Ophiolite

The difficulty then seems to be, Tar, that you have been using absolute in a colloquial sense. On a science forum this is ill advised. Absolute has a defined meaning in science, distinct from the dictionary definition that can serve us well enough in everyday conversation. (Of that, I am absolutely convinced.)

It is said that there is a fine line between teaching and preaching. In my experience, with minimum effort, one can always step over it.

Mike, fewer catty comments, please.

tar, unusually - to my recollection - you are totally wrong. The only absolute concerning motion is that your idea on it are absolutely incorrect. Quit while you are only behind.

Summary from ESA site. Earlier paper on results. March 2014 abstract Was this the sort of thing you were looking for?

Three days since you posted this Tim and it has been thoroughly devalued. Will you now do the honourable thing and concede the petition fails utterly to provide any meaningful support for AGW scepticism?

This makes no sense. 1. What size are you specifying for your average building? 2. On what basis do you claim 100 trees are destroyed? What about the many areas where building takes place on grassland, or semi-desert? 3. Are you seriously saying that one tree absorbs only 1lb of CO2? 4. You have completely ignored the substantial amount of sequestered CO2 in the timber used in the construction of many buildings. If you wish to convince people of what is an important issue you need to much clearer in your statements and accurate in your facts.

The Devil is in the detail.

Just so we are clear: your rigid rod is purely hypothetical, yes? No such thing can exist in reality. The propagation of movement through the rod would be at the speed of sound in the material of the rod and not the speed of light. Agreed?

Dipole: the observation that magnetic and electric charges tend to exist as opposites. Negative, or positive electric charges; north, or south seeking magnetic poles. Two poles, hence dipole. A moment is a combination of some force, or property of a body and distance. So the electric dipole moment relates to the magnitude of the charges on two particles and the distance between them. Disclaimer: This is an 8th grade understanding of the terms, but may meet your needs.

The only way you can justify this mistaken belief is by confusing tabloid journalism reporting of science with a seriously considered examination of the depth, breadth, complexity and cross-discipline cooperation of modern science. Have you actually read any papers on protein biochemistry, or seismic tomography, or high pressure phase changes, or crustal evolution of the terrestrial planets, or indeed any of the plethora of papers published in the last couple of decades?

There is substantial evidence for the flooding of the Black Sea around 10,000 (?) years ago. Equally the Gulf would have seen substantial flooding in post-glacial times.

minaras, are you self-educated in biology? As far as I can tell, from a careful reading of your posts, you are simply repeating some fairly standard, basic biology concepts, mixed in with some misunderstandings and several incorrectly used technical phrases. Self-education seems the most likely explanation for this mish-mash. If I have done you a disservice then you need to read anything and everything written by Stewart Kaufman.

Is our need for myth in any substantial way different from our pleasure in enjoying fiction? I should be surprised if they draw upon different areas of the brain.

Suggestion: stop thinking and start living.

I open with a disclaimer: my statistical skills are rudimentary. However, consider the wikipedia article: "In probability theory, a purely stochastic system is one whose state is non-deterministic (i.e., "random") so that the subsequent state of the system is determined probabilistically. Any system or process that must be analyzed using probability theory is stochastic at least in part." Since the industrial revolution poured out vast volumes of soot I see nothing stochastic about the occurrence of surfaces darkened by soot. Unless you wish to say events with a 100% probability of occurrence are stochastic. I await a convincing correction on this point.

It's called the scientific method. You should try it some time. Not when most (all?) of your posts are loaded with petulance and anger. You preach; you don't discuss.

1. Since I intended no insult and swansont took no insult then it seems the comprehension problem lies with you. It is possible for two individuals who respect each other to disagree on particulars and to do so without becoming life-long enemies. You might try it some time. (Hint: that was an insult.) 2. Your posts seem to be longer because you are unable to write concisely. I am not a published author, but my document on technical writing is the standard in a division of the company I work for. Sensei introduced some specific, quantitative analysis of the topics under discussion, therefore he was not guilty of the approach I associated with swansont and others. I was approving of Sensei's contributions. You genuinely seem to have comprehension difficulties. (That is both an insult and clearly expressed suspicion.)

