear to have done is take some pop-science ideas, misunderstand most of them, throw them together with a mish-mash of terminology - some of which you get wrong - and jump straight to a concussion. It is not an edifying sight. I recommend you take on board the criticisms of the other members and invest some time in serious study. That way you can put your excellent imagination to positive use rather than producing nonsense. Perhaps instead of telling us how you think the universe works you could ask some of the very knowledgeable members specific questions that would enhance your knowledge. The choice is yours.

This is well above my pay grade, but I have read nothing to suggest that the wobble could be destructive in that sense. Further, intuitively the energies involved in "wobbling" are orders of magnitude different from those required to destroy a planet. If my understanding is correct, that these wobbles are chaotic in nature, then there may be periods when the wobble seems to have disappeared, only to re-appear many millions of years later.

Curiously I was unsettled by your cherry picking of my post. I am confident it was not done consciously, but you have misinterpreted my words to support your belief, a belief you have because you prefer it to the alternative. I did not say "the majority of physicists doubt their reality" I very clearly said "even if the majority of physicists doubt their reality". That gives the sentence an entirely different meaning from the one you have assigned to it by inappropriate editing. I mention this to help you guard against this unconscious tendency to cherry pick and interpret with bias in the future.

No one was scoffing at you. Several were scoffing at your idea. There is a galaxy of difference between the two. The shape of the van Allen belts is produced by the flow of iron in the outer core. There is no evidence that the comparatively small volume of metal in the crust has any meaningful impact on the belts. There is no theoretical ground to think that this metal would influence the belts in any measurable way. It was an interesting thought. Examination of the facts shows the thought to be without basis. Clinging to a thought after it has been dismantled may lead to being scoffed at.

Please select the response most pleasing to you: 1.Sadly, in a democracy, a people get the government they deserve. 2. Although he did not understand it, Hitler was a firm believer in evolution. Faced with the choice would you prefer Hitler or Carson? 3. Screw evolution! What's his economic policy? 4. Since he doesn't approve of political correctness it gives you great latitude in expressing your opinion of him. 5. Donald Trump's not looking quite so bad now, is he?

You are creating mystery where none exists. In a gravitational field fluids at different heights experience different pressures. In a fluid that fluid will move from high pressure to low pressure to eliminate the pressure difference. I believe I pointed this out to you earlier. So any irregularities in a water surface are necessarily smoothed out, making the water surface "incredibly level". Except there is nothing remotely incredible about it. It is physics so simple that even a geologist can understand it. Can I recommend you take an Open University course or two and you won't make such silly statements in future?

The phrase, the fabric of space time, is a verbal expression that seeks to convey as much as possible of the concept that can only be correctly and accurately captured in mathematical terms. It is not, as I understand it, an analogy, but an example of dumbing down mathematics and physics so it might be partially grasped by ignoramuses such as ourselves. And there is a great difference between the territory and a map of that territory and an arrangement of cutlery on a tabletop that is analogous to the territory. A well surveyed and produced map is an accurate representation (model) of the territory. In science it is typically counterproductive to choose what you believe, or disbelieve, in the same way you might select a carpet colour. Science and the universe are largely indifferent to your views. Do you know the equations well enough to say this is what happens? As I understand it wormholes are a theoretical possibility. Their existence,however, has never been demonstrated. I suggest that even if the majority of physicists doubt their reality, they do so on the basis of solid theoretical considerations, not a preference belief. That would make your position and their position quite different.

Your statements imply you are gifted with the requisite logic skills. It should therefore be simple for you to set down the clear, concise logical argument that supports your contention. I look forward to the fulsome education in logic and the state of the universe that I am about to receive.

Remnant motions from planetary formation and gravitational interactions with the sun and other bodies. "Wobbles", I understand, tend to behave chaotically. Mars can tilt - and has tilted - far from its present 24 degree axial orientation. The Earth's wobble is constrained by the moon.

@SillyBilly. I have read all of the thread. Carefully. I found several of your arguments had definite traction, to the extent that I considered countering some of the negative reps you had received. But, as I read on, I found your style to be unfortunate. Either you have the misfortune to write in a supercilious and arrogant manner by accident, or - more likely - you derive some peculiar pleasure from behaving like a passive-aggressive *******. If you genuinely want your arguments to be considered then I strongly urge you to lose that style. If, on the other hand, you delight in stirring people up, perhaps gaining some sense of superiority from the exercise, then please do continue. More negative reps and eventual banishment then may be close at hand.

