Ophiolite

I have a wife and her wardrobe to support.

No, it is Fox who say a NASA scientist said it. This could be because 1) They did not understand what the NASA scientist actually said. 2) They cherry picked what the NASA scientist said 3) They took what the NASA scientist said out of context 4) They lied

The word Fox is in the sentence. It can safely be ignored.

What led to this feeling? Was it your autonomic nervous system, or your central nervous system?

Relative, this is the point where you make a post such as this: "But did you take this photo before or after you have your daily bowel evacuation? Surely that would make a difference." I hope you can see, through this example, how pointless it is when you introduce irrelevancies. You are making progress. Eliminate the irrelevances and you will move even faster.

"Just because you are paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you."

Other key words (1) Scientific (2) Logical (3) Organised (4) Structured (5) Informative (6) Fun Oh, look! If you take the initial letter of each word and rearrange them, it spells fossil. I win!! It is brought back into scope: a) threads may be relocated b) or split c) Members may be warned d) Or banned e) Posts may be deleted We don't try to balance between acceptable and unacceptable. We want the balance to be weighted entirely to the acceptable side. In the real world that is impossible, but attempting to allow some out of scope posts in would just be silly. We call it a Science forum. We have lots of sub-forums related to science. We invite people interested in Science to join. We involve scientists and those with scientific outlooks in the running of the forum. Since science is, by its very nature, fresh and relevant, the rest happens naturally. The metrics of the forum reflect this. Did you like the $5.00 answers?

The key thing to remember is that you are the end product of over three billion years of successful parenting. It is statistically improbable that you will be the first one to screw it up in all that time.

Rottenness, as you describe it, would be measured as a value judgement and not by objective measure. There have been plenty of posts where members have claimed there are no new ideas here, that open thinking is discouraged, that new members are scared away, that moderators impose their personal prejudices on what and what is not allowed, etc. Clearly those members, most of them now former members, felt this was a rotten forum. Equally, most of the regular members would disagree with those positions. Who is correct? It depends on your perspective.

I had this written five hours ago, but failed to post it. In the meantime I think some points have been addressed by other members so there may be some repetition. We observe them in the corona and it is really only there that they take on the form of a flare, so I think corona would be the correct answer. Yes, the solar wind has been in existence since the sun formed. Indeed there is a period in the early history of the sun, known as its T-Tauri phase, after a star in that phase in the constellation of Taurus, where the solar wind is so intense it clears away the last of the gas in the accretion disc from which the planets formed. As far as I am aware the wind is then much as it is now, though I would expect it to be slighter weaker as the sun was cooler then. I feel that I've given a reasonable basic description of the differences. Have you checked google for answers? I think that would be more productive for you to extract the details from various sources than for me to do the compilation for you. His claim is not one I am familiar with. Such cycles are of interest to me, so I would have thought it likely I would have heard of this before if it was a generally accepted idea. Therefore, I am expressing very strong doubts. I would want to see the research he bases this statement on. I should want to read a selection of papers that cite that research and see how they use it and what credibility they give it. I should want to consider what assumptions were made in their research and how rigorous their experimental method was. I would want to see how thoroughly they had considered alternative explanations for their observations, and so on. Sunspots arise as a consequence of complex magnetic fields. The models we have of those fields are sound - that is they duplicate the behaviour that we see. As far as know the size of the magnetic "disturbances" that can produce the sunspots could not become as large as you are speaking of. I had this written five hours ago, but failed to post it. In the meantime I think some points have been addressed by other members so there may be some repetition. We observe them in the corona and it is really only there that they take on the form of a flare, so I think corona would be the correct answer. Yes, the solar wind has been in existence since the sun formed. Indeed there is a period in the early history of the sun, known as its T-Tauri phase, after a star in that phase in the constellation of Taurus, where the solar wind is so intense it clears away the last of the gas in the accretion disc from which the planets formed. As far as I am aware the wind is then much as it is now, though I would expect it to be slighter weaker as the sun was cooler then. I feel that I've given a reasonable basic description of the differences. Have you checked google for answers? I think that would be more productive for you to extract the details from various sources than for me to do the compilation for you. His claim is not one I am familiar with. Such cycles are of interest to me, so I would have thought it likely I would have heard of this before if it was a generally accepted idea. Therefore, I am expressing very strong doubts. I would want to see the research he bases this statement on. I should want to read a selection of papers that cite that research and see how they use it and what credibility they give it. I should want to consider what assumptions were made in their research and how rigorous their experimental method was. I would want to see how thoroughly they had considered alternative explanations for their observations, and so on. Sunspots arise as a consequence of complex magnetic fields. The models we have of those fields are sound - that is they duplicate the behaviour that we see. As far as know the size of the magnetic "disturbances" that can produce the sunspots could not become as large as you are speaking of. This is a very incomplete answer, but it is outside my areas of interest.

