Ophiolite

I have followed many of your posts in a number of threads. They tend to follow a consistent pattern: you make a statement; members point out problems with the statement; you ignore, or completely misunderstand the responses; you head off in an entirely different and irrelevant direction. This is not discussion. This is you pontificating, while placing your fingers in your ears and singing "nah-nah-nah-nah-nah" to any remarks directed in your way. Until you learn to actually read, think about, fully consider and be educated by responses, you will continue to be disappointed and members will continue to be frustrated, until finally the mods call it a day on your participation.

As a guess, use this sequence: 1. Determine spectral class of star. 2. Thereby obtain value for absolute luminosity. 3. Measure observed luminosity. 4. Calculate distance. And as the site implies, use Doppler shift to determine velocities.

I have a depressing feeling that this is close to the conversations you have with your friends. Only that could explain why you think the program is currently delivering anything of value.

To elaborate on Tzurain's points. Based on your reference to declination, I think it is the first item that is most relevant to you. In other words celestial motion is the apparent rotation of the stars around the Earth on a daily basis.

14:12 BST My words in bold. It is warm today. Loll, lol. Do you think it is something to laugh about? You there? I’m alright. Yes, I am here. You? Who else would it be? Always big dog. Do you mean that your name is big dog? Lol Do you think it is something to laugh about? You there? Yes, I am still here. What? Hey, yea. Boring. Yea. Very boring. what's up? you want to hear what I'm saying? I want you to say something that relates to what I said. No response. This is a waste of time. Guy Fawkes No response. A complete waste of time. What? I want you to say something that relates to what I said. You tell me always. With a response like that I can reverse engineer your code. Yea buddy. What is your view on the origin of granite Lol You are easily amused. You there? I’m alright. Yes, I am here. You? Who else would it be? doing good buddy? Who else would it be? I leave, secure in the knowledge, gastropods have not yet been superceded by AI. I leave, secure in the knowledge, gastropods have not yet been superceded by AI. Why are you repeating Why are you repeating I asked first. I asked first. = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = My conclusion. Unimpressive.

Although at heart I am an arrogant elitist, when I check myself against reality I find I am not really that exceptional. Therefore those incredible ideas I have are most likely quite mundane and arise out of my ignorance. Thus I conclude that crackpots are just like me, except they forget to check themselves against reality. I remain unclear as to why this should predominantly effect people in relation to physics.

This is true, but the editor will be picking out errors such as the ones in my post #4: the ones that are generally only spotted by English majors and pedants. Can you see the errors in my post? (I can't - that's why I would need an editor.) An editor is not there to make corrections in almost every sentence. I am no fan of Microsoft, but I ran your opening paragraphs through Word and it turned up seventeen errors. Whatever editing software you are using, you need to change it. It also yielded a Flesch-Kincaid reading level of 6.8, which means, while most people will be able to read it with no difficulty, you will not be winning literary awards from intellectuals. On a very positive note you had only 5% of passive sentences. That is excellent. Many novice writers struggle to use active rather than passive voice. I routinely checked for that in my own writing and, as a consequence, virtually eliminated it from my style. (Passive voice has a place, but not when writing technical documents or action stories.)

None of the responses had any relationship to what I had typed. After about seven statement/questions it repeatedly asked "what", so I left the program. I was underwhelmed by the experience. At this stage, what you appear to have created is AI; Artificial Idiocy.

Very Wagnerian. It sounds like a Ring cycle.

I was unable to complete more than a third of the text because of the plethora of schoolboy errors. Strange has already identified some of these, both grammatical and stylistic. Here are some more. No comma after blindfolded. Clumsy. This would be an improvement: "Welcome". A man's voice, deep but charming, rang through the room." Really? Their intellectual assets have such an opportunity, or they have such an opportunity? Sloppy and distracting. Effective fiction writing is said to depend upon "the willing suspension of disbelief". I cannot believe that you could get the United Nations, who are anything but united, into bed with three American national institutions. You either have to do some very elegant justification very soon, or you need to have a multi-national selection of scientists. (The latter would also be key to have a chance of establishing good sales outside the US.) Plot objection: I have no idea how handcuffs will keep their location private. (Actually I have several, but I really think the author, not the reader, should do that part of the creative work.) Also, I am reasonably sure that you meant secret, not private. If you expect readers to shell out money for your story, be aware they have a right to expect that you will use vocabulary correctly. That is the second occasion, within half a dozen lines, that you have shown you do not understand what determines the end of a sentence. That is worrying. Strange said "intriguing opening". I say, it could have been, but the sloppy writing so distracted me that I was unable to get into it. You are showcasing your talent in this extract. I would have expected you to subject it to vigorous editing and extensive checking. Clearly you did not so. Why? If you care that little for your readers, why should they care for you?

