Ophiolite

Alright, I'll bite. It's a while since anyone justifiably insulted me. Firstly, Nagarjuna is not ignored as you claim. Secondly, his solutions are not as complete as you claim. (If they are, demonstrate it.) Thirdly, any logical proof that is "a nightmare to follow" almost certainly contains flaws.

And yet, after all that, the motion would still not be absolute.

Where is the mint sauce?

But since the universe is considered to be isotropic and the dark energy is internal, then that is not a problem. Cosmology, like other universes, lies outside my area of competence. However, I strongly suspect that to render your hypothesis plausible you would need to produce some mathematical description of conditions that satisfied observation. My limited knowledge suggests this would be a major challenge.

I shall try to remember that in future exchanges. Your written English is excellent, so I had taken you for a native speaker. Is it possible that the differences we are discussing may represent a fundamental difference of view in the life sciences in your own country?

So are omelets and armed robbery.

Congratulations on extracting meaning from chaos. If you can bring that clarity to the topic, why can't Bob? You almost make me regret not giving him negative rep.

When a member chooses, deliberately, to ignore the knowledge they are offered then use of a stick becomes a viable option. And do note that the sticks are purely metaphorical, whereas the choice to ignore the knowledge is entirely real.

Bob, your post seems to have gathered some negative votes. You might wish to consider why: You have formatted it in an unusual way that makes reading it unpleasant. You have rambled a great deal. You have used scientific terminology while giving the sense that you do not understand that terminology. You write in incomplete sentences that have the texture of an unsuccessful parody of James Joyce. There are numerous grammatical and typographical errors. Bob, you may have something important to say. As long as these limitations in your posting exist it is unlikely anyone will hear you. I look forward to a condensed and corrected version.

mpmcd101, welcome to the forum. If your hypothesis is correct how do you account for this? The expansion of our universe appears to be proceeding at an equal rate in all directions. That would require a remarkable coincidence of other universes at just the right distance and with just the right mass to generate such an equality of expansion. I don't see how this could occur by chance. Perhaps you do and will explain.

Is Doctor Who too thoughtful to be considered space opera? The emboldened words could be the explanation.

I am unlikely to be persuaded that using Arguments from Incredulity is ever an appropriate approach on a science forum. Later you say that science is not about being correct, but about discovery. Discovery based upon logical fallacies is unlikely to be true discovery. Several members here are scientists. Social ineptness is on the job description. (Friendly tip: don't follow up remarks about social ineptness with claims that "I know better." It is liable to break members' irony meters.) And that discovery requires effort. Several concepts in science are neither intuitive, or straightforward. To pretend otherwise does a disservice to just about everyone. The attitude "I don't understand it, so I don't believe it" is completely at odds with the scientific method. I passionately wish for more people to embrace an interest in science, but not while pretending it is something else. Discovery comes through effort and open-mindedness, not unjustified scepticism and laziness. @Moderators: Apologies: I've sidetracked the discussion, as I believe there was an important point to make. You may wish to split off the relevant posts.

Obviously I am not intelligent enough as I don't understand that. Now I am further confused. I lack understanding and a PhD, and have growing reservations about my intelligence. I don't know who WE are, or who it is we are asking to submit. My confusion deepens by the second. I do know that it is wrong to encourage all new ideas. Ideas that have a basis in reality and that do not fly in the face of sound observations should certainly be encouraged. The idea that ones personal incapacity to understand a concept grants you the right to offer alternatives is not one I would vote for. What? We have an elite group? All of this is horribly off-topic, but it would be nice to know what the hell you were talking about.

When I am confused I openly declare my confusion, confess my ignorance and do not imply that the rest of the world is wrong. I believe you would follow a similar approach, or make a committed effort to educate yourself. At least Michel could adjust his manner of asking questions so that it does not sound as if he thinks orthodox science is wrong. Tell you what. If Michel wishes to state that he accepts the orthodox view, but simply does not understand it, then I shall offer a full apology. Otherwise my conclusion remains.

As Mordred has pointed out you choose not to take the time to actually study the evidence. Instead you indulge yourself with a mish mash of superficial thoughts and ill informed questions. You imply that the error in understanding lies, as Strange has noted, with those who have studied these matters, rather than yourself. There is a passive-aggressive arrogance in that approach I find quite distasteful. Thank you for your time. You are now on ignore.

Earlier I asked you this: Are you unable to understand this, or do you not want to understand this? I am curious. Both of you appear to be using the argument of personal incredulity You chose not to reply. Perhaps you did not see the post. Will you reply this time, or will you leave me little alternative than to consider that you are trolling?

Have you reversed some of the letters in reserve?

It is clear to me and, I believe, to several others posters in this thread. The difficulties of comprehension appear to lie with yourself. But their actions were wholly constrained by the physical and chemical properties of that atmosphere. If the environment lacked water vapour bacteria could not perform that function. If there were no nitrogen in the atmosphere there would be no opportunity for nitrogen fixing bacteria to evolve. Which they could not do without oceans and oceans that contained sufficient dissolved calcium. The diversity of environment provided for the opportunity for a diversity of life. Which are formed from trees, which are part of the natural environment. No one is claiming that life does not change the diversity of the environment, or that life is not part of the environment. Their creation of niches is wholly dependent upon the opportunities afforded by their environment and genetics. You don't appear to be presenting a reasoned argument so much as farting into a headwind. What is your central thesis?

That's why we are here.

If, as a society, we were truly oriented towards science education there would be white boards located in all public areas to facilitate impromptu explanations.

1. Specify who "they" are. 2. Specify which country you are referring to. 3. Specify the academic status of the school you are considering. If I were grading your question asking skills the grade would not be proficient. Do not rely on your audience being smarter than you are.

No. Look again at the equation provided by Swansont. Area is not part of it. Only the density and height of the fluid column and g, the acceleration due to gravity.

@Michel and Dima, Are you unable to understand this, or do you not want to understand this? I am curious. Both of you appear to be using the argument of personal incredulity.

Tar, you continue to misuse terms. Indeed, your persistence in this regard leads me to say you abuse those terms. Preferred reference frame is being used by you, seemingly, to mean a reference frame that you like. In the same way that I might prefer chicken tikka jalfrezi to prawn vindaloo. That is not how it is used in physics. The wikipedia article is rather weak on the matter, but should show you how you are misusing the concept.. Once we remove the results of your improper use of terminology I am at a loss to see what you are saying that is not already very well known and very well accepted. Perhaps you will clarify your thinking, ideally in a concise manner.

At the moment, yes.