Hi Jerry. This is often true. What I have also observed is that many individuals in your position are even more incapable of listening. I hope this is not true of you. I hope you will listen carefully to what I have to say and to any remarks made by other established members. This is highly unlikely: Your idea is currently too ill defined to merit further consideration. Anyone with the skill set and background knowledge to champion it will have two dozen better ideas during the course of an afternoon. As currently stated by you the idea has no apparent evidence supporting it and much evidence contradicting it. The fourth reason is explained in the next paragraph. The van Allen Belt is completely natural. It's origin and character are now well understood. Suggesting that it may have been put there deliberately smacks of conspiracy theory, alien overlords and similar fringe fantasies. No one with their brain engaged will indulge themselves with such nonsense. Clearly someone might so speculate and - it turns out - that someone is you. Does that speculation have any merit? No. The belt is "controlled" by the Earth's magnetosphere and its interaction with the solar wind. The magnetosphere arises from the core of the planet and its character is influenced in only the most minor of ways, if at all, by the composition of the crust. That aside: 1. What effects do you think it might have? 2. What makes you think this? 3. What would be the mechanism of these effects? It is. Your idea is good, in that it is an idea. It is bad, in that it is groundless. You have a genuine thought, it just isn't a very good one. Better luck next time. Don't give up trying.

Strange and AGC52 have pointed out the weaknesses in your explanation. However, you are to be complimented on exploring your current understanding of the topic prior to a formal study of it. Please view their corrections in a positive light and take their observations on board.

Good point. I had overlooked that the OP specified predator and was reading the subsequent posts with the phrase "most dangerous organism" in mind, rather than "most dangerous predator".

Miniaturization of what? Densification of what? And did you mean "visualization capacity effectively inherent"? In what way is it connected to Leibnitz's monads? I, according to Leibnitz, am a monad. Am I also a thought atom?

Estate agents would have to change their property descriptions from "The breakfast room has magnificent views of the Malvern Hills at sunrise" to "The supper room has magnificent views of the Malvern Hills at sunset".

You are welcome. Multiple reading of new, or difficult concepts is often the best way of beginning your understanding of them.

Other members have dealt with the major shortcomings in your thesis. I wish only to comment on this one. Human violence does not arise from imperfect religion, but from the instinctive behaviour of homo sapiens expressed through culture. In that respect some religions, at some times, are vehicles for this violence, but are not the underlying cause. Consequently, remove all religions, or introduce a perfect religion and we would still beat the **** out of each other.

Read the article. Read the article carefully three times. Make a note of any words you are unfamiliar with. Check on their meaning. Now do exactly what he suggested: What theory, hypothesis or idea is the article about? Since he mentions variables then, very likely, a number of variables have been mentioned in the article. Since you have now read it carefully three times you should know what they are. It should also be clear how these variables are related. i.e. when one variable changes it cause a change in one or more of the other variables. That may not have been clear before the experiments were conducted. The article should have set out how the experimenters went about testing the idea. Etc. And, when you write your report, please use a spelling and grammar checker. There are at least nine errors in your short post. Good luck.

You seem to be ignoring what generates the waves in the first place: wind. Differential heating of the Earth by the sun creates pressure differences. Pressure differences in a fluid tend to be reduced by flow from high to low pressure. Interaction of one fluid with another generates waves. What is problematic with that for you? In response to your last query, the reference level is the mean sea level at that point. That is contingent upon the geoid, tidal effects, air pressure, etc. Neither the peaks of the waves, nor the troughs are "sea level", it is between the two.

1. Danger is a subjective term and therefore assessing relative danger is a value judgement process and that is not science. 2. Although this question has been placed in the Ecology and the Environment section of the forum it ignores Ecology. Even if the question is rephrased to mean "what is the most adapted" this is meaningless without knowing what other life forms and inter-relationships exist in that environment. You cannot ask "who is the better athlete, a 100m sprinter, or a two man bobsleigh pilot?" 3. Consequently the question reduces to a bar room discussion, in which case those members who suggested bacteria were closest. However, we should amend this to be any parasite, bacteria, or virus that has not yet evolved to live/reproduce in its host without killing it.

jibz, you clearly have an interest in science in general and geology in particular. This is a very good thing and I compliment you on it. It is sad, therefore, that you have not chosen to develop that interest through serious study of the subject, but have - instead - chosen to embark on a serious of whimsical speculations that are not only unsupported by the evidence, but contradicted by it. I may choose to deconstruct your nonsense on the relevant thread. In the meantime I strongly urge you to remain silent on these matters until you have educated yourself adequately.