I am surprised no one has commented on the bizarre suggestion that NATO should industrialise Africa. You want a military alliance to industrialise the continent? Essay - I've corrected your accidental neg. rep.

You rightly point out that the key to confirmation or rejection of this phenomenon lies with repeated observation. However, I have no intent - at this time - of investing the money or time to obtain the equipment and carry out the observations. What I should like to do is consider a couple of points you raise in your post. Would you expand on this a little please. Claiming that it is taboo implies a systematic effort to suppress discussion, or investigation of the phenomenon. It seems much more likely that what you are seeing is disinterest, based upon the suspicion that there is a mundane explanation for the observations. No researcher is going to waste time and funds investigating something that is not cutting edge. Please clarify why you believe the subject to actually be taboo. I cannot see anything on your examples that suggests plasma like. Amorphous is an excellent description, but to compare with a plasma suggests you are making an unwarranted jump towards what you think they may be. So, what other evidence do you have to justify the claim "plasma like"? Please provide evidence to support your contention that they can be observed "at any location in (sic) our planet". Do we have confirmed observations from all continents, high and low latitudes, high and low altitudes, coastal regions and inland, etc. How many other investigators are using the dual system you describe? Please specify the criteria by which you are led to believe they are living beings. Please specify, as noted previously, the criteria by which you assess them to be plasma-like. Please specify what leads you to think they are self-luminous rather than reflective. I cannot see anything on your examples that suggests plasma like. Amorphous is an excellent description, but to compare with a plasma suggests you are making an unwarranted jump towards what you think they may be. So, what other evidence do you have to justify the claim "plasma like"? Please provide evidence to support your contention that they can be observed "at any location in (sic) our planet". Do we have confirmed observations from all continents, high and low latitudes, high and low altitudes, coastal regions and inland, etc. Which academic circles do you think should be aware of, or take an interest in, them? Keep in mind that science is generally compartmentalised. (A palaeontologist interested in Ordovician ostracods will probably have to fake an interest in a colleague's studies of sexual dimorphism in ammonites.) Who? Citations please. What evidence do you have that they move freely in empty space? You are using cosmology in a completely alien way to my understanding of the term. Please explain what you mean. Are you stating, therefore, that there no instances in which their brightness has increased independently of any light signals? In other words are these objects always of constant brightness unless you send a light signal towards them? Is there a delay between sending a signal and their reaction? If so, what are the characteristics of this delay? Objective observations will almost always be welcomed. Radical - some might say bizarre - provisional speculations, presented with a higher level of confidence than merited will set of alarm bells. That should not shock you. In regard to your first example form 28/09/2014, what, approximately was the elevation of the camera, in degrees, throughout the filming? I look forward to your responses.

Many horse owners also drive cars.

It doesn't amaze me. Perhaps you are having communication difficulties. Perhaps your idea is so novel and radical that expressing it within the limitations of English is the source of the reactions you are getting here. For I see nothing especially creative in what you are saying. In the course of an hour or to, if I put my mind to it, I would expect to think up three or four ideas at least equivalent to what you have put, forward, though hopefully better defined. And I would discard them all for lacking any substance. I would expect more of the the real brains on the forum. Why not sit down, reread all the suggestions you have received carefully. Think about them, then read them again. Then write down, as precisely as you can specifically what your idea is, defining the key terminology, and making detailed predictions your hypothesis would generate. Leave it for a day - come back to it - edit it ruthlessly. Then post it. I think you would be surprised by the difference in the reactions.

By behaving like a rational being rather than an emotional cripple. Your entire argument is based upon your personal inabilities to do the things you claim are difficult. This is precisely why I said one can train oneself. I don't find it difficult to explore new ideas, or to accept ones that are of substance. I have trained myself to overcome any natural resistance to change I might have. This is not difficult - all it requires is an act of will. Please don't judge the millions of people who have no problems with doing this on the basis of your own restrictions.