I should have retired over one year ago. I currently have no intentions of retiring. Why? I believe, rightly or wrongly, that I am making a small contribution to the betterment of humanity. It will never be captured in any biography, history, or documentary. It is a contribution that barely dents the progress of humanity, but it is, I think, a real contribution. It is, I suspect, above average. I don't have any clear idea what all of this - life - is about, but I choose to believe that helping to make it better for others cannot be a bad thing.

Overtone, your thinking is, to use a technical term, screwed up. Selection by cause is wholly different from selection by luck. If you cannot see this, then I recommend a crash course in evolutionary biology. I can recommend several books. Charon Y's professional understanding of the concept would provide better examples. I was going to try explaining again, but Charon has done a better job of that than I can and still you misunderstand. I am at a loss. Good luck.

What is your evidence for that? People found charitable organisations, work for charitable organisations and donate to charitable organisations that are not religious in nature. They respond to perceived needs. As an occasional giver I look for organisations that work in areas I consider important. If the Salvation Army did not exist I should likely to give to other charities that address homelessness. For example, I often buy a copy of The Big Issue and add something over the cover price. Which is exactly the same for any donations I make to the non-religious World Wildlife Fund for Nature. I'm now confused as to what it is you are trying to claim.

1. I rarely look for threads in a specific sub-forum. Like many other members I look in the Recent Posts. Are you seriously telling me it is difficult to scroll to the bottom of a page. 2. The thread is not in the Trash Can. It is in speculations. That's S P E C U L A T I ON S. 3. You've been told to stop commenting on moderator decisions. I recommend you comply. I did not insult the moderation staff. Pointing out, in an unemotional manner, that certain issues appear not to have been dealt with appropriately, is not insulting. If I wished to insult them I would use your angst ridden style. Please stop with the broken record. Are you here to argue for giving more attention to LENR, or to complain about how you were moderated? Don't answer that, the answer is obvious. @ Alain I strongly urge you to limit the size of your posts. This is the pertinent part of your last post. Stay focused on that until those papers have been sufficiently critiqued. Provide a summary of their findings. Do not deviate into other avenues and evidence at this point.

I believe I have seen members, including mods, criticise posters for offering only a single paper in support of their position. It is disingenuous to claim a poster has offered too much evidence. Excellent. Ignore those. (It means they are less numerous than you initially thought.) So, pick one paper, critique the major points in it. When the poster responds that is only one, then ask which paper, in their view, offers the best evidence and critique it. All I have seen is - exactly what Alain claims - an argument from the position that LENR is false, without meaningful dissection of the presented evidence. Oh, come on Swansont, you are better than that. I think we all know that almost no one actually reads the forum rules, except those with OCD. It has been open to everyone, at any point, to say to Alain -"OK, please pick a piece of evidence you find especially compelling, summarise it here and provide us with the link." That would have been helpful. It would have moved the discussion forward. Instead we have the unseemly stream of evidence being offered by Alain and the counterarguments largely ignoring it. I worry about how that is viewed by the lurkers who are conflicted about science. I see one of the prime values of this forum lies in educating people about science and the scientific method. I think the responses in this thread to Alain's contributions present an ambiguous view, at best, of the impartiality of scientists. That is to be regretted.

He mixes science and religion in a manner that is unlikely to sit comfortably with either perspective. I suppose that is what Fox considers to be a broadcast about cutting edge, evolutionary science.

I care about the conflicts you are experiencing. That produced my concerned queries in a recent post. Since you studiously ignored that post and, in this one, make it clear you do not consider my concerns for you to be genuine, or relevant, I am changing my status to: I cared about the conflicts you are experiencing. Good luck resolving your issues, but the route I proposed is one you should consider.