Ophiolite

I think we all know what this is.

No, your clarification confirms that I understood you fully. However, you have produced zero evidence to support your assertion. In what way would a thriving internet presence extend the longevity of your offspring? Why would such a presence favour mutations which led to longer life?

Survival within the internet has no connectivity with survival in the real world, except for the fact that real world survival takes total precedence. I see no validity in your concept at all.

I agree that there is possibility of what you describe, but I think this extremely unlikely. I base this view not on some detailed modelling, or high quality peer reviewed research, but on a qualitative gut feel arising from reasonably extensive knowledge of volcanic behaviour as revealed during eruptions and in the rock record. Either way, we seem agreed that attempting Airbrush's approach would end either in failure or disaster.

Yet Matt would likely agree with you on all of that. Where he seems to differ is that he sees no value, or independent meaning in the appreciation of the rose. For Matt, the whole is not greater than the sum of the parts. Of course, this raises the question, if all is without meaning why is he so committed to convincing others that this is so?

Bollocks, if you get my meaning!

Might work. You would need to do a cost benefit analysis, including the energy required to construct and launch the balloons, and take into account the declining stocks of helium. No volcano can be caused to erupt in a sustained predictable manner. That's pretty much an absolute. If you wish to assert otherwise you need to produce some serious citations. Good luck with that. The literature of vulcanology is awash with examples that contradict that notion. Since the injection of particulates into the atmosphere will be uncontrolled, sporadic and random, and the worlds weather/climate system is complex and at times chaotic, we may reasonably anticipate that some parts of the world will experience extreme conditions (like the year without summer) that automatically lead to crop failure. Massive death tolls are a consequence of that. The issue is not the larger ejecta. The whole principle you are proposing is based upon placing particulates high in the atmosphere on a global basis. The only volcanoes far enough away not to cause a problem are on Io, but they fail to provide a solution. My professional specialty is drilling holes in the ground. Your idea won't work. I've already explained that even if you completed the borehole it would quickly be blocked off. Multiple times, generally in connection with drilling into Yellowstone to "relieve the pressure". I don't bother to take a note of where I have seen crazy ideas. You could try searching for Yellowstone and Ophiolite (John Galt) on this, and other forums.

Because you spend insufficient time on those forums where such crazy ideas are commonplace. The impact of this eruption would be unpredictable and locally extreme. What we can predict is that in some areas there would be massive failure of crops with consequent deaths in the millions, etc. I don't understand what you mean by "tunnel down the cone". Do you mean tunnel down the cone (shape) of the volcano, or tunnel down to the core, or something else? At any rate, conventional bombs will not provide a pathway for magma. They would be more effective at closing any existing pathways. Even if you were able to establish a pathway to the magma chamber the flow rate would be insignificant and the magma would quickly solidify, blocking the route. A more practical approach, because it is controllable, is to introduce artificial particulates to the atmosphere, but even that has immense technical difficulties and uncertain outcomes. At least it is not impossible.

And: http://www.bbc.com/news/live/science-environment-29985988 and here:http://rosetta.esa.int/

Keep in mind that there were different kind of angles. Some of them were very perceptive; these were the acute angles. Others spoke cryptically; these were the obtuse angles. Only a few were infallible; these were the right angles. And some just reacted automatically to events; these were the reflex angles.

I posted this before, but it seems apt. (For the creationists among you it provides evidence of non-evolution........in my thinking.) What we call something is, or at least should be, less important than what it is. Our understanding of evolutionary mechanisms is still far from complete and not fully integrated. Large steps have been taken over a century and a half. Is it important to mark those steps? Important, but not necessarily essential. Darwin's idea was accepted with suprising alacrity by the scientific community, supporting the claim by some that it was an idea whose time had come. (And Wallace served to offer confirmation to that notion.) Yet by the turn of the century Darwinism was all but dead as people gravitated to mutation and the concepts of Mendel rediscovered by Bateman, de Vries and Corren. When the two were fused in the 1930s and 40s did the resultant concept merit a new name? One could hardly call it Haldane/Huxley/Dhobzhanksy/Fisher/Simpson/Stebbins/Wright/Mayrism, so the Modern Synthesis was born. And now, more than half a century later, we've learnt even more about the mechanisms and processes, so much more that some people think a new name is in order. Is it? I said at the outset that what we call something is, or at least should be, less important than what it is. But is this true? Darwin may have been the right man in the right place at the right time, but he ignited a revolution that is arguably of greater scientific importance than any other. His handful of principles still lie at the heart of evolutionary thought, so my view is simple. Let's just call the current hypothesis and those that will develop in future, Darwinism. Direct, concise, effective. And it has the secondary advantage that it will piss off the creationists.

How can you have a pure conscience if you know that you were once capable of such a sin? I would continue to feel guilt over having entertained such thoughts.