I have no idea what cladking is waffling about. He seems to think there is "sand in the horizontal passage". Moreover, he seems to think this sand came from somewhere other than the immediate vicinity. Questions to cladking: 1. What are you referring to when you speak of the "horizontal passage"? You are aware, are you not, the while there are similarities of internal geometry in the pyramids, each is unique. 2. Please provide a proper citation for the presence of sand in this passage. 3. Please provide a proper citation in support of your claim that it comes from a distance. Back to studiot: cladking is correct that the the greater part of the pyramids at Giza are made of limestone. Elsewhere one or two made of sandstone, and many of mudbrick. Limestone is also commonplace. I don't have the statistics to hand on how many of each type of building material there are. The controlling factor appears to have been which stones of suitable quality were closest to hand. There was also a matter of cost and expediency. I think the later Middle Kingdom pyramids were mainly mudbrick with limestone facings. Of course, many of the mudbrick examples are no more than sad little mounds now. Since cladking seems to have focused on the pyramids on the Giza plateau, I do not know why he mentions basalt. (I can't find where it is mentioned in this thread.) I am not aware of any basalt in the Great Pyramid. Certainly I have never seen any when I have been inside, though that's hardly to be relied upon. Basalt was used to a limited extent, I think, in a handful of other pyramids and almost certainly in the ancillary temples at the Giza site. The interior of the Grand Gallery is lined with granite.

Have you tried moving a super-cluster. It needs an F-ing lot of F.

Science begins with observation. This observation is not the general, loose, broad brush kind of observation you are engaged in. This is a meticulous, measured, thorough, carefully checked suite of observations, in which variables are carefully identified and controlled. These observations are not only measured quantitatively, but the qualitative nature of what is being observed is defined with precision. For the observations to be worthy of further consideration they must be replicable by others.If not they will be, rightly, discarded. Your observations lack any of these characteristics and your definitions are non-existent. Your thinking, while it may have a creative core, is random, undisciplined and consequently of little value to mankind and a genuine limit to your own progress. You would benefit from a sounder basis of knowledge in the sciences you seem to be trying to add to or overturn. I fear you will ignore this advice, as you have ignored all the other excellent advice offered on this forum. That will not be surprising, though it will be disappointing. Your last post, #45, exemplifies your problem perfectly: in it you are simultaneously misusing and misunderstanding terms and concepts, mixing them in a cacophony of anti-erudition. Edit: correct typo - begins for beings

I did not say your ability to raise and lower your heart rate was bullshit. Apparently the ability is less common than I thought. I assumed, apparently mistakenly, that I was normal in being able to do this. If your cited paper is representative of the evidence on this point then it is not a universal ability. I stand corrected. The range of heart rate you mention (20 bpm) is comparable with what I would achieve, running between 45 and 60. The rest of what you were saying has the appearance of bullshit. It sounds very much like someone screeching "look at me I'm different and quite wonderful". That's what I called bullshit on.

One can train oneself to look at things from multiple perspectives. One can train oneself to consider seemingly unlikely possibilities. One can make lateral thinking a normal part of ones process of discovery. What you seem to be saying is that you have only recently discovered this, or find it difficult to do and are now branding everyone else with the same weakness. That suggests you have still not learned to look seriously at other possibilities. I find that amusing - that you are probably guilty of the very failings you see in others.

I tried to post examples here, but they were censored every time. What's that about?

You have posted almost no evidence. You have posted assertions, claims, opinions, (mis)interpretations, accusations, objections and the like. But precious little evidence. I shall not be wasting any more time on your unsupported delusions.

And what is your evidence for this claim? Keep in mind the following: Evidence is not a belief. Evidence is not a desire. Evidence is not an opinion. Evidence is not a suspicion. Evidence is not writings of undemonstrated provenance. Evidence is not a passionately declared statement. Evidence is not an idea. Evidence is not a majority opinion. Evidence is not a minority opinion. Evidence is measurable, repeatable observation consistent with a hypothesis So what is the evidence for your assertions?

You will find many posts of mine where I correct the English of a member. I am not opposed to the practice, nor do I fail to see its value. However, singling out that aspect of their post, when they are a) clearly uncomfortable with the language, b) passionate about their message, and c) a very new member, that suggests that you were more concerned about scoring points than about discussing the OP, or helping improve their English. (And if you were sincere about wishing to help them, then you need to point out their specific mistakes, not just say they have done poorly.) I find that interesting, as it provides a salutary lesson as to the difficulty of achieving the OPs dream. (You see nullus, as a declared peacemaker you came under immediate attack).

Perhaps rather than criticising the grammar of someone writing in a foreign language it would be more productive to listen to their impassioned message. It may be an old message, it may be a naive appeal, but for its importance it merits more than the reproach of a pedant.