Ophiolite

No responses? Possibilities. 1) This is so speculative it is barely out of the realms of SF. 2) Genuine question: does your prior posting history - of which I am unaware - suggest that you intend to discuss a different, but related topic and no one is willing to bite? 3) It is simply answered by a single word - yes - so that discussion seems pointless.

No one has argued that the dropping of the atomic bombs had no effect on the Japanese readiness to surrender. We are asserting that the Japanese would have surrendered without it. This assertion, unlike yours, is acknowledged by the vast majority of scholars who have studied the issue. Indeed the only place I see support for your argument is in the repetition of the US government line of the time, to the extent that the explanation - it save American lives - has become the equivalent of an urban legend. You really do favour oversimplification!" You don't think wealth and attractive living standards encourage the avoidance of wars? There are still large animosities present in Europe, but no one would be crazy enough to start a war, because we'd likely lose our satellite TV and imported Bulgarian wine. (And that too is a gross oversimplification, but the point remains valid.) What exactly is your plan for deterring suicide bombers and psychopaths? If your plan does not work on them it is pointless. Which forum members in this discussion have said nothing can be done? Be specific and please quote their precise words, in context. Or were you lying when you said that? (See how inane using a comment like that is?)

I always stand with the unicorns. Their coats are so incredibly smooth and silky.

Your idea of detail falls far short of any use of the word I am familiar with. There was active debate within Japan prior to the dropping of the bombs as to how to surrender. While some remained opposed, the main sticking point was the allied demand for unconditional surrender. It is both possible and plausible that surrender could have been arrived at earlier had the allies not been so adamant. The decision to drop the bombs was far more complex than you make out; the situation within Japan was far more complex than you seem to appreciate; and as I drive home from work in my Japanese car, to prepare a quick meal in my Japanese micro-wave, imported on a Japanese shipping line, I wonder what I shall watch on my Japanese TV and ponder just exactly where you think they abandoned their expansionist ambitions. Metamorphosis is not a sub-set of abandonment. Well, since you like details, should you not pay heed that we are not dealing with a country, we are dealing with a movement, or rather a complex of movements, and prejudices, and tribal hostilities, and decade old political manipulations, and not a Third World Country we can conveniently bomb. Or, were you just going to ignore the collateral damage? Follow the ludicrous policy you propose and you won't have a bunch of scared fundamentalists, you will have an outraged world citizenry. Good luck with that!

I have been following this thread throughout, with an occasional contribution. It is now my recommendation that it be locked. Relative, your last post is filled with a combination of unjustified arrogance and profound ignorance that make it unlikely, in my opinion, despite the patient efforts of several other members, that you will ever be ready to learn anything meaningful. You seem almost to belong to that set of people of whom it is said, they had delusions of adequacy.

But it has been made elsewhere, has it not? Anyway, is the primary objective to discuss the substance of the matter, or to decide who is "right"?

When you own a hammer every problem looks like a nail. When you own the most expensive, state of the art, hammer in the world, you feel obliged to use it. Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln1 von Clausewitz 1. War is the mere continuation of politics by other means.

In the meantime we should never forget that, for most people, strawberries taste delicious.

My reading of the interchange is that an assertion, implicit or explicit, has been made that removing religion would lead to harmonious relations between people. Pears seems simply to be asking why that would be the case. Asking that question does not imply an existing opinion on the matter.

You didn't bug me. My responses were designed to encourage you to actually think before you post. If that, apparently aggressive, act bugs you, then my work here is done. People are at their most creative when they are annoyed.

So, your earlier statement "I don't really believe in moderators" was either a lie, or a thoughtless comment, or you are being hypocritical on this point. You say there will be no "spying on people". That implies you think the moderators here spy on people. Is that another thoughtless comment? Or do you have evidence that they do spy? And, completely off-topic, have you ever thought - as an act of politeness - using a spell checker before you post?

Obvious to you because you have not thought carefully enough about the issue. It allows us to measure the separation of events in time. The separation of objects is measured in space. The separation of events is measure in time. Your challenge to this seems to be more a result of poor understanding on your part, rather than a significant insight. No!

I just wasted five minutes confirming my suspicion that the OP had plagiarised their opening paragraph, only to discover that a lot of time had passed since they posted it. More on topic: my intellect is incapable of grasping the "meaning" of time. I suspect that is the beauty of a mathematical approach. It lets one deceive oneself into thinking one has grasped something fundamental.

Clays are enormously varied in their structure. Substitutions of aluminium for silicon and alkaline Earths for aluminium in the some of the silica tetrahedra and aluminium octahedra respectively create charge imbalances that lead to very interesting surface chemistry. I cannot specifically rule out, from my limited knowledge on the subject, a possible chemotrophic process. Do you have specific theory that would exclude that possibility?

Let me know when you set it up, so I can come along and demonstrate the consequences of no moderators combined with full freedom of speech.