I see no reason to introduce the word scientific to your assertions. The atoms have these properties whether or not science exists. Am I correct that your underlying thesis is that emergent properties differ in no way from fundamental properties? If this is your thesis, how do you propose to demonstrate its validity? (Hint: you have not done so yet.)

The cold thruster that is meant to counteract a tendency to bounce appears to be inoperative. This could compromise the landing. Mission control were aware of this prior to separation.

Go to http://www.astronautix.com/. Search through all the Russian and or American space missions. If anything similar to what you are remembering happened it will be detailed there. Either way, I would be interested to hear what you do find.

I recommend a career as a fiction writer. Nothing similar to what you describe has occurred. There was an American astronaut on board Mir as part of the crew when fire broke out on the craft. Perhaps you are recalling this. Also, there were several rendezvous between the shuttle and Mir, but all of these were scheduled. Have a look at the wiki on this and see if anything strikes a chord.

I shall make a wild guess: he has an education and takes the time and trouble to study things that interest him. @the OP: I am unaware of any mechanism, or combination of mechanisms that could permit organic life to remain intact at the temperatures present at the surface of Venus. Therefore your opening premise is not realisable in practice. If you do wish "to know how it could work in real life with real sciences applied" then you need to specify the character of the microbes that we wish to imagine living there. Different characters will mean different responses to the changed environment. That's why, from the same starting point, some of us became humans and others became gladioli.

It is generally considered to be "bad form" to link to other forums or forum-like sites without out at least some explanation of what you are trying to accomplish. At any rate, welcome to the forum.

Highly debatable. Since there is clear evidence that many decisions are made in our subconscious there is no good reason to reject the possibility that this may not also be true of our creation of "meaning". So, the astronauts in the ISS don't ever think? I never knew that.

No. What makes you think it is a wild guess? A simple literature search would have revealed the wild guess was yours. For example: Driscoll, P. and Bercovici, D. "Divergent evolution of Earth and Venus: Influence of degassing, tectonics, and magnetic fields." Volume 226, Issue 2, November–December 2013, Pages 1447–1464 Abstract Knowledge of the earliest evolution of Earth and Venus is extremely limited, but it is obvious from their dramatic contrasts today that at some point in their evolution conditions on the two planets diverged. In this paper we develop a geophysical systems box model that simulates the flux of carbon through the mantle, atmosphere, ocean, and seafloor, and the degassing of water from the mantle. Volatile fluxes, including loss to space, are functions of local volatile concentration, degassing efficiency, tectonic plate speed, and magnetic field intensity. Numerical results are presented that demonstrate the equilibration to a steady state carbon cycle, where carbon and water are distributed among mantle, atmosphere, ocean, and crustal reservoirs, similar to present-day Earth. These stable models reach steady state after several hundred million years by maintaining a negative feedback between atmospheric temperature, carbon dioxide weathering, and surface tectonics. At the orbit of Venus, an otherwise similar model evolves to a runaway greenhouse with all volatiles in the atmosphere. The influence of magnetic field intensity on atmospheric escape is demonstrated in Venus models where either a strong magnetic field helps the atmosphere to retain about 60 bars of water vapor after 4.5 Gyr, or the lack of a magnetic field allows for the loss of all atmospheric water to space in about 1 Gyr. The relative influences of plate speed and degassing rate on the weathering rate and greenhouse stability are demonstrated, and a stable to runaway regime diagram is presented. In conclusion, we propose that a stable climate-tectonic-carbon cycle is part of a larger coupled geophysical system where a moderate surface climate provides a stabilizing feedback for maintaining surface tectonics, the thermal cooling of the deep interior, magnetic field generation, and the shielding of the atmosphere over billion year time scales.

jeremy, I opened with a series of questions many of which you provided some answers to. I intended to follow up with more probing questions, but in the interim you had reacted to some other posts in what had all the appearance of a close-minded approach. I remain interested in discussing this phenomenon with you in an open manner, but not if you are unwilling to consider the possibility that you are mistaken.Bignose has spoken, I suspect, for most of us who have contributed to this thread. So, are you, or are you not, interested in pursuing an open discussion? (Please note I am not interested in a response that focuses on the alleged close-minded behaviour of your questioners. Use that approach and I am gone.)

That says it all.

It would be sensible, productive and polite to think fully of the implications of any post before you make it. Something to consider for your future actions on the forum. It is very much your responsibility to make yourself understood. Others have commented on the lack of cohesiveness and clarity in your posts. Each of you posts is a challenge to understand because of the rambling, incoherent style you have adopted. You would get a better reception if you worked on your writing skills. And to repeat, if several people find you difficult to understand this is your weakness not ours. This is a caricature of a strawman version of science and scientists. Thus your argument fails on the absence of sound logic. The rest of your post is close to unintelligible.

In summary: You had a really vague idea. You are unable to express with clarity what this idea is. You want other people to invest time and energy to make sense of your idea. When some members attempt to do so you are rude to them. Do you have many friends?

It might be helpful to group the theories in some form of hierarchy, or classification scheme.