You didn't have the same environment, since some siblings were older and some were younger. That has a powerful influence on personality development.

You are mistaken, holding a common, but incorrect belief. Plate tectonics arises through convection in the solid mantle. Solids can and do flow - if any one wishes I can go into a little detail on the mechanisms involved. The convection may arise as a consequence of plumes of mantle material rising from the core/mantle interface. These would occur whether or not the outer core was liquid, though I think their strength would drop off rapidly after the core had solidified, since the temperature contrast would drop - no convection in core to maintain the differential. However, the role of the core in initiating, or maintaining plate tectonics is hotly debated. It is certainly not the only factor and may be a minor factor. As I said above, this does not work. As I noted in my initial post, most researchers think that Mars and Venus experience stagnant lid tectonics. In these, convection still occurs in their solid mantles, but only in the lower mantle. The upper mantle is too viscous and internal heat is transmitted via conduction. That is my contention. Please note that this is an opinion, but it is the opinion of a keen amateur, with professional training who has carried out extensive reading on the subject. The use of the term appears to me to be more about PR than science. Which has more appeal? Scientists discover surface of Europa moves around just like ice floes in the Arctic (which was bloody obvious was likely the case ever since we saw the Voyager photographs 35 years ago). Or, Scientists discover plate tectonics on Europa. No, models of its interior preclude that possibility. Again, I think this is important and interesting news, whose significance is actually diminished by misusing established terminology. I would have no problem if someone were to write a paper redefining plate tectonics to incorporate the following types: a) Terrestrial style 'deep penetrating' plate tectonics. b) Europa style 'shallow penetrating' plate tectonics c) Martian style stagnant lid 'plate tectonics' d) Venusian styles stagnant lid with periodic convective crustal overturn plate tectonics e) etc.

Formation of Europa While more than one hypothesis has been put forward for the origin of Europa and the other Galilean satellites, formation in Jupiter's accretion disc during its formation is best supported by the evidence. This would be equivalent to the formation of the planets in the solar system, with Jupiter playing the role of the sun, the whole applied on a smaller scale. Canup and Ward, two well established planetary scientists say this in their introduction to a chapter on Europa's origin in the book Europa from the University of Arizona Press: Europa is believed to have formed near the very end of Jupiter’s own accretion, within a circumplanetary disk of gas and solid particles. We review the formation of the Galilean satellites in the context of current constraints and understanding of giant planet formation, focusing on recent models of satellite growth within a circumjovian accretion disk produced during the final stages of gas inflow to Jupiter. In such a disk, the Galilean satellites would have accreted slowly, in more than105yr, and in a low pressure, low gas density environment. Gravitational interactions between the satellites and the gas disk lead to inward orbital migration and loss of satellites to Jupiter. Such effects tend to select for a maximum satellite mass and a common total satellite system mass compared to the planet’s mass. One implication is that multiple satellite systems may have formed and been lost during the final stages of Jupiter’s growth, with the Galilean satellites being the last generation that survived as gas inflow to Jupiter ended. Plate Tectonics I am very uncomfortable with1 calling this plate tectonics. Yes, there appear to be plates; yes there appear to be tectonic movements and structures associated with these plates, but: a) The relative size of the plates appears to be different to those on Earth b) Convective flow is in a liquid, not a solid c) and consequently the time scale is quite different. d) There do not to appear to be the equivalents of continental and oceanic crust that are such important aspects of terrestrial plate tectonics. e) The diversity of rock types and the complexities this introduces in terms of magmatic genesis, initiation of subduction, diaparism, etc are absent from Europa. If we seriously wish to call this plate tectonics then the stagnant lid/single plate tectonics thought to dominate Mars and Venus needs to be called plate tectonics too. And while we are at it, I would challenge the impression created by the article that "conventional plate tectonics" is thought to be absent form those two planets. Several workers have presented arguments for plate tectonics having been active on both, and in the case of Venus, very recently. So, to be clear, I am not questioning the findings. I am questioning the sloppy use of the term "plate tectonics" perhaps in an effort to attract media attention and grant money. 1. British understatement for bollocks.