We have no sound idea as to why there are Laws. Science does not deal with why. Science seeks to describe what and how. Why falls into the realm of philosophy, at least today. I think it was probably Einstein who said something to the effect that "the most remarkable thing about the universe is that we can understand it at all." One day we may know the answer, but - in my opinion - this topic is more suited to The Lounge, or Speculations, than physics. (That should stir up anyone with solid evidence to the contrary.)

Decay is not a word that would be used. We might say that atomic bonds may eventually be broken, but that would be because of a change in the environment of the molecule. Decay suggests a deterioration. Any broken bond could just as readily reform if conditions are right. If I may venture some advice. You appear to be attempting to learn science through a series of random questions, which are often badly phrased. The result is frequently confusion and misunderstanding on your part. Would you not consider studying some basic textbooks on physics and chemistry, then coming to the forum to clarify specific points? Edited to correct three small, but annoying, typographical errors.

Thank you for the clarification. Well, the conversion of limestone to marble is, I think, primarily controlled by temperature. You would want to specify the temperature range over which the conversion occurs. Pressure will play a role, but I think it would be a secondary one. A standard text book should address these issues. (I think you will find that immense temperature is unnecessary, but you definitely want to be talking numbers, not adjectives.) You might wish to address the two ways in which the elevated temperature could be attained. Formation of slate is influenced more by pressure, but again a certain minimum pressure will be required. Textbooks will address this, or find a recent research paper on the topic. You certainly want to consider the changes in chemistry, mineralogy, and structure (macro and micro) that occur during the metamorphism, linking these to pressure/temperature ranges. The sort of thing that Eskola published back in the 60s, but updated with current knowledge/thinking would help you.

It is useful in a discussion like this to address the points made by other posters, and not address points they have not made. Nowhere did I mention people who like to disagree and fight. Disagreement itself is powerful tool for improvement. Much of the success I have achieved in business, in wide variety of roles, arose because I disagreed with how things were being done currently, and because others disagreed with my proposed changes. Disagreement is, in the right place and conveyed in the right way, a very positive thing. Do you not recognise the value of this? Martin Luther King disagreed with how minorities were treated in the US. Do you think he should have gone to a mental hospital? You might ask, "but why would someone like this confrontation, this disagreement?" Because we are, by nature competitive. We like to compete, perhaps on the football field, perhaps in debate. I like disagreeing with you here, because it forces me to marshal my thoughts in order to express as clearly as I can why I disagree with you. That improves my ability to think and I like that too.

I am not going to do your homework for you, but - hopefully - guide you towards the answer. Firstly, the question sounds rather badly phrased. Without knowing what rocks X and Y are it difficult to answer in any meaningful way,, without being very vague and unhelpfully general. Is that exactly how the questions was phrased? Secondly, what thoughts have you had so far about tackling this? How does heat effect a rock? What kind of changes occur? What is it that is effected by those changes? It would also be helpful to know what level this is pitched at. i.e. is this an introductory course in geology in the first or second year of high school, or for an A Level, or part of a first year degree course?

The fines will contain very few metals, or metallic ores, but will be dominated by silicates, most of which will have weathered to phyllosilicates (i.e. clays). I'm not clear what reactions they would employ to extract energy from these.

@TenOz. If you continue to make posts such as #51 I shall be forced to limit my participation in the forum to the following: I agree with TenOz. Here's hoping you will say something disagreeable shortly.

Do you mean "so many people who just happen to have government jobs have reported sightings", or "so many people with responsible government jobs such that they posses the professional skills that would allow them to recognise a bona fide inconclusive sighting"? Big difference between the two.

No one seems to have bothered to answer your questions. This is a quick "off the top of my head" reply, so don't take it as 100% reliable. 1. Both flares and prominences originate in the photosphere and penetrate through the chromosphere.into the corona. 2. Continuously. 3. The solar wind is continuous stream of (generally charged) particles emitted by the sun and moving outwards through space. A solar storm is mass ejection of material during a flare event and usually so called when it has the possibility of striking the Earth, other planets, or spacecraft. 4. Accurate records are of insufficient duration to define all the cycles that likely effect sunspots. The - roughly - eleven year cycle is the most obvious. Given that no catastrophic disasters appear to have impacted the Earth every 11,000 years, then this does not sound like the conclusions of scientists, but of alarmists or authors trying to get publicity for a book. 5. I do not believe sunspots could grow to such size. The physics of their formation would prevent it. If there were ever so many sunspots that the total covered 1/4 of the sun there would assuredly be an impact on climate. You could work out very roughly the effect by considering the temperature of the suns surface, the lower temperature of sunspots and the resultant reduction in radiative output.

Indeed, my dim recollection is that planetary orbits were used as an example to help us grasp what an ellipse was, how it differed from a circle and why it was important.