I've never seen reality match an artist's impression. Be careful what you wish for. You may get transferred to Dubai.

From Investopedia comes this explanation: The use of "bull" and "bear" to describe markets comes from the way the animals attack their opponents. A bull thrusts its horns up into the air while a bear swipes its paws down. These actions are metaphors for the movement of a market. If the trend is up, it is a 'bull' market. If the trend is down it is a 'bear' market. This should probably have been posted in a different section. It is not really science.

In that case, driving myself to work is a job.

When you celebrate your eighteenth birthday and can offer suggestions that go beyond sophomoric nonsense I shall be happy to participate in a mature discussion.

Excellent.

Take great care to ensure that the vents for the cooling fan are not covered in anyway. This could happen, for example, if you set the laptop down on a bed, or sofa to take a phone call, or are distracted in some other way. Also, we had a case recently where one of our staff, on a flight, failed to shut their laptop down properly, put it in their briefcase and then into the overhead locker. The laptop seriously overheated, melting half the plastic, destroying the mother board and coming very close to initiating a fire.

Superficially, I have zero experience in this. But I have written many commercial proposals - and have a high success rate. I believe the following is crucial. Open with a clear, concise, yet comprehensive summary. No mysteries remaining, no key problem overlooked. A simple, elegant, convincing story - in a couple of paragraphs. Perhaps you already would automatically do so. On the other hand, given the number of abstracts I've read that fail as abstracts, I'm not convinced that all researchers understand this principle.

You say that even if Mohamed is a false prophet he should be mentioned in the Gospels. How do you feel this can be achieved, given that the Gospels were written several hundred years before Mohamed lived?

Newton's Third Law: to ever action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Do you still wish to maintain it is not true?

The OP is looking for a practical solution to the problem. He makes that clear in his posts. Your solution is not practical, for the reason stated. To justify your post you would need to demonstrate that it is technically, biologically, economically and politically practical.Can you do so?

fiveworlds, how about using some common sense. We are talking about desert conditions. The volume of sea water required to saturate the underlying ground and produce marsh conditions would be enormous and prohibitive.

No, You didn't improve it: you ****ed it up. You didn't add a formula, you added a concatenation of meaningless letters. You don't know what a formula is, because you won't frigging undertake the study several of us have recommended. In your dreams, but not on any planet I inhabit. What is the nature of the repulsion and the attraction between these objects? The strong force, gravity, electromagnetism? What? How does the repulsion vary with distance? (Does it vary with distance?) If so, is it a linear relationship; an inverse relationship; something more complex? If you cannot specify that then you do not have a model. That sentence is devoid of meaning. A distance cannot be deemed by volume and very definitely not by volume and their contained energies. That is just silly nonsense. Stop making stuff up and educate yourself. At last we are in agreement. You don't understand any of this well enough to be thinking about improving anything. And you are not using formulas. Strings of letters are not formulas. You have not explained it. You have made some meaningless statements. Any points that can be understood by your readers are wrong, or contradictory. Please go away and learn the basics. Please. Really, please. We've pointed you to where. Ask questions about what you are studying, not about fantasies you are dreaming up. (And the floor is pushing back at you.) Change it to magnetic interactions if you like